{"id":123635,"date":"1972-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972"},"modified":"2016-12-04T23:51:54","modified_gmt":"2016-12-04T18:21:54","slug":"thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","title":{"rendered":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 501, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 622<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHULIA KALI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  501\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 622\n 1972 SCC  (3) 393\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1983 SC1081\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal Trial--First Information Report--Unexplained  delay\nin the lodging of First information Report--Inference.\nConstitution  of India, 1950--Article  136--Interference--if\nevidence afflicted with ex--facie infirmity,.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThis  Court  does  not normally reappraise  evidence  in  an\nappeal\tunder article 136 of the Constitution but that\tfact\nwould not prevent interference with an order of\t conviction,\nif,  on consideration of the vital prosecution\tevidence  in\nthe  case the Court finds it to be afflicted  with  ex-facie\ninfirmity.\nThe  appellant\twas sentenced to death under s.\t 302  Indian\nPenal  Code.  The trial Court and the High Court  based\t the\nconviction of the appellant primarily upon the testimony  of\ntwo witnesses one of whom according to the prosecution\tcase\nwas  present when the accused made murderous assault on\t the\ndeceased and the other arrived soon after.  Neither of\tthem\nnor anyone else who was told about the occurrence by the two\nwitnesses  made\t any report at the police station  for\tmore\nthan  20 hours after the occurrence even though\t the  police\nstation was only two miles from the place of occurrence.\nSetting aside the conviction,\nHELD  :\t That the delay in lodging the\treport\twould  raise\nconsiderable doubt regarding the varacity of the evidence of\ntwo witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence and\nwould  render  it  unsafe  to base  the\t conviction  of\t the\napPellant.\nThe  first  information\t report in a  criminal\tcase  is  an\nextremely  vital  and  valuable piece of  evidence  for\t the\npurpose\t of corroborating the oral evidence adduced  a'\t the\ntrial  The  object of insisting upon prompt lodging  of\t the\nreport to the police in respect of commission of an  offence\nis  to obtain early information regarding the  circumstances\nin  which the crime was committed, the names of\t the  actual\nculprits  and the part played by them as well as, the  names\nof  eye\t witnesses  present at there  scene  of\t occurrence.\nDelay  in lodging the first information report\tquite  often\nresults\t in  embellishment  which is  a\t Creature  of  after\nthought.   It  is  therefore essential\tthat  the  delay  in\nlodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.\t[626\nH]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 165  of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the _judgment and order  dated
\nNovember  24,  1970  of the Madras High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 761 of 1970 and Referred Trial No. 50, of 1970.
\nS. Lakshminarasu, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
A. V. Rangam, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
623<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKhanna, J. Thulia Kali (26) was convicted by Sessions  Judge
\nSalem  under section 302 Indian Penal Code for\tcausing\t the
\ndeath  of  Madhandi Pidariammal (40) and under\tsection\t 379
\nIndian\tPenal Code for committing theft of the ornaments  of
\nMadhandi  deceased.  The accused was sentenced to  death  on
\nthe former count.  No separate sentence was awarded for\t the
\noffence under section 379 Indian Penal Code.  The High Court
\nof  Madras  affirmed  the conviction and.  sentence  of\t the
\naccused.   The\taccused has now come up in appeal  to,\tthis
\nCourt by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution case was that Madhandi\t deceased  purchased
\nland  measuring 1 acre 62 cents from Thooliya  Thiruman\t (PW\n<\/p>\n
5),  elder brother of the accused for rupees one,  thousand.
\nThe  land of the accused adjoined the land sold to  Madhandi
\ndeceased.  The accused wanted Madhandi deceased to sell that
\nland  to him but the deceased declined to do  so.   Madhandi
\nconstructed  a fence around the land purchased by her, as  a
\nresult\tof which the passage to the land of the accused\t was
\nobstructed.  About a week before the present occurrence, the
\naccused removed some jack fruits from the land purchased  by
\nthe deceased.  Complaint about that was made by the deceased
\nto  the\t Panchayatdars.\t The  Panchayatdars  considered\t the
\nmatter, but the accused declined to abide by the decision of
\nthe Panchyatdars.\n<\/p>\n
On  March 12, 1970 at about 12 noon, it is stated,  Madhandi
\ndeceased  left\ther house situated in  village\tSakkarapatti
\nalong  with  her daughter-in-law Kopia Chinthamani  (PW\t 2),
\naged  10, for Valaparathi at a distance of about  two  miles
\nfrom  the  village for grazing cattle.\tShortly\t thereafter,
\nValanjiaraju  (PW  1),\tstepson of Madhandi  deceased,\talso
\nwent to Valaparathi and started cutting plants at a distance
\nof  about  250 feet from the place where  the  deceased\t was
\ngrazing the cattle.  At about 2 p.m. the accused came to the
\nplace  where  Madhandi deceased was present  and  asked\t her
\nwhether she would give him the right of passage or not.\t The
\ndeceased replied in the negative.  The accused then took out
\nknife  Ex.   1\tand gave a number of  knife  blows,  to\t the
\ndeceased  in spite of her entreaties to the accused  not  to
\nstab her and that she would give him what he wanted.   Kopia
\nPW  raised alarm and ran from the place of occurrence.\t She
\nmet Valanjiaraju PW and told him that the accused was giving
\nknife blows to Madhandi.  Accompanied by Kopia, Valanjiaraju
\nthen  went towards the accused but he threatened  them\twith
\nknife.\tValanjiaraju and Kopia thereupon went to the village
\nand informed the husband of the deceased as well as a number
\nof other villagers including Aneeba (PW 3) and Selvaraj\t (PW\n<\/p>\n
4).  Valanjiaraju and a large
\n624<\/span>
\nnumber\tof  other  villagers  then  went  to  the  place  of
\noccurrence  A and found the dead body of  Madhandi  deceased
\nlying  there  with injuries on her throat,  face  and  other
\nparts  of the body.  Both her ears were found to  have\tbeen
\nchopped off.  Her jewels had been removed.\n<\/p>\n
According further to the prosecution, Valanjiaraju went to B
\nthe house of village munsif Muthuswami (PW 8) to inform\t him
\nabout  the occurrence.\tMuthuswami, however,  was-away\tfrom
\nthe  house  to\tanother\t village  in  connection  with\tsome
\ncollection  work.  Muthuswami returned at about\t 10.30\tp.m.
\nand   was  told\t by  Valanjiaraju  about   the\t occurrence.
\nMuthuswami  did not record the statement of Valanjiaraju  at
\nthat  time  and told him that be would not go  to  the\tspot
\nwhere the dead body was lying on that night as wild  animals
\nwould  be  roaming there and that he would go there  on\t the
\nfollowing  morning’ Muthuswami went to the spot\t where\tthe
\ndead  body of the deceased was lying at about 8.30  a.m.  on
\nthe following day, that is, March 13, 1970 and had a look at
\nthe   dead  body  of  the  deceased.   Statement  P.  I\t  of
\nValanjiaraju  was recorded by Muthuswami at 9. a.m.  at\t the
\nspot.\tThe statement was then sent by Muthuswami to  police
\nstation Valavanthi at a distance of about two miles from the
\nplace of occurrence.  Formal first information report P.  15
\non  the basis of statement P. I was prepared at\t the  police
\nstation at 11.45 a.m.
\nHead  Constable Rajamanickam after recording first  informa-
\ntion  report,  went to the place of occurrence\tand  reached
\nthere  at 2.30 p.m. Inspector Rajagopal (PW 13), on  hearing
\nabout  the  occurrence at the bus stand, also  went  to\t the
\nplace  of occurrence.  Inquest report relating to  the\tdead
\nbody of the deceased was then prepared.\t Dr. Sajid Pasha (PW\n<\/p>\n
7)  was thereafter sent for from Sendamangalam.\t  Dr.  Pasha
\narrived\t at the place of occurrence at 12.30 p.m.  on  March
\n14,  1970 and performed post mortem examination on the\tdead
\nbody of Madhandi deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Inspector  Rajagopal arrested the accused, according to\t the
\nprosecution, at 5 a.m. on March 15, 1970 in a reserve forest
\nabout  one mile from Seppangulam.  The accused\tthen  stated
\nthat  he  had  kept  ornaments and knife  in  the  house  of
\nChakravarthi  (PW 9) and would get the same recovered.\t The
\nInspector   then   went\t with  accused\tto  the\t  house\t  of
\nChakravarthi  PW and from there recovered knife Ex.   1\t and
\nornaments  Exs.\t 2  to 8. The  said  ornaments\tbelonged  to
\nMadhandi deceased.  The knife was taken into possession\t and
\nput  into a, sealed parcel.  The clothes which\tthe  accused
\nwas  wearing were got removed and put into a sealed  parcel.
\nThe  parcels  were sent to Chemical Examiner,  whose  report
\nshowed that neither the knife nor the clothes of the accused
\nwere stained with blood.\n<\/p>\n
625<\/span><\/p>\n
At   the   trial  the  plea  of\t the  accused\twas   denial
\nsimpliciter.According to the accused, the villagers came  to
\nknow on the evening of March 12, 1470 that the deceased\t had
\nbeen murdered.\tThe accused along with the villagers went to
\nthe  spot where the dead body of the deceased was lying\t and
\nstayed\twith them there during the night.  On the  following
\nday, the accused was suspected by the villagers.  They\tgave
\nhim  beating  and tied him to; A tree.\tLater on  that\tday,
\nthat is, March 13, 1970, the accused was taken to the police
\nstation\t and  kept there for two days.\tThe  accused  denied
\nhaving\tcommitted the murder of the deceased or\t having\t got
\nrecovered  the\tornaments and the knife.   No  evidence\t was
\nproduced in defence.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused  relied
\nupon the evidence of Kopia (PW 2), who had given eye witness
\naccount\t of  the  occurrence, as well as  the  statement  of
\nValanjiaraju (PW 1), who had been threatened by the  accused
\nwith  knife near the place of occurrence. Reliance was\talso
\nplaced upon the recovery of knife and ornaments in pursuance
\nof the\t  statement  of the accused. The High  Court  agreed
\nwith  the Sessions Judge and affirmed the conviction of\t the
\naccused.There can be no doubt that Madhandi deceased was the
\nvictim\tof a ‘brutal attack. Dr. Sajid Pasha, who  performed
\npost mortem examination on the dead body of Madhandi,  found
\nas  many  as 29 injuries on the body. Out of them,  24\twere
\nincised wounds and five were multiple abrasions. There\twere
\na  number  of incised wounds on the face,  neck,  chest\t and
\nabdomen.  The  pinnas of the right and left  ears  had\tbeen
\ncompletely severed.Injuries were also found in the eyes\t and
\nlaryngeal   region.  Death  was\t the  result  of   different
\ninjuries,  some\t of which were\tindividually  sufficient  to
\ncause  death.\tThe case of the prosecution was that it\t was
\nthe   accused-appellant\t  who  had   caused   the   injuries
\nto,Madhandi deceased. The accused has, however, denied\tthis
\nallegation and has claimed that he has been falsely involved
\nin this case on suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court and the High Court have based the conviction
\nof the accused-appellant, as stated earlier, primarily\tupon
\nthe testimony of Kopia (PW 2) and Valanjiaraju (PW 1).\tThis
\nCourt  does  not normally reappraise evidence in  an  appeal
\nunder  article 136 of the Constitution, but that fact  would
\nnot  prevent interference with an order of conviction if  on
\nconsideration of the vital prosecution evidence in the case,
\nthis Court finds it to be afflicted with ex facie infirmity.
\nThere are in’ the present case certain broad features of the
\nprosecution story which create considerable doubt  regarding
\nthe veracity of the aforesaid evidence, and. in our opinion,
\nit would not be safe to maintain the conviction
\n626<\/span>
\non  the\t basis\tof that evidence.  According  to  Kopia\t (PW\n<\/p>\n
2), .the accused stabbed the deceased at about 2 p.m.  Kopia
\nraised alarm and immediately informed Valanjiaraju, who\t was
\ncutting\t plants\t at a distance of about 250  feet  from\t the
\nplace  of  occurrence.\tValanjiaraju and  Kopia\t then,\tcame
\ntowards\t the  place  where the\taccused\t had  assaulted\t the
\ndeceased,  but\tthe  accused  threatened  them\twith  knife.
\nValanjiaraju  and Kopia thereupon went to the village  abadi
\nand informed the other villagers.  Valanjiaraju\t accompanied
\nby other villagers then went to the place of occurrence\t and
\nfound the dead body of Madhandi lying there with a number of
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
According    to\t   document   P.   I\tValanjiaraju\tmade
\nstatement .about the occurrence to village munsif Muthuswami
\n(PW  8)\t at  about 9 a.m. on March 13, 1970.   Formal  first
\ninformation  report on the basis of the above statement\t was
\nprepared  at the police station at 11.45 a.m. The  delay  in
\nlodging\t the report, according to the prosecution, was\tdue
\nto  the fact that Muthuswami PW was away to another  village
\nin  connection with some collection work and he returned  to
\nhis house at 10. 30 p.m.  Muthuswami told Valanjiaraju\twhen
\nthe  latter  met  him  at night that  he  would\t record\t the
\nsatement  only after having a look at the dead body  on\t the
\nfollowing morning.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tin the evidence of Valanjiaraju that  the  house  of
\nMuthuswami  is\tat  a distance of three\t furlongs  from\t the
\nvillage of Valanjiaraju.  Police station Valavanthi is\talso
\nat   a\tdistance  of  three  furlongs  from  the  house\t  of
\nMuthuswami.   Assuming that Muthuswami PW was not  found  at
\nhis house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12, 1970 by Valanjiaraju,
\nit  is,\t not  clear  as\t to why\t no  report  was  lodged  by
\nValanjiaraju at the police station.  It is, in our  opinion,
\nmost  difficult to believe that even though the accused\t had
\nbeen  seen  at\t2 p.m. committing  the\tmurder\tof  Madhandi
\ndeceased and a large number of villagers had been told about
\nit soon thereafter, no report about the occurrence could  be
\nlodged till the following day.\tThe police station was\tless
\nthan  two miles from the village of Valanjiaraju  and  Kopia
\nand  their failure to make a report to the police  till\t the
\nfollowing  day\twould  tend to show that none  of  them\t had
\nwitnessed  the\toccurrence.  It\t seems likely, as  has\tbeen
\nstated on behalf of the accused, that the villagers came, to
\nknow  of  the death of Madhandi deceased on the\t evening  of
\nMarch  12,  1970.  They did not then know about\t the  actual
\nassailant  of the deceased, and on the following day,  their
\nsuspicion fell on the accused and accordingly they involved
\nhim  in this case.  First information report in\t a  criminal
\ncase  is an extremely vital and valuable piece\tof  evidence
\nfor  the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence  adduced
\nat the trial.  The importance of the above report can hardly
\nbe overestimated from the
\n627<\/span>
\nstandpoint  of\tthe accused: The object\t of  insisting\tupon
\nprompt\tlodging of the report to the police in\trespect\t of
\ncommission  of\tan offence is to  obtain  early\t information
\nregarding   the\t circumstances\tin  which  the\t crime\t was
\ncommitted,  the\t names of the actual culprits and  the\tpart
\nplayed by them as well as names of eye witnesses present  at
\nthe  scene  of occurrence.  Delay in lodging the  first\t in-
\nformation report quite often results in embellishment  which
\nis  a  creature of afterthought.  On account of\t delay,\t the
\nreport not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity,
\ndanger\tcreeps in of the introduction of  coloured  version,
\nexaggerated  account  or  concocted story  As  a  result  of
\ndeliberation and consultation.\tIt is, therefore,  essential
\nthat  the  delay  in the lodging of  the  first\t information
\nreport\tshould be satisfactorily explained.  In the  present
\ncase, Kopia, daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, according
\nto  the prosecution case, was present when the accused\tmade
\nmurderous assault on the deceased.  Valanjiaraju, stepson of
\nthe deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene
\nof occurrence on being told by Kopia.  Neither of them,\t nor
\nany  other villager, who is stated to have been\t told  about
\nthe occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at
\nthe  police  station  for  more\t than  20  hours  after\t the
\noccurrence, even though the police station is only two miles
\nfrom the place of occurrence.  The said circumstance, in our
\nopinion,  would\t raise\tconsiderable  doubt  regarding\t the
\nveracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to
\nan  infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe  to
\nbase the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it.
\nAs  regards the alleged recovery of knife and  ornaments  at
\nthe  instance  of  the accused, we find\t that  the  evidence
\nconsists of statements of Inspector Rajagopal (PW 13),\tKati
\nGoundar\t (PW  6)  and Chakravarthi  (PW\t 9).   According  to
\nChakravarthi  (PW 9), the accused handed over the  ornaments
\nin  question  to the witness when the accused  came  to\t the
\nhouse  of the witness on the evening of March 12,  1970\t and
\npassed the night at the house.\tThe witness also found knife
\nin the bed of the accused after he had left on the following
\nday.   According,  however,  to Kali  Goundar  (PW  6),\t the
\naccused, on interrogation by the Inspector of Police, stated
\nthat  he  had entrusted the ornaments to  Thangam,  wife  of
\nChakravarthi  (PW  9).\tApart from the\tdiscrepancy  on\t the
\npoint  as to whom was the person with whom the\taccused\t had
\nkept  the  ornaments, we find that Thangam,  with  whom\t the
\naccused,   according  to  Kali\tGoundar\t PW  had  kept\t the
\nornaments,  has not been examined as a witness.\t In  view-of
\nthe above statement of Kali Goundar, it was, in our opinion,
\nessential  for\tthe  prosecution to  examine  Thangam  as  a
\nwitness\t and its failure to do so would make the Court\tdraw
\nan inference against the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
628<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex. 1 in his bed in the house of Chakravarthi (PW 9) when he
\nhad ample opportunity to throw away the knife in some lonely
\nplace  before  arriving at the house of\t Chakravarthi.\t The
\nknife  in question was found by Chemical Examiner to be\t not
\nstained\t with blood and according to the  prosecution  case,
\nthe  accused had washed it before leaving it in the  bed  in
\nthe  house  of Chakravarthi.  If the  accused  realised\t the
\nimportance of doing away with the blood stains on the knife,
\nit  does not seem likely that he would bring that knife’  to
\nthe house of Chakravarthi and leave it in the bed.
\nLooking to all the circumstances, we are of the view that it
\nis not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused  on
\nthe evidence adduced. We accordingly accept the appeal,\t set
\naside  the  conviction of the accused-appellant\t and  acquit
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
K.B.N.\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n629<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 501, 1972 SCR (3) 622 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: THULIA KALI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1972 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ MITTER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\",\"name\":\"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972","datePublished":"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972"},"wordCount":2539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972","name":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T18:21:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thulia-kali-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-february-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123635\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}