{"id":123646,"date":"2004-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004"},"modified":"2015-04-15T13:34:08","modified_gmt":"2015-04-15T08:04:08","slug":"raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 13\/07\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nC.A.No.598 of 2001\n\nRaghunathan                                    .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by\nInspector of Police\nSaidapet Police Station\nChennai\nCrime No.659\/98                                 .. Respondent\n\n\n        This criminal appeal  is  preferred  under  Sec.374  of  the  Code  of\nCriminal  Procedure  against the judgment dated 6.2.2001 made in S.C.No.398 of\n2000 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.T.Munirathina Naidu\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Arul\n                Government Advocate\n                (Criminal Side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<br \/>\n        The sole accused in a case of murder, who was found guilty as per  the<br \/>\ncharge under  Sec.302  I.P.C.    and  awarded  life  imprisonment  by  the  VI<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Chennai, has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Short facts necessary for the  disposal  of  this  appeal  are  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) The appellant\/accused married the deceased Santhi just four months<br \/>\nprior to  the  occurrence  and  was  living  at  Saidapet, Madras.  His family<br \/>\nmembers were also residing therein.  He was often  demanding  money  from  his<br \/>\nwife,  and she, in turn, used to make visits to her parental home, make demand<br \/>\nand get money from P.W.1 Ravanammal, her mother.  On 17.3.1998, P.W.1 went  to<br \/>\nthe house of her daughter, and at that time the deceased informed her that her<br \/>\nhusband was  making a demand of Rs.20,000\/-.  P.W.1 replied that she could not<br \/>\nmeet the demand and returned home.  On 19.3.1998, P.W.5 Rajini, the brother of<br \/>\nthe accused, came to the house of P.W.1 and informed her that the accused  and<br \/>\nthe  deceased  were  quarrelling each other, and his father asked him to go to<br \/>\nthe house of P.W.1 to get her.  Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the  house  of  the<br \/>\nappellant,  and she found her daughter with burn injuries on the body, and she<br \/>\nwas lying  on  the  ground.    P.W.2  Srinivasan  and  P.W.3  Muthammal   also<br \/>\naccompanied P.W.1.    At  about  9.15  P.M., the deceased was taken to Kilpauk<br \/>\nMedical College Hospital, where P.W.9 Dr.  Thirunavukkarasu, who was on  duty,<br \/>\nexamined her.    The  deceased  gave  a  statement  to  P.W.9 stating that she<br \/>\nsustained injuries due to the burst of a stove.  The  injuries  found  on  the<br \/>\nbody of the deceased that time are narrated in Ex.P5 accident register copy.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)  P.W.12 Selvanathan, Sub Inspector of Police, who was in-charge of<br \/>\nSaidapet Police Station, on receipt of  an  intimation  from  Kilpauk  Medical<br \/>\nCollege  Hospital, proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the<br \/>\ndeceased, which is marked as Ex.P8.  At about 1.45  A.M.    on  20.3.1998,  he<br \/>\nregistered a case on the strength of the said statement given by the deceased,<br \/>\nin Crime No.659 of 1998 under Sec.307 of I.P.C.  The printed First Information<br \/>\nReport Ex.P9  was  despatched  to the Court.  A requisition Ex.P10 was sent to<br \/>\nthe Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the dying declaration.   On  receipt<br \/>\nof  the  requisition, the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, went to Kilpauk<br \/>\nMedical College Hospital, and P.W.10 Dr.Nirmala, who was  on  duty,  certified<br \/>\nthat the mental condition of the deceased was all right to give a declaration,<br \/>\nthe portion  of  which is marked as Ex.P6.  The dying declaration was recorded<br \/>\nby the VII Metropolitan Magistrate following the formalities, and the same  is<br \/>\nmarked as  Ex.P14.    The  Sub  Inspector  of Police proceeded to the scene of<br \/>\noccurrence, made an observation, prepared Ex.P11 observation mahazar and  drew<br \/>\nEx.P12 rough sketch.   M.O.1 a bottle, was also recovered under a mahazar.  On<br \/>\n20.3.1998, the accused was arrested by P.W.12, and he was sent  to  Court  for<br \/>\nremand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)  On 27.3.1998, the deceased Sumathi, who was under treatment, died<br \/>\nat 7.10 A.M.  An intimation Ex.P7  in  that  regard  was  received  by  P.W.15<br \/>\nBalusamy,  Inspector of Police, and he altered the case into one under Sec.302<br \/>\nof I.P.C.  The express report Ex.P16 was sent to the Court.  He  took  up  the<br \/>\ninvestigation.   He  proceeded to the hospital and made an inquest on the dead<br \/>\nbody in the presence of witnesses  and  panchayatdars.    He  prepared  Ex.P17<br \/>\ninquest report.    A  communication  was  sent  to the Hospital for conduct of<br \/>\nautopsy on the dead body.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d) P.W.14 Dr.Murugesan, Tutor of Forensic Medicine in Kilpauk Medical<br \/>\nCollege, Madras, conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:<br \/>\nInfected I to II degree burns injuries on the entire  face,  neck  both  upper<br \/>\nlimbs  fully, both lower limbs fully, Front of upper half of the abdomen, back<br \/>\nof the chest and abdomen fully and both  gluteal  regions.    The  skins  were<br \/>\npeeled  off  in  all  the above areas and exposing the underlying inflamed and<br \/>\ninfected subcutaneous tissues and these wounds were covered with foul smelling<br \/>\npugular greenish yellow coloured pus materials and wound septic seen.<br \/>\nThe Doctor has issued Ex.P15 postmortem certificate and has  opined  that  the<br \/>\ndeceased would appear to have died of septic complications of burns injuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (e)  On  completion  of  the investigation, P.W.15 Inspector of Police<br \/>\nfiled the final report.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In order to prove  the  charge  levelled  against  the  appellant\/<br \/>\naccused,  the prosecution marched 15 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits and 1<br \/>\nmaterial object.  On completion of the evidence of the prosecution  side,  the<br \/>\naccused  was  questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to<br \/>\nthe incriminating circumstances found in the evidence.  He flatly  denied  the<br \/>\nsame.  No  defence witnesses were examined.  The trial Court, on consideration<br \/>\nof the submissions made on either side and scrutiny of  the  materials,  found<br \/>\nhim guilty as per the charge and awarded the life imprisonment, which is under<br \/>\nchallenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant made the following<br \/>\nsubmissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  prosecution  before  the  lower  Court  had no direct evidence to<br \/>\nestablish its case.  Even according to P.W.1, when she went to  the  house  of<br \/>\nthe deceased, she was found with burn injuries.  P.W.1 has not stated that any<br \/>\nstatement was made by the deceased to her stating that it was the accused, who<br \/>\ncommitted the  crime.    The  earliest document was the statement given by the<br \/>\ndeceased to P.W.9 Doctor, wherein it has been found that it was an  accidental<br \/>\nfire,  and it has been clearly mentioned therein that it was on account of the<br \/>\nburst of a stove.  The  observation  mahazar  prepared  by  the  Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer  at  the  time of inspection of the scene of occurrence did not reveal<br \/>\nthat there was any stove available at the place of occurrence.  The next thing<br \/>\nwhich was relied on by the prosecution for obtaining  conviction  against  the<br \/>\nappellant,  was  the  statement  given  by  the  deceased  to  P.W.12, the Sub<br \/>\nInspector of Police, which is marked  as  Ex.P8,  and  the  dying  declaration<br \/>\nrecorded  by  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate from the deceased at the hospital,<br \/>\nwhich is marked as Ex.P14.  A perusal of both these  documents  would  clearly<br \/>\nindicate that  it was an accidental fire.  Nowhere the deceased has implicated<br \/>\nthe accused to the crime in question.  From both these statements, it would be<br \/>\nclear that the deceased was actually sitting by the side of an  oven,  and  at<br \/>\nthat  time,  a  quarrel  arose  between  the accused and the deceased, and the<br \/>\naccused poured kerosene on her from M.O.1 bottle.  There is no mention  as  to<br \/>\nthe act  of  the  accused.   It is to be noted that the fire from the oven has<br \/>\nspread over, and she got into the clutches of fire.  A  perusal  of  both  the<br \/>\nstatements  would  further  indicate  that  when  she  raised  cry, it was the<br \/>\naccused, who rushed over and poured water on her to put down  the  fire.    In<br \/>\nsuch  circumstances,  it  cannot  be stated that the accused has committed the<br \/>\ncrime in question.  It is pertinent to point out that while the statements are<br \/>\nso, originally the case should not have been registered under Sec.307  I.P.C.,<br \/>\nand  the  appellant  had nothing to do with the cause of death or the death of<br \/>\nthe deceased.  Even without proper appreciation of the evidence available, the<br \/>\nlower Court has found him guilty, and hence, the judgment of the  lower  Court<br \/>\nhas got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   This  Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)<br \/>\non those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  After careful consideration of the submissions made  and  analysis<br \/>\nof  the  materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\ntrial Court has neither marshalled the evidence available nor considered it to<br \/>\nfind the appellant\/accused guilty of the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is a case, where fortunately for the defence, the statement  of<br \/>\nthe deceased  itself was available at three stages.  The earliest one was made<br \/>\nwhen the deceased was taken to the hospital and examined by P.W.9  Doctor,  to<br \/>\nwhom  she  has  categorically  stated  that it was an accidental fire, and the<br \/>\ninjuries were caused due to the burst of a stove.  As rightly brought  to  the<br \/>\nnotice  of the Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the observation<br \/>\nmahazar did not mention anything about the stove; but, it  would  mention  the<br \/>\nfirewood oven.  The second statement was one, which was recorded by P.W.12 the<br \/>\nSub  Inspector  of  Police  from  the  deceased at the hospital, where she was<br \/>\ntaking treatment, and the said statement is marked as Ex.P8.    A  reading  of<br \/>\nEx.P8  would  clearly  indicate  that  a  quarrel  arose when the deceased was<br \/>\nsitting by the side of an oven, and it was the accused, who poured kerosene on<br \/>\nher; but, it was the fire from the oven that spread over, and due to that, she<br \/>\nhad the burn injuries.  Hence, it would be clear  that  there  is  nothing  to<br \/>\nindicate  that  the  injuries  were  caused  out  of  any act committed by the<br \/>\naccused.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The next stage was the dying declaration given by the deceased  to<br \/>\nthe  Metropolitan Magistrate, and the same was recorded as found under Ex.P14.<br \/>\nA perusal of the same would also clearly indicate that it was the accused, who<br \/>\npoured kerosene; but he did not lit fire, and it was the fire  from  the  oven<br \/>\nthat spread over, and she sustained burn injuries.  On the face of these three<br \/>\nstatements  made  by her, there is nothing to indicate that the accused at any<br \/>\npoint of time lit the fire on her; but, he only poured kerosene on her, and it<br \/>\nwould not amount to an offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In the instant case, it has to be pointed out  that  originally  a<br \/>\ncase  should  have  been  registered  as  an accidental fire; but, it has been<br \/>\nconverted into one under Sec.307 I.P.C.  It can  be  well  inferred  that  the<br \/>\noriginal  First Information Report, which came into existence at the earliest,<br \/>\nshould have been torn, and a new one  for  an  offence  under  Sec.307  I.P.C.<br \/>\nshould  have  been  brought  into  existence,  probably  the  police officials<br \/>\nconcerned would have thought that the  marriage  has  taken  place  just  four<br \/>\nmonths prior  to  the occurrence.  The statement of the deceased at all stages<br \/>\nwould be clearly indicative of the fact that it was only  an  accidental  fire<br \/>\nand  not  by  the burst of the stove, which ultimately caused the death of the<br \/>\ndeceased by the act of the accused.  The Court below without proper perception<br \/>\nof the evidence, has found him guilty, and hence, the error committed  by  the<br \/>\nlower  Court  has  got  to  be set right only by upsetting the judgment of the<br \/>\nCourt below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   In  the  result,  this  criminal  appeal  is  allowed,  and  the<br \/>\nconviction and  sentence  passed  by  the  lower  Court  are  set  aside.  The<br \/>\nappellant\/accused is acquitted of the  charge  levelled  against  him  and  is<br \/>\ndirected  to  be  set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in<br \/>\nany other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<br \/>\nTo:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai,<br \/>\nThrough The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The District Collector, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The D.G.P., Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Public Prosecutor, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/07\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.598 of 2001 Raghunathan .. Appellant -Vs- State by Inspector of Police Saidapet Police Station Chennai Crime No.659\/98 .. Respondent This criminal appeal is [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-15T08:04:08+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T08:04:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1945,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\",\"name\":\"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T08:04:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-15T08:04:08+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T08:04:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004"},"wordCount":1945,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004","name":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T08:04:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunathan-vs-state-by-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raghunathan vs State By on 13 July, 2004"}]},{"@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\/123646","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=123646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}