{"id":134131,"date":"2010-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-29T21:27:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-29T15:57:06","slug":"pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 15\/7\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.347 of 2009\n\nPitchandi\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nvs\n\nState rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police\nVijayanarayanam Police Station\nCr.No.76 of 2007\nTirunelveli District\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,\nmade in S.C.No.144 of 2008 dated 23.10.2009.\n\n!For Appellant\t ...  Mr.V.Kathirvelu\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan\n\t\t      Additional Public\n\t\t      Prosecutor\n\n\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 I Additional Sessions Division,
\nTirunelveli, made in S.C.No.144 of 2008 whereby the appellant shown as A-1, who
\nstood charged along with two others ranked as A-2 and A-3, was found guilty and
\nawarded punishment as follows:\n<\/p>\n
ACCUSED      CHARGES        FINDING              PUNISHMENT\n\nA-1 to A-3   447 IPC       A-1 guilty          A-1 - 3 months SI\n                        A-2 & A-3 not guilty   A-2 & A-3 acquitted\n\n\nA-1          302 IPC       Guilty             Life imprisonment along with a\n                                             fine of Rs.1000\/- and default\n                                             sentence\nA-2 & A-3  302 r\/w 35 IPC Not guilty                  Acquitted\n\nA-1 to A-3  506(ii) IPC   Not guilty                  Acquitted\n\n<\/pre>\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 a native of Andalkulam near Vijayanarayanam within the
\njurisdiction of the respondent police.  A-2 and A-3 are the associates of  A-1.
\nP.W.1 is the son of the deceased Ramasubbu.  The sister of the appellant was
\ngiven in marriage to the brother-in-law of the deceased.  On 20.5.2007, P.W.1
\nand his father, the deceased, went to the field for irrigating the paddy crops.
\nAt that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 were also available.  At about 2.45 P.M., A-1 armed
\nwith aruval and A-2 and A-3 armed with sticks, came there, and A-1 attacked the
\ndeceased on the head and hand causing injuries to the fingers.  A-2 and A-3
\nattacked him on different parts of the body.  This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3.
\nImmediately, they left the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) P.W.1 took the severely injured to the Government Hospital where he
\nwas declared dead.  On intimation from the hospital, P.W.13, the Sub Inspector
\nof Police, attached to the respondent police station, proceeded to the hospital,
\nrecorded the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.P1, returned to the Station and
\nregistered a case in Crime No.76 of 2007 under Sections 447, 294(b), 302 and
\n506(2) of IPC.  The printed FIR, Ex.P17, was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police of
\nthat Circle, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an
\nobservation mahazar, Ex.P18, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P19. The sample earth,
\nbloodstained earth and other material objects were recovered from the place of
\noccurrence. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of Ramasubbu in the
\npresence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P20.
\nThe statements of the witnesses were also recorded as required by law. A
\nrequisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) P.W.9, the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department,
\nTirunelveli Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted
\nautopsy on the dead body of Ramasubbu and has noted the following injuries:
\n“(1) 6 x 1 cm x bone deep horizontal cut injury seen on the mid frontal region.
\nIt is seen 13 cm from the root of nose and 15 cm away from the upper part of
\nleft external ear.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep vertical cut injury seen on the right parietal region.
\nIt is seen 13 cm away from the right external ear and 19 cm above occipital
\nprotuberance.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep cut injury seen on the lower part of right leg.  It is
\nseen 10 cm above and away from the right ankle inner aspect.
\n(4) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep cut injury seen on the web space of right 3rd and 4th
\nfinger.  Underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones cut at site.
\n(5) Right forearm and wrist contused over an area of 19 x 10 cm x 1 cm.
\n(6) 13 x 8 x 1 cm contusion seen on the upper part of outer aspect of right arm.
\n(7) 23 x 13 x 2 cm contusion seen on the outer aspect of upper half of left arm.
\n(8) 38 x 20 x 2 cm contusion seen on the upper part of entire left back.
\n(9) 23 x 15 x 2 cm contusion seen on the upper part of entire right back.
\n(10) 4 x 1 cm abrasion seen on the back of middle of right forearm.
\n(11) 4 x 5 cm abrasion seen on the back of middle of forearm.
\n(12) 16 x 10 x 2 cm contusion seen on the entity left elbow, lower part of left
\narm and upper part of left forearm.\n<\/p>\n
(13) 3 x 5 cm abrasion seen on the outer aspect of lower part of left arm.
\nOn dissection of scalp: 14 x 10 cm sub scalpal bruising seen on the mid frontal,
\nbi-parietal and occipital region.  Right temporal is bruised.”
\nThe Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, wherein he has opined
\nthat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to
\nblunt injury to upper limbs and back.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) The further investigation was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of
\nPolice.  Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-1
\nsurrendered before the Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Theni.  Then he filed an
\napplication for police custody which was ordered, and A-1 was taken to police
\ncustody, during which he came forward to give a confessional statement
\nvoluntarily.  The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.  The
\nadmissible part is marked as Ex.P5.  Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1,
\naruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P21. A-2 also
\nsurrendered before the Court, and police custody was sought for.  The same was
\nordered.  A-2 was taken to police custody, and at the time of interrogation, he
\ngave a confessional statement voluntarily.  The same was recorded.  Ex.P11 is
\nthe admissible part of the confession of A-2.  He produced a motorcycle, M.O.9,
\nwhich was recovered under a cover of mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) All the material objects including M.O.1, aruval, were subjected to
\nchemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition given by
\nthe Investigator through the concerned Judicial Magistrate’s Court, which
\nbrought forth two reports namely Ex.P15, the chemical analyst’s report, and
\nEx.P16, the serologist’s report.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.  He
\nexamined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of
\ninvestigation, the Investigator filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were
\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16
\nwitnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and 9 material objects.  On completion
\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned
\nunder Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.  One
\nwitness was examined and one document was marked on their side.  The trial Court
\nheard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the
\nprosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the
\nappellant\/A-1 and hence found him guilty under Sections 447 and 302 of IPC and
\nawarded punishment as referred to above.  So far as the other charge is
\nconcerned, A-1 was acquitted of the same.  As regards A-2 and a-3, they are
\nacquitted by the trial Judge of all the charges. Under the circumstances, this
\nappeal has arisen at the instance of A-1 before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel
\nMr.V.Kathirvelu would submit that the occurrence, according to the prosecution,
\nhas taken place at about 2.45 P.M. on 20.5.2007; that according to P.Ws.1 to 3,
\nall the three accused have participated in the crime; but, the trial Judge was
\nnot ready to believe the evidence put forth by P.Ws.1 to 3 and acquitted A-2 and
\nA-3; that the postmortem Doctor has given a certificate to the effect that the
\ndeath was actually caused due to the injuries sustained on the back and upper
\nlimbs and also due to the shock and haemorrhage; that it would be quite clear
\nthat the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased, were actually
\ncaused by A-2 and A-3; but the trial Judge has not believed the evidence of
\nP.Ws.1 to 3 and acquitted them; that under the circumstances, the same reasons
\nwould be applicable to A-1, the appellant herein, also and hence he should have
\nbeen acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned Counsel would further add that the prosecution came forward
\nwith a motive attributed to   A-1, which was actually unreliable; that it is an
\nadmitted position that the sister of A-1 was given in marriage to the brother-
\nin-law of the deceased, and they were living apart; that according to the
\nprosecution, arrangements were being made for his second marriage, and apart
\nfrom that, the deceased was also making some attempts to sell the property at
\nMadras which belonged to the brother-in-law, and thus he was aggrieved; but no
\nevidence was forthcoming in that regard; that the occurrence has taken place at
\nabout 2.45 P.M.; that according to the prosecution case, A-1 caused two injuries
\non the head, and A-2 and A-3 attacked him with sticks on different parts of the
\nbody; that P.W.2 has deposed that he was available at the spot, and thereafter,
\nhe went to the nearby village, took a taxi, returned to the scene of occurrence
\nat about 4.45 P.M. and took the deceased to the Government Hospital,
\nPalayamkottai, where he was examined by the Doctor at about 6.20 P.M. and was
\ndeclared dead; that it would be quite clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been
\nin the place of occurrence at all; that according to P.W.1, they took food in
\nthe house before they started at 1.00 P.M.; that P.W.9, the Doctor, who
\nconducted postmortem, has categorically stated that the liquid food was found in
\nthe stomach of the deceased, and half an hour or one hour prior to the autopsy,
\nhe should have taken food; that if to be so, the occurrence could not have taken
\nplace at 2.45 P.M. as put forth by the prosecution; that it should have taken
\nplace at a different time, and thus it cannot be believed.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Added further the learned Counsel that even assuming that the
\nprosecution has proved the factual position that A-1 attacked him with the
\naruval on the head, the act of A-1 would not attract the penal provision of
\nmurder, and at best, it would attract the penal provision of Sec.326 of IPC for
\ncausing grievous hurt; that according to the Doctor, P.W.9, cut injuries were
\nfound on the head; but the injuries that were actually sustained on the back and
\nalso the upper limbs were responsible for causing death, and if to be so, the
\nact of A-1 did not lead to the death of the deceased; and that under the
\ncircumstances, the Court has to consider that the act of A-1 would not attract
\nthe penal provision of murder.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.In the further line of arguments, the learned Counsel would submit that
\nin the case on hand, according to the prosecution, the sister of A-1 was given
\nin marriage to the brother-in-law of the deceased, and they were living apart;
\nthat the accused felt that the deceased was responsible for the same; that apart
\nfrom that, the brother-in-law of the deceased owned an immovable property at
\nMadras, and the deceased was making arrangements for sale of that property, and
\nif sold, the sister of A-1 would be without any means to follow; that under the
\ncircumstances, he was really aggrieved; that being provoked by the said
\ncircumstances, he has acted so, and thus the act of A-1 would not attract the
\npenal provision of murder, and this has got to be considered by the Court.\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 the father of P.W.1 by name Ramasubbu, was
\nseverely injured in an incident that had taken place on 20.5.2007 at about 2.45
\nP.M. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, in a
\ntaxi, and the Doctor on medical examination, declared him dead.  The fact that
\nthe death was due to homicidal violence as put forth by the prosecution was
\nnever disputed by the appellant.  In order to substantiate the said fact, the
\nprosecution has examined the postmortem Doctor as P.W.9 apart from marking the
\npostmortem certificate as Ex.P12 to that effect.  All would clearly indicate
\nthat the prosecution was successful enough in proving the fact that he died out
\nof homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In order to substantiate that it was the appellant\/A-1 who attacked him
\nwith an aruval at the time of occurrence, and two other accused also attacked
\nhim with sticks, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses who
\nare P.Ws.1 to 3.  The trial Judge was not ready to believe the evidence of these
\nwitnesses in respect of the accusation made against A-2 and A-3 since there were
\nlot of discrepancies on the material particulars.  But, the trial Judge has
\ntaken a view that the prosecution has proved the charges under Sec.447 and 302
\nof IPC as far as A-1 is concerned.  According to P.Ws.1 to 3, at the time of
\noccurrence, they were with the deceased in the field, and A-1 came there along
\nwith others with an aruval and attacked him on the head, and he sustained
\ninjuries. When the postmortem certificate is looked into, the corresponding
\ninjuries are found on the skull of the deceased.  Further, the ocular testimony
\nof these witnesses stood fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed.
\nYet another circumstance which was against the appellant\/A-1 was the recovery of
\nthe weapon of crime, namely aruval, from A-1 on his confession in the presence
\nof P.W.7. P.W.7 despite cross-examination, has stood the test, and thus his
\nevidence was available for the prosecution.  From all these evidence put forth
\nby the prosecution before the trial Court, it would be quite evident that A-1
\nattacked the deceased with the aruval on the head and caused injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Now the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant
\nrelying on the medical opinion canvassed through the postmortem Doctor and the
\ncertificate, that the injury that was caused by A-1 did not lead to the death
\ncannot be accepted for the simple reason that even the postmortem certificate
\nreads “the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to
\nblunt injury to upper limbs and back.” According to the prosecution, A-1 caused
\ninjuries on the head and also on the hand, and corresponding injuries are also
\nnoticed in the postmortem certificate.  The injuries that have been caused on
\nthe limbs and back which were attributed to A-2 and A-3, did not make any
\nbleeding.  On the contrary, as regards the injuries that were caused by A-1 on
\nthe head and also on the hand fingers, cut injuries are noticed, and bleeding
\nwas available, and it could have caused death.  The Doctor has given his opinion
\nthat he died out of shock and haemorrhage also. Under the circumstances, the
\ncontention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the injuries
\ncaused by A-1, could not have caused death cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The next contention put forth by the learned Counsel that the appellant
\nhad got sufficient provocation to act so cannot also be accepted for the reason
\nthat it is an admitted position that the sister of A-1 was given in marriage to
\nthe brother-in-law of the deceased, and actually they have got separated and
\nwere living apart.  A-1 came to know, according to the Counsel, that the
\narrangements for the second marriage were actually going on for the brother-in-
\nlaw of the deceased, and such arrangements were actually made by the deceased.
\nIf to be so, there were so many ways possible to bring his brother-in-law to
\norder, and this was not the way what was expected of by the appellant\/ A-1.
\nApart from that, according to the learned Counsel, the deceased was making
\narrangements to sell the property of his brother-in-law situated at Chennai, and
\nif done, the sister of the appellant\/A-1 would be deserted without any means to
\nfollow, and under the circumstances, he was actually provoked.  This Court is of
\nthe view that the same cannot be taken as provocation, much less sudden
\nprovocation to do such an act.  Therefore, that contention also cannot be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.After looking into the evidence available, this Court is of the
\nconsidered opinion that according to the prosecution, A-1 to A-3 have
\ncontributed, and they have all attacked. Viewing the case of the prosecution
\nfrom the medical opinion canvassed, this Court is of the considered opinion that
\nthe act of appellant\/A-1 cannot be said to be one of murder, but it would fall
\nunder Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and awarding a punishment of 7 years Rigorous
\nImprisonment would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed
\nby the trial Court on the appellant\/A-1, under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside, and
\ninstead he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and is directed to undergo
\nseven years Rigorous Imprisonment.  The sentence already undergone by him, shall
\nbe given set off.  The fine amount imposed by the trial Court, will hold good.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on A-1, under
\nSec.447 of IPC are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In the result, this criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
nsv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge
\n  Tirunelveli\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n  Vijayanarayanam Police Station
\n  Cr.No.76 of 2007
\n  Tirunelveli District\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n  Madurai\n<\/p>\n
4.The Section Officer
\n  Criminal Section<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15\/7\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY CRL.A.(MD) No.347 of 2009 Pitchandi .. Appellant vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police Vijayanarayanam Police Station Cr.No.76 of 2007 Tirunelveli District .. […]<\/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-134131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 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\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-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=\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-29T15:57:06+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\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T15:57:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2888,\"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\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T15:57:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 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":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 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\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-29T15:57:06+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\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T15:57:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010"},"wordCount":2888,"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\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010","name":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T15:57:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pitchandi-vs-tirunelveli-district-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pitchandi vs Tirunelveli District on 15 July, 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\/134131","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=134131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}