{"id":128692,"date":"1979-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979"},"modified":"2017-04-06T05:37:31","modified_gmt":"2017-04-06T00:07:31","slug":"arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","title":{"rendered":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1284, \t\t 1979 SCR (3) 482<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nARUNACHALAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. S. R. SADHANANTHAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/03\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1284\t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 482\n 1979 SCC  (2) 297\n CITATOR INFO :\n O\t    1980 SC 856\t (11)\n RF\t    1981 SC 631\t (12)\n R\t    1988 SC1531\t (182)\n R\t    1989 SC1205\t (17)\n E&F\t    1989 SC1543\t (22)\n RF\t    1991 SC1108\t (10)\n R\t    1991 SC2176\t (17,18)\n RF\t    1992 SC  49\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution   of\t India,\t  1950-Art.   136-Scope\t  of\njurisdiction. Criminal\tappeal not  preferred by Government-\nPrivate Party if could invoke jurisdiction under Art. 136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution  alleged that  there was enmity between\nthe deceased  and his brother, P.W. 2 (Appellant) and P.W. 3\non the one side and A 1 (respondent), A 2, their father, A 4\nand A  5 their\tnephews on  the other on account of disputes\narising\t out   of  elections   to  the\tGram  Panchayat\t and\nCooperative Stores  of the  village. A\tfew days  before the\noccurrence,  the  first\t accused  demanded  that  the  dance\nperformance being  arranged in\tconnection with\t a religious\nfestival  in   the  village   should  be   held\t under\t his\nPresidentship,\tbut   this  was\t  rejected  by\t PW  3.\t The\nprosecution  further  alleged  that  on\t the  night  of\t the\noccurrence when\t the stage  was being  decorated by PW 3 all\nthe accused  came in  a group,\tgot up\ton the stage and A 1\nquestioned PW  3 with  regard to  the conduct  of the  dance\nperformance without  his presiding over it. Accused 1, 2 and\n4 started  beating P.W.\t 3. Frightened by the fracas the men\ngathered  near\tthe  stage  started  running  away.  In\t the\nmeantime, the deceased and his men intervened, whereupon the\nfirst accused  took out\t a knife  from his waist and stabbed\nthe deceased on the left flank, as a result of which he fell\ndown.\n     The deceased  was first  taken to\tthe  police  station\nwhere his  statement Ex.  P1 was recorded. He was then taken\nto the\tlocal hospital\tbut the stab injury being serious he\nwas removed  to the headquarters hospital where a Magistrate\nrecorded his  dying declaration\t Ex. P6.  The next afternoon\nthe deceased succumbed to his injuries.\n     In their  defence, the  accused claimed  that they were\nfalsely implicated on account of factions and suggested that\nsome  of   the\tprosecution  witnesses\tprevailed  upon\t the\ndeceased to name the accused as assailants. In the course of\ncross-examination  of  prosecution  witnesses,\tthe  defence\nsuggested that a certain R was also injured at the same time\nand place.\n     Accepting\tthe  prosecution  case\tthe  Sessions  Judge\nconvicted A-1  under s.\t 148 and  s. 302  and the rest under\nSections 147, 323 and 149 read with 323.\n     On\t appeal\t  the  High   Court  acquitted\tthe  accused\nprimarily on  the ground  that neither\tthe direct witnesses\nnor the\t dying declarations  explained\tthe  serious  injury\ncaused to  Ramalingam who  it appeared\tfrom the evidence of\nthe Doctor, PW 4, had received a stab injury 5 cms. X 2 cms.\nX 2  cms. near the left side of the abdomen on the back. The\nHigh Court  thought that  though Ext.  P-1 was\tpurported to\nhave been  recorded earlier  than Ext. P-6 in point of time,\nit was\tin fact recorded later. The High Court took the view\nthat the  first accused\t must have  been implicated  by\t the\ndeceased as the assailant in Ext. P-6 at the instance of PW3\nwho met\t him in the hospital at about 1 a.m. The evidence of\nthe direct witnesses PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 was rejected\n483\non  the\t ground\t that  they  were  interested  and  had\t not\nexplained how  Ramalingam sustained the injury found on him.\nThe conduct of P.W. 3 was also severely commented upon.\n     The  State\t did  not  prefer  any\tappeal\tagainst\t the\nacquittal of  the accused  by the High Court; but the appeal\nwas preferred by the brother of the deceased.\n     On the  question whether  a private  party could invoke\nthe jurisdiction  of  this  Court  under  Art.\t136  of\t the\nConstitution against an acquittal by the High Court.\n^\n     HELD :  1. This  Court could  entertain appeals against\njudgments of  acquittal by the High Court at the instance of\na private  party also.\tThe fact that the Criminal Procedure\nCode does  not provide\tfor an\tappeal\tto  the\t High  Court\nagainst an  order of acquittal by a subordinate court at the\ninstance of a private party has no relevance to the question\nof  the\t  power\t of   this  Court  under  Art.\t136  of\t the\nConstitution. [488 D]\n     2. The  appellate power vested in this Court under Art.\n136 is\tnot to\tbe confused  with ordinary  appellate  power\nexercised by  appellate courts and appellate tribunals under\nspecific statutes.  The power  under Art.  136\tis  plenary,\n`exercisable outside  the purview  of the  ordinary law'  to\nmeet the  pressing demands  of justice.\t Art,  136,  neither\nconfers on any one the right to invoking its jurisdiction of\nthis  Court   nor  inhibits   any  one\t from  invoking\t its\njurisdiction.  The  power  is  vested  in  this\t Court.\t The\nexercise of the power is not circumscribed by any limitation\nas to  who may\tinvoke it.  Where a judgment of acquittal by\nthe High  Court has  led to a serious miscarruage of justice\nthis Court  cannot refrain  from doing\tits duty and abstain\nfrom interfering with it on the ground that a private party,\nand not\t the State,  has invoked  the court's  jurisdiction.\n[487 H-488 C]\n     Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh, [1978] 3 SCC 279; referred to.\n     3. There  need  be\t no  apprehension  that\t if  appeals\nagainst judgments  of acquittal at the instance of a private\nparty are  permitted there  may be  a flood of such appeals,\nbecause appeals\t under Art.  136, are entertained by special\nleave granted by this Court. Special leave is not granted as\na matter  of  course.  It  is  granted\tonly  for  good\t and\nsufficient reasons,  as well  established by the practice of\nthis Court. [488 F]\n     4. The  power under  Art. 136  is plenary\tin the sense\nthat there  are no  words in Art. 136 itself qualifying that\npower. The very nature of the power has led the Court to set\nlimits to itself within which to exercise such power. Within\nthe restrictions  imposed by  itself,  this  Court  has\t the\nundoubted power\t to interfere  even with  findings of  fact,\nmaking no  distinction between\tjudgments of  acquittal\t and\nconviction,  if\t  the  High  Court,  in\t arriving  at  those\nfindings, has  acted \"perversely  or otherwise\timproperly\".\n[487 C-D]\n     State of  Madras v.  Vaidyanatha Iyer,<\/a>  [1958] SCR 580;\nHimachal Pradesh  Administration v. Om Prakash,<\/a> [1972] 1 SCC\n249, referred to.\n     5. In  dealing with  an appeal  against acquittal, this\nCourt will,  naturally, keep  in  mind\tthe  presumption  of\ninnocence in  favour of\t the accused, reinforced, as may be,\nby the\tjudgment of acquittal. But, this will not abjure the\ncourt\n484\nof its\tduty to\t prevent violent  miscarriage of  justice by\nhesitating to  interfere where\tinterference is\t imperative.\nWhere the  acquittal is based on irrelevant ground, or where\nthe High Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings\ndrawn across  the track,  or where  the evidence accepted by\nthe trial  court is  rejected by  the  High  Court  after  a\nperfunctory consideration,  or where the baneful approach of\nthe High  Court has  resulted in  vital and crucial evidence\nbeing ignored,\tor for\tany such adequate reason, this Court\nmay feel  obliged to  step in  to secure  the  interests  of\njustice, to appease the judicial conscience as it were. [487\nE-F]\n     6.\t The   High  Court  was\t wrong\tand  unjustified  in\nrejecting the  testimony of  the direct\t witnesses  and\t the\ndying declarations  on the  ground that they did not explain\nthe injury  found on  one of the persons (R) alleged to have\nbeen present at the scene of occurrence. There is nothing to\nsuggest that  R and  the deceased received their injuries in\nthe course  of the same transaction. According to the doctor\nwho examined  R, the  injured person  did not  know who\t his\nassailant was.\tHe was not shown to be connected with either\nparty but was surreptitiously and dexteously introduced into\nthe case  by the  defence in the course of cross-examination\nof the\tprosecution witnesses.\tA conspectus of the evidence\nclearly points\tto the\tconclusion that there was nothing to\nconnect the injuries or R with the stabbing of the deceased.\n[488 G-489 A, 490 D]\n     7. Both  the dying\t declarations could be safely relied\nupon  without  any  reservation.  Though  the  second  dying\ndeclaration gives  fewer details  than the  first it clearly\nstates that the deceased and others first went to the police\nstation. This clearly lends support to the prosecution story\nthat it\t was there  that the  first  dying  declaration\t was\nrecorded. There is, therefore, no ground to hold as the High\nCourt did  that the second dying declaration was in point of\ntime,  recorded\t earlier  than\tthe  first.  The  difference\nbetween the two was that while the first was recorded almost\nimmediately after  the incident,  the second  was recorded a\nfew hours  later by which time the condition of the deceased\nhad deteriorated  and he  was not  in a\t position to give as\nmany details  as before.  There was, therefore, no reason to\ndoubt  the   genuineness  of   either  of   the\t two   dying\ndeclarations. [493 E, 491 F-492 A, 490]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n170 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 17-11-1971 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 217 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     R. K.  Garg, V.  J. Francis  and D.  K.  Garg  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     K. Jayaram and R. Ramkumar for Respondent No. 1.
\n     A. V. Rangam for Respondent No. 6.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-P. S.\t R.  Sadhanantham  and\tfour
\nothers\twere   tried  by   the\t learned   Sessions   Judge,
\nTirunelveli,  on   various  counts.  Sadhanantham  (A1)\t was
\nconvicted under Sections 148 and 302 Indian Penal Code while
\nthe four others were convicted under Sections 147,
\n485<\/span>
\n323 and\t 149 read  with 323. The first accused was sentenced
\nto imprisonment\t for life  on the  charge of  murder and  to
\nrigorous imprisonment  for a  period of\t two  years  on\t the
\ncharge under  Section 148.  The\t others\t were  sentenced  to
\nsuffer imprisonment  for a period of one year on each of the
\ncounts on  which they  were convicted,\tthe sentences to run
\nconcurrently. All  the five  accused preferred\tan appeal to
\nthe High  Court of Madras. The High Court allowed the appeal
\nand  acquitted\t all  the   accused  of\t  all  the  charges.
\nArunachalam the\t brother of  the deceased has preferred this
\nappeal against\tthe judgment  of the Madras High Court after
\nobtaining special  leave from  this Court  on 26-7-1973. The
\nspecial\t leave\t was  granted\tagainst\t the  first  accused
\nSadhanantham only.\n<\/p>\n
     The case  of the  prosecution, briefly,  was that there
\nwas enmity  between the\t deceased  Soundarapandian  and\t his
\nbrother Arunachalam  (P.W. 2)  and Natesan  (P.W. 3)  on one
\nside and  Rajapalavesmuthu Nadar, his sons A1 and A2 and his
\nnephews A4  and A5  on\tthe  other.  There  were  the  usual
\ndisputes arising  out of  elections to the Gram Panhayat and
\nto the\tlocal cooperative  stores. In  connection  with\t the
\nvillage Amman festival, P.W. 3 was arranging to have a dance
\nperformance on the night of 20th August, 1970, in the Gandhi
\nMaidan.\t About\ta  week\t earlier,  Sadhanantham,  the  first
\naccused demanded  that the  dance should  be performed under
\nhis presidentship  but P.W.3  did not agree. On the night of
\n20th August,  1970, P.W.3 alongwith one Gopalakrishnan (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
6) was\tdecorating the\tstage. Tube  lights were burning and
\nseveral persons had gathered in front of the stage. At about
\n8.45 p.m. accused 1 to 5 came there and got up on the stage.
\nAt questioned P.W.3 how he dared to conduct the show without
\nhis  presiding\t over  it.  P.W.3  replied  that  the  dance
\nperformance would  be conducted without the presidentship of
\nA1. A1\tthen slapped  P.W.3 on\tthe cheek.  A2\tto  A4\talso
\nstarted beating\t P.W.3 with  their hands.  P.W.6 and several
\nothers who were there ran away apparently not wanting to get
\ninvolved in the fracas. P.W.3 jumped down from the stage and
\nattempted to  run away\twhen A3\t caught\t him  and  began  to
\nthrottle his  neck. A1, A2 and A4 joined in beating him with
\ntheir hands.  The deceased  P.W. 1,  P.W. 2  and P.W. 5 came
\nrunning towards\t P.W.3. The deceased asked the first accused
\nwhy they  were beating\this younger brother. A.3 and A.5 who
\nwere holding  P.W.3 by\tthe neck let him free. A.1 asked the
\ndeceased who  he was  to question  him and saying so he took
\nout a  knife from  his waist and stabbed the deceased on the
\nleft  flank.  The  deceased  fell  down\t shouting  “stabbed,
\nstabbed”. Accused  1 to\t 5 then ran towards the north. P.W.3
\nchased them  over a distance of about one and half furlongs.
\nThey ran  inside the  forest.  P.W.3  stopped  chasing\tthem
\nfurther. In  the meanwhile  the injured\t Soundarapandian was
\ntaken by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 to the
\n486<\/span>
\nPolice Station and then to the hospital at Kayalpattinam. At
\nthe Police  Station, the  writer P.W.14 recorded a statement
\nExhibit\t  P-1\t from\tSoundarapandian\t   at\t9.15\tp.m.
\nSoundarapandian when asked to sign the statement insisted on
\nsigning the  statement after  dipping the  pen in  the blood
\nthat was  coming out  of the  wound. He\t was  taken  to\t the
\nhospital in  a jeep  requisitioned by  the police. P.W.4 the
\nMedical Officer\t in charge  of\tthe  Hospital  examined\t the
\ninjured and  found that\t the injury was of a serious nature.
\nHe sent\t the injured to the Government Headquarters Hospital
\nat Tuticorin  for further  treatment. The  District  Medical
\nOfficer, P.W.  8 examined him and finding his condition very
\nserious,  sent\t a  requisition\t  Exhibit  P-5\tto  the\t Sub
\nMagistrate, Tuticorin  to record  the dying  declaration  of
\nSoundarapandian. Exhibit  P-6,\tthe  dying  declaration\t was
\nrecorded by  the Magistrate  P.W.7 at 1.30 a.m. At 7.45 a.m.
\nnext   morning,\t   P.W.8   performed\tan   operation\t but
\nSoundarapandian could  not be  saved. He  died at about 1.30
\np.m. The  autopsy was  conducted by P.W.9 who, on dissection
\nfound that the diaphragm and the upper lobe of the left lung
\nhad  been   pierced.  The   police  after   completing\t the
\ninvestigation  laid  a\tcharge-sheet  against  Sadhanantham,
\nNithiyanantham, Thamilan, Kumaresan and Karthikeyan.\n<\/p>\n
     In support of its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws.
\n1, 2,  3 and  5 as  direct witneses  to the  occurrence\t and
\nrelied upon  Exhibits P 1 and P6, the two dying declarations
\nmade by Soundarapandian. The prosecution also examined P. W.
\n6 to  speak to\tthe earlier  part of  the incident.  All the
\naccused denied the offence and stated that they were falsely
\nimplicated on account of enmity. In the cross-examination of
\nthe witnesses  it was suggested that one Ramalingam was also
\ninjured at the same time and place. It was suggested that P.
\nWs. 2  and 3  had prevailed upon the deceased to name A-1 as
\nthe person  who stabbed\t him.  The  learned  Sessions  Judge
\naccepted the  dying declarations  as true.  He also accepted
\nthe  evidence\tof  the\t eye  witnesses.  He  convicted\t and
\nsentenced the  five accused  as mentioned  earlier. The High
\nCourt acquitted\t the accused  primarily on  the ground\tthat
\nneither the  direct witnesses  nor  the\t dying\tdeclarations
\nexplained the  serious injury  caused to  Ramalingam, who it
\nappeared from  the  evidence  of  the  Doctor  P.W.  4,\t had
\nreceived a  stab injury\t 5 cms x 2 cms near the left side of
\nthe abdomen  on the back. The High Court thought that though
\nExhibit P-1 was purported to have been recorded earlier than
\nExhibit P-6 in point of time, it was in fact recorded later.
\nThe High  Court took  the view\tthat the  first accused must
\nhave been  implicated by  the deceased\tas the\tassailant in
\nExhibit P-6  at the  instance of  P.W.3 who  met him  in the
\nhospital  at  about  1\ta.m.  The  evidence  of\t the  direct
\nwitnesses P.  W.s. 1, 2, 3, and 5 was rejected on the ground
\nthat they were interested and had not explained
\n487<\/span>
\nhow Ramalingam\tsustained  the\tinjury\tfound  on  him.\t The
\nconduct of P.W. 3 was also severely commented upon. The High
\nCourt acquitted all the five accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Before proceeding\tto  discuss  the  evidence  and\t the
\nfindings of  the High  Court  we  remind  ourselves  of\t the
\nconfines of our jurisdiction to deal with appeals by special
\nleave against  judgments of  acquittal by  the\tHigh  Court.
\nArticle 136 of the Constitution of India invests the Supreme
\nCourt with a plentitude of plenary, appellate power over all
\nCourts and  Tribunals in  India. The power is plenary in the
\nsense  that  there  are\t no  words  in\tArticle\t 136  itself
\nqualifying that power. But, the very nature of the power has
\nled the\t Court for  set limits\tto itself  within  which  to
\nexercise such power. It is now the well established practice
\nof this\t Court to  permit the  invocation of the power under
\nArticle 136  only in very exceptional circumstances, as when
\na question  of law  of general public importance arises or a
\ndecision shocks the conscience of the Court. But, within the
\nrestrictions imposed by itself, this Court has the undoubted
\npower to  interfere even  with findings\t of fact  making  no
\ndistinction between judgment of acquittal and conviction, if
\nthe High  Court, in  arriving at  those findings,  has acted
\n“perversely or\totherwise improperly”.\t(See State of Madras
\nv. Vaidyanath  Iyer,<\/a>(1) and  Himachal Pradesh Administration
\nv. Om  Prakash.<\/a>\t (2)  In  dealing  with\t an  appeal  against
\nacquittal, the\tCourt will,  naturally,\t keep  in  mind\t the
\npresumption  of\t  innocence  in\t  favour  of   the  accused,
\nreinforced, as\tmay be,\t by the\t judgment of acquittal. But,
\nalso, the  Court will not abjure its duty to prevent violent
\nmiscarriage of\tjustice by  hesitating\tto  interfere  where
\ninterference is\t imperative. Where the acquittal is based on
\nirrelevant ground,  or where the High Court allows itself to
\nbe deflected  by red  herrings drawn  across the  track,  or
\nwhere the  evidence accepted  by the trial court is rejected
\nby the\tHigh Court  after a  perfunctory  consideration,  or
\nwhere the baneful approach of the High Court has resulted in
\nvital and  crucial evidence  being ignored,  or for any such
\nadequate reason,  this Court  may fed  obliged to step in to
\nsecure the  interests of  justice, to  appease the  judicial
\nconscience, as it were.\n<\/p>\n
     A doubt  has been\traised about  the  competence  of  a
\nprivate party,\tas distinguished  from the  State, to invoke
\nthe jurisdiction  of this  Court under\tArticle 136  of\t the
\nConstitution against  a judgment  of acquital  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt. We  do not  see any substance in the doubt. Appellate
\npower vested  in the  Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution is not to be confused with ordinary appellate
\n488<\/span>
\npower exercised\t by Appellate Courts and Appellate Tribunals
\nunder specific statutes. As we said earlier, it is a plenery
\npower, `exercisable  outside the purview of ordinary law’ to
\nmeet the  pressing demands  of justice\t(vide Durga  Shankar
\nMehta v.  Thakur Raghuraj Singh & Ors.<\/a>(1) Article 136 of the
\nConstitution neither  confers on  anyone the right to invoke
\nthe jurisdiction  of the  Supreme Court\t nor inhibits anyone
\nfrom invoking  the Court’s jurisdiction. The power is vested
\nin the\tSupreme Court  but the\tright to  invoke the Court’s
\njurisdiction is\t vested in no one. The exercise of the power
\nof the\tSupreme Court is not circumscribed by any limitation
\nas to  who may\tinvoke it.  Where a judgment of acquittal by
\nthe High  Court has  led to a serious miscarriage of justice
\nthe Supreme  Court cannot  refrain from\t doing its  duty and
\nabstain from  inerfering on  the ground that a private party
\nand not\t the State  has invoked the Court’s jurisdiction. We
\ndo not\thave the  slightest  doubt  that  we  can  entertain
\nappeals against\t judgments of acquittal by the High Court at
\nthe instance  of private parties also. The circumstance that
\nthe Criminal  Procedure Code  does not provide for an appeal
\nto the\tHigh Court  against  an\t order\tof  acquittal  by  a
\nSubordinate Court,  at the  instance of a private party, has
\nno relevance  to the  question of  the power  of this  Court
\nunder Article 136. We may mention that recently in Mohan Lal
\nv. Ajit\t Singh,(2) this\t Court interfered with a judgment of
\nacquittal by  the High\tCourt at  the instance\tof a private
\nparty. An apprehension was expressed that if appeals against
\njudgments of  acquittal at  the instance  of private parties
\nare permitted  there may  be a\tflood of such appeals. We do
\nnot share the apprehension. Appeals under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution are  entertained by  special leave\t granted  by
\nthis Court.  Whether it is the State or a private party that
\ninvokes the jurisdiction of this Court, special leave is not
\ngranted as  a  matter  of  course  but\tonly  for  good\t and
\nsufficient reasons,  as well  established by the practice of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
     As earlier\t mentioned, the\t primary reason given by the
\nHigh  Court  for  rejecting  the  testimony  of\t the  direct
\nwitnesses  and\tthe  dying  declarations  was  the  supposed
\nfailure of  the prosecution  to explain\t the serious  injury
\nfound on  the person  of one Ramalingam alleged to have been
\ninjured at  the same  time and place as the deceased. We may
\nat once\t say that nothing is known about this Ramalingam. He
\nis not shown to be connected, even remotely, either with the
\nprosecution party or with the faction of the accused. He was
\nvery surreptitiously  and dexterously  introduced  into\t the
\ncase in the
\n489<\/span>
\ncourse of  the cross-examination  of the prosecution witness
\nand thereafter\tmade to\t loom large.  He was,  as  we  shall
\npresently point out nothing more than a “red herring” across
\nthe track.  We will refer to the whole of the evidence where
\nRamalingam was made to appear in the case to examine whether
\nthe High Court was right in rejecting the entire case of the
\nprosecution on\tthe ground that the injury on Ramalingam was
\nnot explained.\tP.W. 1\twas put\t but one question whether he
\nwas aware  that injuries were caused to one Ramalingam Nadar
\nat the\tplace of  the occurrence on the night of occurrence.
\nHe stated  that he  was not  aware of  that fact. No further
\nquestion was  put to  P. W. 1 pursuing the matter. Similarly
\nP.W. 2\twas also  asked in  cross-examination whether he was
\naware of the stabbing of one Ramalingam Nadar at the time of
\noccurrence. He\tstated that  he was not and that was the end
\nof the\tmatter and  it was  not pursued further. P. W. 3 was
\nalso asked  the same  question. He  too denied\tknowledge of
\ninjuries sustained  by Ramalingam  Nadar  on  the  night  of
\noccurrence. P.W.  5 was also asked a similar question and he
\ntoo gave  a similar  answer. P.W.  4  the  Medical  officer,
\nKayalpattinam, deposed\tin his evidence that he examined one
\nRamalingam at  about 11.30  p.m. on  20th August,  1970. and
\nfound an  incised wound\t 5 cms x 2 cms x 2 cms near the left
\nside of\t the abdomen  on the  back and\tone small  irregular
\nedged wound  on the  inner side\t of the\t first\tinjury.\t The
\nDoctor also  stated that  Ramalingam told  him that  he\t was
\nassaulted by  some unknown person when he was witnessing the
\ndance show.  P.W. 10  who had  gone  to\t witness  the  dance
\nperformance but\t who ran  away when  trouble started  stated
\nthat when  he was  running away\t he saw one Ramalingam Nadar
\nrunning along  with him\t and that  the said Ramalingam Nadar
\nwas keeping  his hand  near his\t waist and that the hand was
\nblood stained.\tP.W. 15\t the Head  Constable attached to the
\nArumuganeri Police Station stated that 4 or 5 days after the
\noccurrence he  came to\tknow that  a case  was registered in
\nArumuganeri Police  Station on\tthe strength  of a complaint
\ngiven by  one Ramalingam. P.W. 167 the Investigating officer
\nalso stated  that the First Information Report registered on
\nthe strength of Ramalingam’s complaint had also been sent to
\nthe Magistrate\tand that  a final report had also been sent.
\nHe  denied  the\t suggestion  made  to  him  that  the  First
\nInformation Report  in respect of Ramalingam’s complaint was
\nsuppressed as it was not in favour of the prosecution. These
\nare all\t the appearances which Ramalingam made, on the stage
\nof  this  case,\t in  the  mouth\t of  the  witnesses,  though
\nRamalingam did himself not enter upon the scene. None of the
\naccused made  any reference  to Ramalingam in his statement.
\nIt would  be noticed that it was not suggested to any of the
\nprosecution
\n490<\/span>
\nwitnesses that\tRamalingam was\tconnected  with\t either\t the
\nprosecution party  or the  party of  the accused. It was not
\nsuggested that\tthe injury  to Ramalingam  was caused  by  a
\nmember of either group. It was not suggested that Ramalingam
\nintervened in  the fight  and received\tan injury.  In\tfact
\nthere  was  nothing  to\t suggest  that\tRamalingam  and\t the
\ndeceased received their respective injuries in the course of
\nthe  same   transaction.  The\tonly  suggestion   was\tthat
\nRamalingam received  an injury\tthat night  at the  place of
\noccurrence. It\tis in  evidence\t that  as  soon\t as  trouble
\nstarted, the  people who  had gathered there started running
\nhelter\tskelter.  While\t so  running  Ramalingam  apparently
\nreceived a  stab injury\t accidentally or  deliberately\tfrom
\nsomeone. In  fact according  to the  evidence of the Doctor,
\nRamalingam told\t him that  he did not know who his assailant
\nwas. There was, therefore, absolutely nothing to connect the
\nstabbing of  Ramalingam with  the stabbing  of the  deceased
\nSoundarapandian. The  evidence of  P.W. 10  also was  to the
\neffect that Ramalingam himself was one of those who ran away
\nfrom the  scene\t alongwith  him\t and  that  was\t before\t the
\ndeceased was  stabbed. There  was thus\tnothing to  indicate
\nthat the  deceased or any of the direct witnesses were aware
\nor  could   possibly  be  aware\t of  the  injury  caused  to
\nRamalingam. In our opinion the High Court was entirely wrong
\nand wholly  unjustified in  rejecting the  testimony of\t the
\ndirect\twitnesses   and\t the   dying  declarations   on\t the
\nirrelevant consideration  that\tthey  did  not\texplain\t the
\ninjury found on the person of Ramalingam.\n<\/p>\n
     In regard to the dying declarations the reason given by
\nthe High  Court to conclude that Exhibit P. 1 must have been
\nrecorded  later\t than  Exhibit\tP-6  was  that\tExhibit\t P-1
\ncontained several statements not to be found in Exhibit P-6.
\nWe are\tafraid that  the High  Court was merely indulging in
\nspeculation and approaching the question from the wrong end.
\nExhibit P-1 which was recorded by P.W. 14 was as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Arumuganeri is  my native  place. I am doing shop
\n     business. Record  dance was  arranged to  take place in
\n     Gandhi Maidan  at Arumuganeri. I went to see the record
\n     dance along  with Arunachala  Nadar my  elder  brother,
\n     Gunesekaran younger  sister’s husband, and Somasundaram
\n     son of  Adinarayana Perumal.  We were talking, standing
\n     in front of Ramaswami temple. Sadanandam, Nithianandam,
\n     sons of  P. S.  Raja Nadar,  Tamilam alias Subramaniam,
\n     Kumarsan son of Thangapla Nadar, Karthikyan son of Raja
\n     Pandia Nadar  were beating\t my younger brother Natesan,
\n     on the north of the dancing stage. Myself, and the
\n491<\/span>
\n     persons with  me ran  to that place. I questioned as to
\n     why you  beat my  younger brother. Sadanandam son of P.
\n     S. Raja Nadar forcibly stabbed me with the greece knife
\n     in the hand, on my left flank, below the rib I cried to
\n     the effect “Ayyoh : stabbed.” I covered the stab injury
\n     with my  hand. My\telder brother and Somasundaram, took
\n     me to  Police station.  There is  prior enmity  between
\n     myself and\t P. S.\tRaja Vagaria  in connection with the
\n     elections. I  read the  statement. It has been recorded
\n     as narrated by me.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t       Sd\/- Soundarapandian”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Exhbiit P-6 which was recorded by the Sub Magistrate, was as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There is  one Gandhi Maidan in Arumganeri, Record
\n     dance was\tto be performed there. I went to see it. The
\n     dance was\tnot begun.  Myself,  Arunachalam,  my  elder
\n     brother, Gunasekaran,  my\tsister’s  husband  were\t all
\n     talking. There  was quarrel at the place of performance
\n     of the record dance. At that time, the record dance was
\n     not begun. Myself and others ran to the place where the
\n     quarrel took  place. A  boy called Sadanandem son of P.
\n     S. Raja  Nadar stabbed  me with  a knife.\tI  cried  to
\n     effect “Ayyoh Stabbed, stabbed ?” The police station is
\n     very near.\t We all went there. My hand was stained with
\n     blood. There is no reason for stabbing me.
\n\t      L.I.T. of Thiru Soundrapandian”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  true that Exhibit P-1 gives more details than Exhibit
\nP-6. Exhibit P-1 mentions the names of A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5
\nalso in\t connection with  the beating  of P.W.\t3.  It\talso
\nmentions that  the deceased  was stabbed  on the  left flank
\nbelow the  rib. It further mentions the prior enmity between
\nthe deceased and P. S. Raja Vageria. On the contrary Exhibit
\nP-6 gives  fewer details,  and does not mention the names of
\nthe participants in the fight which preceded the stabbing of
\nthe deceased.  The stabbing  of the deceased by A-1 alone is
\nparticularly mentioned.\t What is  important to\tbe noted  in
\nExhibit P-6  is that  it refers to the circumstance that the
\ndeceased first\twent to\t the Police  Station. That statement
\nlends support  to the prosecution case that the deceased and
\nothers went  to the  Police  Station  and  a  Statement\t was
\nrecorded at  the Police\t Station from  the deceased. What is
\nmore important\tis the\tcircumstance that  while Exhibit P-1
\nwas recorded  within a very short time after the occurrence,
\nExhibit P-6  was recorded a few hours after the occurence by
\nwhich time the condition of the
\n492<\/span>
\ndeceased had  apparently deteriorated  and he  was not\tin a
\nposition to  make  as  detailed\t a  statement  as  P-1.\t The
\nevidence of the District Medical Officer, P.W. 8, shows that
\nwhen he\t saw him at 1 a.m. the condition of the deceased was
\nvery bad. P-6 was recorded, it may be noted at 1.25 a.m.
\nIt would  also be seen that the condition of Soundarapandian
\nat that\t time was such that his thumb impression and not his
\nsignature could\t be taken  on Ex.P.6.  The reason  for\tless
\nparticulars in\tP-6 was quite obvious but yet the High Court
\ncompletely missed  it because  of its  wrong approach. There
\nwas  no\t reason\t whatsoever  to\t doubt\tthe  genuineness  of
\nExihibit P-1 or P-6. The High Court thought that P.W.3 might
\nhave met  the deceased\tin the\tTuticorin hospital at 1 a.m.
\nand induced  him to  implicate the  first accused.  This was
\nnothing but  speculation. As  we mentioned  the condition of
\nthe deceased  was very\tbad at\t1 a.m. and it is too much to
\nthink that  anybody would  have been  allowed to go near the
\ndeceased in  the critical  condition in\t which he was in the
\nhospital and to tutor him to implicate someone falsely.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence of three of the eye witnesses namely P.Ws.
\n1, 2  and 5  was dealt\twith by\t the High  Court in  a\tmost
\nsummary and perunctory way. It was said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tname   of  this\t  witness  (P.W.1)  was\t not
\n     mentioned by  the deceased\t in  Exh.P-6.  It  has\tbeen
\n     elicited from this witness that there was bitter enmity
\n     between him and the family of the accused. This witness
\n     was appointed by the deceased as a clerk in Arumuganeri
\n     Cooperative Stores and in the Panchayat election, P.W.1
\n     proposed the  name of  the person who stood against the
\n     father of Accused 1 and 2. He was a prosecution witness
\n     in a  criminal case  instituted against  the father  of
\n     Accused 1 and 2. This witness is not only interested in
\n     the deceased as he was employed under the deceased as a
\n     clerk but\talso inimically\t disposed towards the family
\n     of the  accused. It  will, therefore, be unsafe to rely
\n     upon his evidence. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased
\n     and P.W.5\tis the\tbrother-in-law of the deceased. They
\n     are very  much interested in the deceased and they were
\n     also inimically  disposed towards the accused. They are
\n     not telling  the truth.  They have\t not explained as to
\n     how Ramalingam  sustained the  injury. They have fallen
\n     in\t line\twith  the   statements\tmade  in  the  dying
\n     declaration. We do not accept their evidence”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
493<\/span><\/p>\n
     The  reasons   given  were\t  that\tthe  witnesses\twere
\ninterested and\tthat they had not explained the injury found
\non the\tperson of  Ramalingam. In  the case  of P.W.1 it was
\nalso stated  that his name was not mentioned in Exhibit P-6.
\nWe do  not think  that the criticism of the High Court bears
\nany scrutiny. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and
\n5 and  we are unable to discard their testimony for the sole
\nreason that  they are  interested witnesses.  With regard to
\nP.W.3 however,\tthere is  scope for  much  criticism  having
\nregard to  his conduct subsequent to the incident. According
\nto his\tevidence after\the chased the accused he stopped for
\nabout an  hour near  the forest\t and returned to the village
\nthereafter. While  he was on his was back he saw his uncle’s
\njeep  on   the\troad   and  learnt   from  his\t uncle\tthat
\nSoundarapandian had been taken to the hospital at Tuticorin.
\nTherefore, he  went to\tTuticorin and saw his brother in the
\nhospital at about 1 a.m. Thereafter he went to a hotel where
\nhe slept  for the  night. Next\tmorning without going to the
\nhospital to  find  out\tthe  condition\tof  his\t brother  he
\nreturned to  the village  and made  himself available to the
\npolice for  questioning at  about 1 p.m. Though there cannot
\nbe any doubt that he witnessed the occurrence his subsequent
\nconduct\t does  not  inspire  such  confidence  as  to  place
\nimplicit reliance on his evidence. We, therefore, agree with
\nthe High Court that P.W.3 was not a reliable witness.\n<\/p>\n
     In our view the two dying declarations Exhibits P-1 and
\nP-6 may\t be relied  upon without  any  reservation  and\t the
\nevidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 may also be safely accepted. We
\nhave considered\t the reasons  given by\tthe High  Court\t for
\nacquitting  the\t first\taccused\t and  we  find\tthem  wholly
\nunsatisfactory. In the light of the principled set out by us
\nearlier we  think that\tthe interests of justice demand that
\nwe should  interfere with  the order  of  acquittal  in\t the
\npresent case.  Accordingly, we\tallow the  appeal, set aside
\nthe judgment  of the  High Court and restore the judgment of
\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge
\nof Tirunelveli against the respondent (first accused) on the
\ncharge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n494<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1284, 1979 SCR (3) 482 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: ARUNACHALAM Vs. RESPONDENT: P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/03\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nArunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - 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\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-06T00:07:31+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T00:07:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\"},\"wordCount\":4199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\",\"name\":\"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T00:07:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - 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\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-06T00:07:31+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979","datePublished":"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T00:07:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979"},"wordCount":4199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979","name":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T00:07:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-p-s-r-sadhanantham-on-6-march-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham on 6 March, 1979"}]},{"@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\/128692","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=128692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}