{"id":125347,"date":"2005-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005"},"modified":"2014-06-12T20:02:11","modified_gmt":"2014-06-12T14:32:11","slug":"murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated : 21\/12\/2005\n\nCoram :\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGHUPATHI\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No.353 of 2002\n\n\nMurugan alias Muruganantham\t..\tAppellant\n\nv.\n\nThe State, rep. by the\nAssistant Commissioner,\nMadurai Nagar Tallakulam in\nJ.J.Sellur Police Station\t..\tRespondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment dated 20.11.2002  made in Sessions Case No.96 of 1998 on\nthe file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t..\tMr.M.Dilip Kumar\n\n^For Respondent\t..\tMr.K.Radhakrishnan,\n\t\t\tAdditional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tChallenging the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge
\n(PCR), Madurai, made in Sessions Case No.96 of 1998 wherein the appellant, who
\nis shown as the first accused, and who, though stood charged under Sections 302
\nof the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and
\nScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 324 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, was found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 324
\nof the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to undergo life
\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500\/- carrying a default sentence of
\nrigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and was sentenced
\nwith a fine of Rs.500\/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
\nsix months for the latter offence, has preferred this appeal.   The second
\naccused in the said Sessions case was acquitted of the offence under Section 302
\nof the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and
\nScheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated
\nthus : P.W.1 is residing near the Fathima College at Madurai.   He and the
\ndeceased Alagar belong to a caste listed as a schedule caste.   He knew the
\ndeceased Alagar and the appellant, the first accused and his father, the second
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. On 06.05.1998 at about 05.00 pm P.W.1 and the deceased Alagar went to
\nattend a condolence at Bethaniapuram, where the deceased Alagar revealed to
\nP.W.1 that the first accused quarrelled with him as to how he could have a
\nconcubine by coming to a different area and further informed him that if Alagar
\ncomes to the area of the first accused, he would not leave him without stabbing
\nhim.  Subsequently, P.W.1 and Alagar went to the house of the first accused at
\nabout 06.00 pm and asked his father, the second accused as to whether he had no
\nknowledge about the deceased having illicit relationship with a woman in that
\narea for number of years and asked him as to why his son was quarrelling with
\nhim.  The second accused, the father of the first accused did not answer.
\nP.W.1 and the deceased Alagar, thereafter, came out of his house and went to the
\nnearby tea stall of P.W.2, where P.W.3 was assisting P.W.2.   The first accused
\ncame to the house and he was informed about the fact that the deceased Alagar
\nand P.W.1 came over there and questioned.  Immediately, the first accused came
\nto the tea stall and questioned the deceased as to how dare he could question
\nhis father and he attacked the  deceased Alagar on the left side of the chest
\nwith a knife, which was kept hidden by him.  The deceased fell down.  P.W.1
\nintervened to prevent the first accused making further attack on the deceased.
\nImmediately, the first accused stabbed P.W.1 on his left shoulder with the knife
\nand ran away from the place.   P.Ws.1 and 2 and others tried to chase the first
\naccused, but they could not catch him.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  P.W.1 and others took the injured Alagar to the Government Rajaji
\nHospital, Madurai and admitted him there.  P.W.1 also got himself admitted in
\nthe hospital in a different ward.   P.W.7, the doctor attached to the hospital
\ntreated Alagar and P.W.1 and issued Exs.P.6 and P.7 accident registers in
\nrespect of the injuries found on them.  Alagar, who was undergoing treatment,
\ndied in the hospital and an intimation was given to the outpost police station
\nat 10.00 pm.  Following the same, P.W.10,  head constable of Selur Police
\nStation came to the hospital and enquired about the incident.   P.W.1 narrated
\nthe incident, which was recorded by him.   P.W.10 came to the station and
\nregistered a case in crime No.549 of 1998 for the offence punishable under
\nSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code at 11.30 pm.  Ex.P.10 is the first
\ninformation report. Express report was despatched to the Court along with Ex.P.1
\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  P.W.13, the Inspector of police, Selur, on receipt of the copy of the
\nfirst information report, took up investigation in the case and proceeded to the
\nplace of occurrence on 07.05.1998 at 00.45 hours, prepared an observation
\nmahazar, Ex.P.2 in the presence of two witnesses and drew a rough sketch,
\nEx.P.13.  He recovered blood stained soil and sample soil under cover of a
\nmahazar, Ex.P.3.   He then proceeded to the Government Hospital, Madurai and
\nexamined  P.W.1, the injured witness and recorded his statement.  Thereafter,
\nhe conducted inquest on the dead body of Alagar and in the presence of
\nwitnesses, prepared Ex.P.14 inquest report.  Following the same, the dead body
\nwas subjected to postmortem by P.W.8 and he has given postmortem certificate,
\nEx.P.8, wherein he has noted the following injuries :\n<\/p>\n
1.A transversely oblique sutured stab injury on the left side upper chest 2.5 cm
\nx 0.75 cm x entering the thoracic cavity. Inner end pointed.   Outer end curved
\npassing obliquely downwards, inwards in the third intracostal space cuttng the
\nmuscle.   The wound cutting the left lung upper lobe 2.5 cms x linear x through
\nand through piercing the pericardium and lefty auricle 2.5 cm x linear x through
\nand through.  Pericardial sac contains 120 ml of blood with clots.  Left pleural
\ncavity contains 850 ml of blood with clots.   Right side pleural cavity empty.\n<\/p>\n
2. Intravenous drip wound with continuous drainage left ankle inner aspect
\n(surgical treatment)\n<\/p>\n
3.Intra costal drainage wound in the 6th intra costal space mid axillary line
\n(surgical treatment)..\n<\/p>\n
4.Abrasions 3 in number on the right side of face below and outer side of right
\neye measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm right ala of the nose 1 cm x 1 cm right side of chin
\n1 cm x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor has opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to
\nexternal stab injury No.1 with corresponding internal injuries to heart and lung
\nsustained by him.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Pending investigation, as P.W.13, the Inspector of Police proceeded on
\nleave, P.W.14, who was the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam police station and
\nwho was incharge of Selur police station took up further investigation in the
\ncase and  arrested the first accused on 08.05.1998 at 01.00 pm and at that time
\nhe gave a confession statement and the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P.4.
\nFollowing the same, M.O.1 was recovered from the first accused on production,
\nunder mahazar, Ex.P.5 and he was remanded to judicial custody.   All the
\nmaterial objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body, and
\nM.O.1 knife were subjected to chemical analysis pursuant to the requisition
\ngiven by the concerned Court.  Ex.P.18 is the chemical analysis report and
\nEx.P.19 is the serologist report received from the forensic department.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. P.W.13, on returning from leave, took up investigation in the case on
\n19.05.1998.  He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.  On the
\nbasis of the statements of the witnesses, and after obtaining the community
\ncertificate of both the accused and the deceased, altered the crime and added
\nSection 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
\nAtrocities) Act.  In the meantime, the second accused surrendered before the
\nCourt.  P.W.13 submitted his special report to the Court and to P.W.15, the
\nAdditional Superintendent of Police,  who after completing the investigation,
\nlaid the charge sheet under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code read
\nwith Section Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
\n(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The case was taken on file as Sessions Case No.96 of 1998 by the IV
\nAdditional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.  All the witnesses were examined and
\nat that juncture, there was a circular by the High Court in Circular No.44 of
\n2000 dated 17.04.2000 that this type of cases should be committed by a
\nMagistrate to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the entire proceedings were
\nremitted back to the concerned Magistrate, who followed the necessary procedure
\nand committed the case to the Court of Sessions.  The charges were framed and
\nfollowing the procedural formalities the case was taken up for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the
\nprosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and five material
\nobjects.   On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
\nappellant denied the incriminating circumstances as false. On the side of the
\ndefence the evidence of P.W.13 was marked as Ex.D1.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. On hearing the arguments advanced and on scrutiny of the materials,
\nthe trial Court found the first accused guilty of the offences under sections
\n302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to the first accused
\nas stated above.  The second accused was acquitted of the charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  Learned counsel for the appellant made serious and sincere attempts
\nin assailing the judgment of the lower Court.   The counsel submits that P.W.1,
\naccording to the prosecution, is an injured witness and he was taken to the
\nRajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and was treated by P.W.7, the doctor who
\nissued Ex.P.7, accident register for the injuries sustained by P.W.1, in which
\nit is stated that P.W.1 was brought to hospital by one Easwaran, a witness
\nexamined as P.W.6 and Alagar, since deceased was taken to the hospital by one
\nMohan, which is found mentioned in the accident register issued in respect of
\nhis injuries, Ex.P.6, but from the evidence of Easwaran, P.W.6, it is seen that
\nhe has no clear knowledge about the occurrence, since he states that he came to
\nknow about the incident later and went and saw P.W.1 at the hospital.  It is,
\ntherefore, highly doubtful whether such an occurrence had taken place at 06.30
\npm at the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  The counsel added that in the instant case, according to the Head
\nConstable, P.W.10, who registered the first information report, he went to the
\nhospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and on
\nthe strength of the same, he registered a case at Selur police station about
\n11.30 pm in crime No.549 of 1998 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.   It is highly a matter of surprise to know that P.W.1 has received
\na free copy of the first information report, after signing the first information
\nreport book. But according to the prosecution, P.W.1 was admitted and was
\nundergoing treatment at 10.00 pm onwards in the hospital.   Had it been so,
\nP.W.1 could not have gone to the police station and it is highly doubtful
\nwhether Ex.P.1 could have been recorded in the Government Hospital, as projected
\nby the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
\nfrom the observation mahazar and rough sketch, it is highly doubtful whether
\nP.W.1, though claimed to have been injured at the time of occurrence, was not
\navailable at the place of occurrence, since the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3
\nregarding the narration of the occurrence is varying and in order to
\nsubstantiate the case of the prosecution, the words attracting the offence under
\nthe provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
\nAtrocities) Act, had been included.   The motive, as alleged by the prosecution,
\nis flimsy and unbelievable.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Added further the learned counsel for the appellant that in so far as
\nrecovery of the knife following the confession alleged to have been made by the
\nfirst accused is concerned, it cannot be said to stand the scrutiny in the eye
\nof law, since P.W.5 is the only one witness examined to speak about the
\nconfession and the recovery.  He stated that M.O.1 was recovered from the first
\naccused and following the same, a confession statement was recorded and thus it
\ncannot be said that there was a confession leading to recovery to satisfy the
\nrequirements under section 27 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel would further add that prior to the transmission
\nof the case to the Judicial Magistrate, originally, all the witnesses were
\nexamined and their statements were recorded and after committal by the Judicial
\nMagistrate, again for the second time, the evidence was recorded by the
\nprosecution with embellishments filling in the lacunas made in the earlier
\nevidence  and this would go to the route of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Added further the learned counsel that the trial Court was not
\nprepared to accept the case of the prosecution with regard to the second accused
\nand he has been acquitted.   Under the circumstances, the first accused is also
\nentitled for an acquittal  as the prosecution case in respect of the first
\naccused also is based on the same set of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Heard the learned counsel on the side of the State on the above
\ncontentions.  The Court paid its attention on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  In the instant case, it is not in controversy that Alagar, who
\nsustained injuries at the place of occurrence was taken to the Government
\nHospital, Madurai, and was admitted in the hospital and was treated for his
\ninjuries.  P.W.7, the doctor has issued Ex.P.6 and within a short time, he
\nsuccumbed to the injuries sustained by him and following the registration of a
\ncase, the investigating officer proceeded to the place of occurrence and
\nconducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and postmortem was
\nconducted by P.W.8 who issued Ex.P.8, post mortem certificate. A perusal of the
\nevidence of the the doctor, P.W.8 and the post mortem certificate, Ex.P.8 would
\nshow that the deceased Alagar died on account of homicidal violence at the time
\nand place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  In so far as the instant case is concerned, in order to substantiate
\nthe accusation that it was the accused, who stabbed the deceased Alagar and also
\nP.W.1, three eye witnesses have been marched by the prosecution.  It is
\npertinent to point out that P.W.1 is the injured witness and he has narrated the
\nentire incident. Apart from that he has also suffered injuries and he went to
\nthe hospital along with the injured Alagar and had taken treatment by the same
\ndoctor.  Exs.P.6 and 7 have been marked as accident registers in respect of the
\ndeceased and P.W.1, which corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, which inspires
\nconfidence in the mind of the Court.     According to him, he and Alagar went to
\nthe house of the first accused and questioned the second accused, who is the
\nfather of the first accused, about the behaviour of the first accused and
\nthereafter  they came out of the house and were standing at P.W.2’s tea stall
\nwhere P.Ws.2 and 3 were there.  At that time, the first accused came there with
\nM.O.1, knife and stabbed the deceased on the left chest and when P.W.1
\nintervened he was also stabbed by the first accused.  The said evidence of P.W.1
\nstands corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3.   The contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant that these witnesses could not have seen the
\noccurrence has got to be rejected for the simple reason that P.W.1 has
\ncategorically narrated the incident and P.Ws.2 and 3 are independent witnesses
\nwho spoke about the occurrence.   Apart from that, the evidence of the doctor
\nwho treated the injured Alagar and P.W.1 and the evidence of the doctor, P.W.8,
\nwho conducted postmortem and the post mortem certificate, corroborate the ocular
\ntestimony.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The Court is unable to find sufficient force in the contention put
\nforward by the learned counsel for the appellant that the confession of the
\nfirst accused recorded pursuant to the recovery cannot be accepted for the
\nsimple reason that even as per the evidence of P.W.5, the witness examined by
\nthe prosecution to speak about the confession and recovery, there was a
\nconfession leading to recovery of M.O.1, knife.    Even if the prosecution case
\nwith regard to the confession and recovery is not acceptable, then also, in the
\ninstant case, there is direct evidence, which is supported by medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The other contention of the learned counsel that there is an outpost
\npolice station near the place of occurrence and on the way to the Government
\nHospital, Selur police station is also situated and therefore, one of the
\nwitnesses could have gone to any of the police stations and given a complaint,
\nwhich was not done.  This statement of the counsel  has to be rejected.  In a
\nsituation like this, when the condition of the injured person was very serious
\nand the other person, P.W.1 was also seriously injured, one would naturally go
\nto the hospital first and would not think of going to the police station at that
\nstage.   Apart from that P.W.1 and the deceased Alagar were taken to the
\nhospital by two persons and each one of them was attending each of the injured
\nand there was none else available to go to the police station and lay a
\ncomplaint.    In the stated circumstances, though the police stations were
\nnearby, the prosecution witnesses could not be faulted with for not laying the
\ncomplaint at the police station.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.  The next contention that the first information report could not have
\ncome into existence as claimed by the prosecution cannot also be accepted. It is
\ntrue that P.W.10 Head Constable, on the intimation, went to the Rajaji
\nGovernment Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, pursuant to which a
\ncase came to be registered at the Selur police station in crime No.549 of 1998
\nand following the same, the first information report was despatched to the
\nCourt.   It is put by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1, who was
\nundergoing treatment at the Rajaji Hospital could not have received a free copy
\nof the first information report by signing in the first information book, which
\nis an admitted fact by the said Head Constable.  It is true that it contains the
\nsignature of P.W.1.   The witness has clearly answered that after the
\nregistration of the case, he took the first information book to the hospital
\nsince P.W.1 was hospitalised and obtained his signature at the hospital.  Under
\nthe circumstances, the evidence of the Head Constable, P.W.10 has got to be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in
\nthe instant case, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he and Alagar went to the
\nhouse of the first accused and questioned the second accused about the behaviour
\nof the first accused in the evening and at that time, the first accused was not
\navailable.    Therefore, Alagar and  P.W.1 came out of the house and went to
\nP.W.2’s tea stall and were standing there. At that time the first accused came
\nthere from his house, armed with M.O.1, knife with which he stabbed the deceased
\nAlagar and P.W.1, as a result of which the injured Alagar died at the hospital
\nand P.W.1 was injured and was treated at the hospital.  Therefore, the first
\naccused had no premeditation and he came out of the house out of sudden
\nprovocation and stabbed the deceased and therefore, the offence committed by the
\nfirst accused would not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.   This
\nargument of the learned counsel has to be rejected, since, in our view, it
\ncannot be stated that the first accused acted in a fit of anger or on a sudden
\nprovocation.   It cannot also be stated that the first accused had no
\npremeditation nor did not have any knowledge that his act would result in the
\ndeath of the deceased.  All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant are rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.  In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that
\nthe learned trial judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and has come to the
\nconclusion that the first accused is guilty of the offences charged.   We do not
\nfind any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the
\ntrial Judge.   The criminal appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Copies to<\/p>\n
1.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, (P.C.R.),
\n Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, (P.C.R.), Madurai,
\nthrough the Principal Sessions Judge,  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of
\nMadras High Court,  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
5.The District Collector, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21\/12\/2005 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGHUPATHI Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2002 Murugan alias Muruganantham .. Appellant v. The State, rep. by the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Nagar […]<\/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-125347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - 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\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-12T14:32:11+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T14:32:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3449,\"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\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T14:32:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - 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\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-12T14:32:11+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T14:32:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005"},"wordCount":3449,"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\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005","name":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T14:32:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-alias-muruganantham-vs-the-state-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugan Alias Muruganantham vs The State on 21 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/125347","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=125347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}