{"id":125666,"date":"2006-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-11T07:24:09","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T01:54:09","slug":"rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/08\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\n\nCRL.A.No.665 of 1998\n\n\nRajarathinam\t\t....\t\tAppellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nInspector of Police\nIlayangudi Police Station\nSivagangai\nCrime No.5 of 1997\t....\t\tRespondent\n\n\n\tCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court, Sivaganga, made\nin S.C.No.102 of 1997 dated 6.4.1998.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...\tMr.N.Sundareshan\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr.N.Pandithurai, A.P.P.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
\n\tThe sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty as per the
\ncharge by the Principal Sessions Division, Sivaganga, in S.C.No.102 of 1997, has
\nchallenged the said judgment before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts for the disposal of this
\nappeal can be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased
\nKrishnaveni.  The accused is the husband of the deceased.  Their marriage took
\nplace in the year 1990 at Srilanka, and they came over to Tamil Nadu as
\nrefugees.  The deceased and the accused had children.  They were all staying at
\nthe refugee camp at Thayamangalam.  While the matter stood thus, the deceased
\nleft the camp and went away with one Rajarathinam leaving the accused husband,
\nand her children, and she was living at Okkur.  The advice given by the parents
\nand relations, did not prevail over her.  On the date of occurrence namely
\n11.1.1997, she came to her parents’ house in order to inform that she was about
\nto go to a foreign country.  On that day, P.W.1 accompanied by the accused, went
\nto the Office of the Revenue Inspector for getting the free clothes being
\nprovided to the refugees.  When he was coming, the accused got it earlier and
\ncame home.  P.W.1 along with the other witnesses saw the accused coming after
\ngetting the clothes.  P.Ws.1 and 3 also found their daughter along with the son-
\nin-law, the accused, coming in the opposite direction, and they were found
\nhappy.  On the impression that they have become united and have been happily
\nliving, P.W.1 along with the witnesses crossed them.  After just he walked a few
\nyards, he heard the distressing cry and turned back to see the accused with an
\naruval attacking her indiscriminately on the head and different parts of the
\nbody.  Though P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went nearby, he ran way, and they found her dead.
\nImmediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O.),
\nP.W.2, and gave a narration of the incident, which was recorded by him, and the
\nsame stands marked as Ex.P1.  Ex.P1, the report, was sent to Ilayangudi Police
\nStation along with his report, Ex.P2.  On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to
\nbe registered by P.W.6, the Inspector of Police, in Crime No.5\/97 under Sec.302
\nof I.P.C.  The express First Information Report, Ex.P7, was sent to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) P.W.6 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection
\nin the presence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and
\na rough sketch, Ex.P8.  He recovered M.Os.1 to 7 from the place of occurrence
\nunder a cover of mahazar.  Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of
\nKrishnaveni in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P9,
\nthe inquest report.  The Investigator examined the witnesses and recorded their
\nstatements.  Then, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the
\npurpose of autopsy along with a requisition, Ex.P5.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) P.W.5, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,
\nIlayangudi, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead
\nbody of Krishnaveni and found the following injuries:
\n“1) A cut injury just above the right wrist.  The whole hand is hanging only
\nwith a flap of skin exposing the cut ends of muscles fascine, tendons, nerves,
\nblood vessels with blood clots and bones.\n<\/p>\n
2) A vertical cut injury 15 x 10 x 5 cms on the back of the middle of the right
\narm – exposing the muscles, fascial, tendons, nerves and cut ends of blood
\nvessels with blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
3) A transverse cut injury with spindle shaped 7 x 3 x 5 cms on the right side
\nof the middle of the neck 10 cms away from the midline.\n<\/p>\n
4) A transverse spindle shaped cut injury 8 x 4 x 7 cms just below & back of
\nright ear.\n<\/p>\n
5) A transverse spindle shaped cut injury 7 x 2 x bone depth over the right
\nramus of the mandible just below the lower lip.\n<\/p>\n
6) A transverse cut injury 3 x 2 x 1 cm on the middle of the back of right
\nforearm.\n<\/p>\n
7) A vertical cut injury 6 x 2 x bone depth right parieto frontal region of the
\nscalp 4 cms lateral to the midline.\n<\/p>\n
8) Two incised wounds (punctured) 2 x 1 x 1 cm each, one just above one just
\nbelow the medial end of left clavicle.\n<\/p>\n
9) A transverse cut injury 6 x 4 x 4 cm on the left side of the neck just below
\nand lateral to the left angle of the mandible.\n<\/p>\n
10) Two transverse cut injuries 4 x 3 x 2 cms each on the left side of the back
\nof the neck, one lateral to the C7 spine and another on the body of the scapula.
\nExploration:\n<\/p>\n
1. Right wrist is hanging only with a flap of skin exposing the cut ends of
\nmuscles, fascial, tendons, nerves, blood vessels with blood clots and bones.\n<\/p>\n
2. It enters and ends at the level of bone – exposing the cut ends of muscles,
\nfascial, tendons, nerves and blood vessels with blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
3. Enters into the neck exposing the cut ends of muscles, fascial, tendons,
\nnerves, blood vessels with blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
4. Enters into the neck, exposing the cut ends of muscles, fascial, nerves,
\ntendon, blood vessel – external jugular vein and internal carotid artery with
\nblood clots.\n<\/p>\n
5. Right ramus of the mandible was fracture with exposing the muscles, nerves,
\nblood vessels.\n<\/p>\n
6. Subcutaneo haematoma with blood clots seen.\n<\/p>\n
7. Pericranium only injured.\n<\/p>\n
8. Subcutaneous haematoma with blood clots seen.\n<\/p>\n
9. It enters into the neck, piercing the  neck muscles, blood vessels and
\nexposing the cut ends of muscles, nerves, blood vessels with blood clots –
\nexternal jugular vein and internal carotid artery.\n<\/p>\n
10. Subcutaneous haematoma with blood clots seen.”\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor has issued Ex.P6, the postmortem certificate, with her opinion that
\nthe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple
\ninjuries and injury to main blood vessels about 12 to 24 hours prior to
\npostmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Pending the investigation, on 13.1.1997 at 9.15 A.M. the accused was
\narrested by the Investigating Officer.  He was also sent for judicial remand.
\nAll the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the
\ndead body, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences
\nDepartment on a requisition given by the concerned Court which resulted in
\nEx.P12, the Chemical Analyst’s report, and Ex.P13, the Serologist’s report.  On
\ncompletion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was
\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 6
\nwitnesses and relied on 13 exhibits and 11 material objects.  On completion of
\nthe evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under
\nSec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence
\nof the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.  No defence
\nwitness was examined.  The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either
\nside, found the appellant\/accused guilty as per the charge and awarded the life
\nimprisonment.  Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while advancing his
\narguments with vigour and vehemence, would submit that according to the
\nprosecution there were three eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4; that P.Ws.1 and 3
\nare the father and the mother of the deceased respectively; that naturally they
\ncould not depose anything else except pointing to the accused; that apart from
\nthat, number of eyewitnesses are mentioned by P.W.1, even as per Ex.P1, the
\nreport; but, those witnesses have not been examined; that when P.W.1 gave a
\nreport to the V.A.O., he mentioned number of eyewitnesses; but, when he came
\nbefore the Court, he has given some other names as eyewitnesses, and thus, it
\nwould be clear that P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further, the learned Counsel that in the instant case, as per the
\nprosecution case, the deceased left the refugee camp along with one Rajarathinam
\nleaving the husband who is the accused in the case, along with the children;
\nthat P.W.1 was also informed about the vow made by the accused that he is going
\nto do away with his daughter; that if to be so, when the deceased came to the
\nhouse on the day of occurrence, he would not have left her alone in the house or
\nwould have informed that the accused had got an intention to kill her, but has
\nnot done so; that instead, he went to the Office of the Revenue Inspector for
\ngetting free clothes, which conduct is highly doubtful; that apart from that,
\nthe accused had no motive at all; that even as per the evidence of the
\nInvestigator, he did not try to secure the said Rajarathinam, the paramour of
\nthe deceased; that the explanation tendered by the Investigator for not securing
\nhim or examining him, was not satisfactory; that besides that, according to the
\nDoctor, the deceased would have died about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy; and
\nthat if to be so, the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution,
\nat about 5.15 P.M., and the autopsy was conducted at 8.00 A.M. on the next day,
\nand thus, the death would have occurred even much earlier than one put forth by
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned Counsel would also submit that even assuming that the
\noccurrence has taken place, just 15 minutes would be suffice to report the
\nmatter to the police; but, instead, P.W.1 has gone to the Office of the V.A.O.
\nand gave a report, Ex.P1; that P.W.2, the V.A.O., prepared his report, Ex.P2,
\nand then, sent the same to the Police Station through his menial; that
\nthereafter, the case came to be registered at about 8.00 P.M.; that there has
\nbeen a delay of nearly more than 3 hours; that this would also tell upon the
\nprosecution case; that the lower Court without consideration of these aspects of
\nthe matter put forth by the defence, or appreciation of the same, has found the
\naccused guilty, and hence, he is entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The prosecution in the instant case, brought forth sufficient evidence
\nto record that one Krishnaveni, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3, died out of
\nhomicidal violence.  In this regard, the prosecution not only relied on the
\ndirect evidence through P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, but also on the medical evidence
\nthrough P.W.5, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, and the medical opinion
\nthrough her certificate was also placed before the Court.  It was also not a
\nfact disputed by the appellant\/accused either before the trial Court or before
\nthis Court as to the cause of death.  Thus, it could be safely recorded that
\nKrishnaveni died on account of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The next question that arises for consideration, would be whether the
\nprosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
\nIn the instant case, the prosecution to its advantage had the direct evidence
\nwhich was adduced through P.Ws.1, 3 and 4.  True it is, P.Ws.1 and 3 were
\nclosely related to the deceased; but, that may not be a reason to reject their
\ntestimony, unless and until it is found to be false or it can be rejected, if it
\ndoes not stand the test of careful scrutiny.  Not only P.Ws.1 and 3 have been
\nexamined, but also P.W.4, who is an independent witness, has been examined.
\nFrom the evidence, it would be quite clear that the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3
\nleft her husband, the accused herein, and also her children, with one
\nRajarathinam from the refugee camp at Thayamangalam, and was staying with him at
\nOkkur.  The evidence would further go to show that on the date of occurrence,
\nshe came over there to inform to the parents that she was about to leave for a
\nforeign country; that at about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 accompanied by others and also
\nthe accused, went over to the Office of the Revenue Inspector to get free
\nclothes; that when he was coming back, he found the accused and the deceased
\ncoming in the opposite direction and chatting happily; that he was under the
\nimpression that they have united; that when they crossed him, he heard the
\ndistressing cry; and that at that time, the accused attacked her with an aruval.
\nIt remains to be stated that the occurrence was witnessed not only by the
\nparents, who are P.Ws.1 and 3, but also by an independent witness examined as
\nP..W.4.  They witnessed the occurrence, that too in the day light, and
\nimmediately, the matter was reported to the V.A.O.  The V.A.O. in turn, brought
\nto the notice of the police the same, and then, a case came to be registered
\nwithin a few hours.  The F.I.R. has also reached the Judicial Magistrate
\nconcerned.  Now, at this juncture, it has to be pointed out that there is no
\ndelay noticed not only in the registration of the case or in the F.I.R. reaching
\nthe Court.  Apart from that, no embellishment or improvement  can be possible in
\nthe instant case, because P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 have witnessed the occurrence, in
\nwhich the accused attacked the deceased with the aruval in the place of
\noccurrence.  The medical evidence is also in full corroboration of the ocular
\ntestimony.  That apart, from the place of occurrence, the weapon of crime namely
\naruval, has been recovered.  It was also subjected to chemical analysis, and
\nhuman blood is also found to be present.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant
\nthat there was only 15 minutes necessary to go to the Police Station; but, P.W.1
\nhad gone to the Office of the V.A.O. and gave a report has got to be
\ndiscountenanced for the simple reason that P.W.1 is a refugee; that he is more
\nconnected to the Revenue Department, and therefore, he thought it fit to
\nimmediately report the matter to the V.A.O., who in turn, has brought to the
\nnotice of the police.  Further, the contention put forth by the appellant’s side
\nthat there were number of eyewitnesses; but, they have not been examined cannot
\nalso be accepted since P.Ws.1 and 3 are the parents, and P.W.4 is an independent
\nwitness.  While the evidence is available from the parents who have seen the
\noccurrence, and their evidence has also inspired the confidence of the Court,
\nthe prosecution to its advantage had the evidence of one independent witness
\nnamely P.W.4.  Under the circumstances, such a comment made by the defence at
\nthis stage, has got to be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that death
\nwould have been caused earlier and Rajarathinam, the paramour of the deceased,
\nwould have done it do not carry merit.  According to the Investigator, the said
\nRajarathinam was neither secured nor examined, since there was no necessity that
\narose in the case.  From the available materials, it would be quite clear that
\nthere were eyewitnesses who have witnessed the occurrence, when the accused
\nattacked the deceased.  If to be so, there was no doubt in the mind of the
\npolice to be entertained, to secure anybody else for the purpose of examination
\nor interrogation in the particular case.  In view of the above, the non-
\nexamination of the said Rajarathinam, the alleged paramour of the lady, has in
\nno way affected the truth of the prosecution case.  Thus, the prosecution has
\nplaced necessary materials through the direct evidence which is fully supported
\nby the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Coming to the question as to the nature of the act of the accused, the
\nCourt is of the considered opinion that the act cannot, but be termed only as
\nmurder.  From the evidence of P.W.3, the mother of the deceased, that the
\naccused took his wife, the deceased, stating that she was to sign a paper in the
\nRevenue Inspector’s Office, and so stating, he took her from the house; and that
\nwhen they were going, he attacked her with an aruval, it would be clear that at
\nthe time of the attack, they were in a public place.  It would also be crystal
\nclear that he took an aruval from the waist and attacked her, and thus, it was a
\npre-planned act, which would attract the penal provisions of murder.  The lower
\nCourt was perfectly correct in recording a conviction for murder and sentencing
\nhim to life imprisonment, which, in the opinion of this Court, does not require
\nany interference.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and accordingly, it is
\ndismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower Court.  It is reported that the
\nappellant\/accused is on bail.  Hence, the Sessions Judge shall take steps to
\ncommit him to prison to undergo the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1)The Principal Sessions Judge
\n   Sivaganga\n<\/p>\n
2)The Inspector of Police
\n   Ilayangudi Police Station
\n   Sivagangai
\n   Crime No.5 of 1997\n<\/p>\n
3)The Public Prosecutor
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/08\/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRL.A.No.665 of 1998 Rajarathinam …. Appellant vs Inspector of Police Ilayangudi Police Station Sivagangai Crime No.5 of 1997 …. Respondent Criminal appeal […]<\/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-125666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - 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\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-11T01:54:09+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\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T01:54:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2905,\"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\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T01:54:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - 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\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-11T01:54:09+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\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T01:54:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006"},"wordCount":2905,"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\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006","name":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T01:54:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajarathinam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajarathinam vs Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/125666","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=125666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}