{"id":132122,"date":"2010-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-10T16:43:51","modified_gmt":"2014-05-10T11:13:51","slug":"saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 4\/8\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.162 of 2010\n\nSaravanan\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nThe State\nRep. by the Inspector of Police\nBodi Town Police Station\nTheni District\nin Cr.No.179 of 2007\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\nCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast\nTrack Court, Periyakulam, made in S.C.No.86 of 2007 dated 25.6.2008.\n\n!For Appellant   ...  Mr.A.Haja Mohideen\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.N.Senthur Pandian\n\t\t      Additional Public\n\t\t      Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division,
\nFast Track Court, Periyakulam, made in S.C.No.86 of 2007 whereby the sole
\naccused\/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per
\nthe charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of
\nRs.5000\/- and default sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Balamurugan.  One Muneeswari is the
\nbrother’s wife of the deceased.  The accused\/appellant is the brother of the
\nsaid Muneeswari.  The family of the deceased owned a house at Subbukothanar
\nStreet in which Muneeswari was residing.  P.W.1 and her husband were residing at
\nBuddharpalli Street.  Two years prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy
\naltercation between the deceased and Muneeswari in their ancestral house.  On
\nseeing this, the accused\/appellant objected to that.  The deceased, the husband
\nof P.W.1, questioned the conduct of the accused.  Immediately, the accused took
\nan aruval and attacked him.  The matter was reported to P.W.5, who was the
\nSecretary of the Community Sangam.  The community people in their meeting
\ninformed the accused that he should not enter the street and pacified the
\nsituation. Despite the decision, the accused was often coming to the ancestral
\nhouse.  The same was questioned by the deceased.  P.W.3, the father of P.W.1,
\nbrought his daughter to the house of P.W.1.  Since they did not have the
\nsufficient accommodation, they went to the ancestral house.  At that time, there
\nwas a wordy altercation between the deceased and the said Muneeswari, and one
\nwas telling the other that they should vacate the house.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) On 19.3.2007 at about 10’O Clock, the deceased informed Muneeswari
\nthat they would occupy the ancestral house and would not vacate.  Aggrieved over
\nthe same, Muneeswari went to the police station and gave a report.  On coming to
\nknow about the same, at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased questioned Muneeswari why
\nshe should go to the police station to give a complaint for nothing.  At that
\ntime, the deceased and Muneeswari were quarrelling. The accused who came there,
\nasked his sister Muneeswari about the quarrel.  Then uttering the words “he
\nshould not be allowed to do like this”, the accused went outside with anguish.
\nThe deceased shouted at Muneeswari and came out of the house and was just
\nproceeding in the street. P.Ws.1 and 2 also came out.  At that time, the accused
\nwho was standing with an aruval, repeatedly attacked him on his neck.  The same
\nwas witnessed not only by P.Ws.1 and 2, but also by P.Ws.3 and 4.  When there
\nwas a distressing cry, he left the place of occurrence.  The husband of P.W.1
\ndied at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a report,
\nEx.P1, at 23.45 hours to P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police.  On the strength
\nof Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.179 of 2007 under
\nSec.302 of IPC.  The printed FIR, Ex.P15, was despatched to the Court, and it
\nhas reached the Judicial Magistrate at about 1.30 A.M. on 20.3.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy
\nof the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and
\nprepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P16.  He
\nalso recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.  Then he
\nconducted inquest on the dead body of Balamurugan in the presence of witnesses
\nand panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P17.  Thereafter, the dead
\nbody was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) P.W.9, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,
\nBodinayakanur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead
\nbody of Balamurugan and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P5, with her
\nopinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due
\nto external injury No.1 and 2 and its corresponding internal injuries 12 to 16
\nhours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 20.3.2007, when he
\ncame forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded
\nin the presence of witnesses.  Ex.P18 is the admissible part of the confessional
\nstatement.  Consequent upon the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, M.O.6, nylon
\nbag, and M.O.7, jute rope, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.  He
\nwas sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to
\nchemical analysis which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P11, the chemical
\nanalyst’s report, and Ex.P12, the serologist’s report.  On completion of
\ninvestigation, 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 examined 16
\nwitnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 13 material objects.  On completion
\nof the 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 witness
\nwas examined.  The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and
\ntook the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
\nand hence found him guilty and awarded the above punishment.  Hence this appeal
\nat the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant the learned Counsel in
\nhis sincere attempt of assailing the judgment of the trial Court, would submit
\nthat the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place at about
\n11.30 P.M. on 19.3.2007, and P.Ws.1 to 4 were shown as occurrence witnesses;
\nthat the names of P.Ws.3 and 4 are not found in Ex.P1, the report; that under
\nthe circumstances, they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that all the
\nwitnesses examined are closely related to the deceased, and thus they are all
\ninterested witnesses; that insofar as the earlier incident of quarrel between
\nMuneeswari, the sister of the accused, and the deceased in the past, no one has
\ndeposed, and this motive attributed to the accused was not at all established;
\nthat according to the prosecution, so many witnesses were actually present at
\nthe place of occurrence, but no one has been examined; that P.Ws.1 and 2 could
\nnot have been in the place of occurrence at all; that according to P.W.2, the
\ndeceased was in the police station till 9.30 P.M., and he returned home, and
\nthey all had food and went to the place of the ancestral house only at about
\n11.30 P.M.; that P.W.9, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has categorically
\nstated that 100 gms of partly digested cooked food material was found in the
\nstomach, and it would take 4 to 6 hours for semi-digestion; and that if to be
\nso, the occurrence could not have taken place as put forth by P.Ws.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned Counsel would further add that according to P.Ws.1 and 2,
\nthey lifted the body, and their clothes were completely drenched with blood;
\nbut, those material objects were actually not recovered from them; that
\naccording to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 11.30 P.M., and
\nsubsequently the case was registered at 11.45 P.M., and the FIR has reached the
\nJudicial Magistrate at 1.30 A.M. the next day; but P.W.11, the Photographer, has
\ncategorically stated that he went to the place of occurrence and took the
\nphotographs at about 12.00 A.M. night, and therefore, it would be quite
\nimpossible; that the time what was given was actually false; that P.W.6 was
\nshown as a witness to Ex.P1, the complaint; that he has categorically admitted
\nthat he signed Ex.P1 at the place of occurrence; that contrarily, it is stated
\nby P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, that Ex.P1 complaint was given at the
\npolice station, and then the case was registered; that it is highly doubtful
\nwhether Ex.P1 could have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution;
\nthat P.W.1 has categorically stated in evidence that the occurrence has taken
\nplace near Sandhanamariamman Temple; but, the said Sandhanamariamman Temple is
\nnot found in the sketch; that under the circumstances, the place of occurrence
\nas shown by the prosecution is also doubtful; and that it would also indicate
\nthat P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Added further the learned Counsel that Ex.P5, the postmortem
\ncertificate, would indicate that six injuries are found; that out of these six
\ninjuries, four are found to be cut injuries, and the other two are not found in
\nthe neck; that one was noted on the right fronto parietal region of scalp and
\nthe other was noted on dorsum of left lower hand near wrist joint, but P.W.1 has
\nnot stated so in Ex.P1, the report, or not stated even at the time of evidence;
\nthat those injuries which are found on the body of the deceased, were not
\nproperly accounted, and thus the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the Investigator
\nwould claim that he was arrested on 20.3.2007, when he came forward to give a
\nconfessional statement pursuant to which M.O.1, aruval, M.O.6, nylon bag, and
\nM.O.7, jute rope, were recovered from him; but contrarily, P.W.2 has stated that
\nthe accused was found in the police station on the very night itself; that P.W.3
\nhas categorically stated that the accused was caught red handed and handed over
\nto police; that under the circumstances, the evidence in respect of arrest and
\nconfession and the evidence of P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, are found to
\nbe discrepant; that in such circumstances, the arrest, confession and recovery
\ncannot but be false, and hence he is entitled for acquittal giving the benefit
\nof doubt; but, the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the
\nabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.It is not in controversy that one Balamurugan, the husband of P.W.1, was
\ndone to death in an incident that had taken place at about 11.30 P.M. on
\n19.3.2007.  Following the registration of the case, the investigation was taken
\nup by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, and after the inquest was over, the dead
\nbody was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem.  P.W.9,
\nthe Doctor, who conducted autopsy, has given a report that he died out of shock
\nand haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him.  The fact that he died out
\nof homicidal violence was not disputed by the appellant, and hence it has got to
\nbe recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked him with
\nan aruval and caused his death, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4.  It is
\ntrue that P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased.  It is
\nsettled law that merely because of the relationship of the parties with the
\ndeceased, their evidence cannot be discarded, but before acceptance, careful
\nscrutiny test must be applied.  In the case on hand, this Court is satisfied
\nthat their evidence is natural and cogent, and hence it has got to be accepted.
\nAll these witnesses have spoken in one voice that they owned an ancestral house
\nin which Muneeswari, the sister of the accused, was staying; that they were
\nactually staying in another house at Buddharpalli Street; that on the previous
\nday, there was a quarrel and also on so many occasions, there were quarrels
\nbetween the deceased and Muneeswari, the brother’s wife of the deceased; that on
\nthe earlier occasion also, the accused attacked the deceased; that the same was
\npacified by the intervention of the community people; that also on the date of
\noccurrence on the morning hours, there was a wordy altercation between the
\ndeceased and Muneeswari; that Muneeswari went to the Police Station to give a
\ncomplaint; that on that night at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased questioned
\nMuneeswari why she should go to the police station to give a complaint; that at
\nthat time, the accused came there and also witnessed the said quarrel, and
\nfollowing the same, when the deceased came out of the house, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
\nalso just coming out along with him; and that at that time, the accused who was
\nstanding with an aruval, attacked him indiscriminately on his neck and caused
\nhis death.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 stood fully corroborated by the medical
\nevidence canvassed through P.W.9.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that
\nsix injuries as found in the postmortem certificate, are not accounted by P.Ws.1
\nand 2 cannot be accepted.  P.W.1 is the wife, and P.W.2 is the daughter of the
\ndeceased. They have categorically stated that he gave number of cuts on the
\nneck.  According to the Counsel, four injuries are noticed on the neck and the
\nother two injuries are not accounted for.  But, in a given situation like this,
\nwhen P.Ws.1 and 2 are under the grip of excitement, one could not expect them to
\nnotice the number or the seat of the injuries.  It is true that in the instant
\ncase, the occurrence has taken place at about 11.30 P.M., and the complaint was
\ngiven at about 11.45 P.M.  Immediately the case has been registered, and the FIR
\nhas reached the Judicial Magistrate at about 1.30 A.M.  It remains to be stated
\nthat the motive and the previous incident which led the accused to do so, and
\nthe fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 are shown as eyewitnesses, and the case has been
\nregistered within a short span of 15 minutes, and the FIR has also reached the
\nMagistrate within an hour and 45 minutes and the necessary proof therefor, would
\nclearly indicate that P.Ws.1 and 2 could have been the eyewitnesses to the
\noccurrence.  But, at the same time, as rightly pointed out by the learned
\nCounsel, P.Ws.3 and 4 could not have been present at the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The other contention put forth that P.W.11, the Photographer, came to
\nthe place of occurrence at about 12.00 A.M. itself, and he took photographs and
\ntherefore, the evidence of the eyewitnesses should not be believed cannot be
\naccepted. It should not be forgotten that P.W.11 was called during night hours,
\nand he went to the place, and there is no note prepared by P.W.11 from which he
\ncould speak.  It could not have been except by a memory, for which no importance
\ncould be given.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the
\nCourt certain discrepancies. As far as the FIR is concerned, P.W.1 who is the
\nauthor of the report, Ex.P1, and also P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, who
\nregistered the case, have been examined. Thus, it leaves no doubt in the mind of
\nthe Court as to the registration of the case.  Apart from that, it has also
\nreached the Judicial Magistrate at about 1.30 A.M. as could be seen from the
\noriginal FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.This Court is able to see force in the contention put forth by the
\nlearned Counsel for the appellant in respect of the arrest, confession and
\nrecovery of M.O.1, aruval, and other material objects from the accused in view
\nof the evidence adduced by P.W.2 that the accused was taken to the police
\nstation on the very night itself immediately after the occurrence.  It would be
\nquite clear that the claim of the Investigator that he was arrested later, and
\nalso he gave a confessional statement, and the consequent recovery cannot but be
\nfalse, and they have got to be rejected.  Even barring that evidence, the
\nprosecution had suffice evidence of the occurrence witnesses namely P.Ws.1 and
\n2, and also it is corroborated by the medical evidence.  Thus it can be well
\nstated that by sufficient evidence, the prosecution has proved that it was the
\nappellant\/accused who attacked the deceased at the time and place of occurrence
\nand caused his death.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.As far as the nature of the act of the accused is concerned, this Court
\nis of the considered opinion that the same would not attract the penal provision
\nof murder.  In the case on hand, as could be seen from the available evidence,
\nMuneeswari was living alone in the ancestral house, and P.W.1 and the deceased
\nwere living with the family in Buddharpalli Street.  On the earlier occasion,
\nthe deceased was quarrelling with Muneeswari, a womenfolk, and on the date of
\noccurrence also, on the morning hours, he quarrelled with her which impelled her
\nto go to the police station to lodge a complaint, and despite the fact, he
\ncontinued to quarrel with her during night hours at about 10.00 P.M. This was
\nwitnessed by the accused, who is none else than the brother of the said
\nMuneeswari, and he who could not tolerate the same, has acted so.  At that time,
\nhe has also questioned about the conduct of the deceased in quarrelling with a
\nwomenfolk.  Under the circumstances, the act of the accused cannot but be one
\ndue to sudden provocation, and it was neither intentional nor premeditated.
\nHence the act of the accused would fall under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC, and
\nawarding a punishment of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends
\nof justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, on
\nthe appellant\/accused under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and instead, he is
\nconvicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and is directed to suffer seven years
\nRigorous Imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by him, shall be given set
\noff.  The fine amount and default sentence imposed by the trial Court, will hold
\ngood.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In the result, this criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
nsv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District and
\n\tSessions Judge
\n  Fast Track Court
\n  Periyakulam\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n  Bodi Town Police Station
\n  Theni District
\n  in Cr.No.179 of 2007\n<\/p>\n
3.The Section Officer
\n  Criminal Section\n<\/p>\n
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n  Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 4\/8\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY CRL.A.(MD) No.162 of 2010 Saravanan .. Appellant vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Bodi Town Police Station Theni District in Cr.No.179 […]<\/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-132122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSaravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - 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\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-10T11:13:51+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-10T11:13:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3103,\"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\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-10T11:13:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - 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\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-10T11:13:51+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-10T11:13:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010"},"wordCount":3103,"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\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010","name":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-10T11:13:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-the-state-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saravanan vs The State on 4 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/132122","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=132122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}