{"id":136752,"date":"2010-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"modified":"2014-11-21T05:40:57","modified_gmt":"2014-11-21T00:10:57","slug":"muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 30\/06\/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.362 of 2009\n\nMuthu alias Muthupandi,\t\t\t...Appellant\/\nS\/o.Ramasamy Thevar.\t\t\t\tSole Accused\n\n\nvs\n\nThe State, rep.by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nKadayanallur Police Station,\n(Crime No.480\/2007)\t\nTirunelveli District.\t\t\t\t...Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   Complainant\n\n\n  Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against\nthe judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.206\/2008  on the file\nof the learned  I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District, dated\n21.10.2009.\n\n!For Appellant\t ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu\n^For Respondent\t ... Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan,\n\t\t     Addl.Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n
\t\tChallenge is made to the judgment of the I-Additional Sessions
\nDivision, Tiurnelveli District, dated 21.10.2009, made in S.C.No.206\/2008,
\nwhereby the appellant\/sole accused stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried
\nand found guilty thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also
\nto pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
\nyear.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can
\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a)P.W.1 Maheswari is the mother of the deceased infant, aged
\n4-1\/2 months and the accused\/appellant is the father of the infant.  P.W.2
\nSankara Pandian is the own brother of P.W.1.  P.W.1 was given in marriage to the
\nappellant\/accused 1-1\/2 years prior to the occurrence i.e. on 16.10.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b)After the marriage, P.W.1 was living in her  husband’s
\nhouse  which is also situated in the same<\/p>\n
street.  P.W.1 came to her parental house for 1st delivery and the said child
\nwas born.  Thereafter, the appellant\/accused never cared to see either the child
\nor his wife.  On his being scolded by his father, the accused visited P.W.1 and
\nalso the child and informed to P.W.1 that the time of the birth of the child was
\nnot alright rather not favourable to him and because of that he could not go to
\nforeign country.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c)On 16.10.2007, the accused came to the house of his father-
\nin-law, met P.W.1, took the baby on his hand and was playing with the baby
\nnicely and P.W.1 was very happy on seeing the same.  After some time, the
\naccused took the baby to his house.  Since the accused did not bring back the
\nchild to P.W.1, P.W.1, accompanied by her brother P.w.2, went to the house of
\nthe accused and at that time they saw the accused actually pressing the nose and
\nmouth of the child with his hand and on seeing P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused
\nabandoned the child there and ran away.  P.W.1 found the child unconscious and
\ntook the child to hospital where they reported that the child was brought dead.
\nThereafter, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent Police Station and gave a complaint,
\nmarked as Ex.P-1, to P.W.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police.  P.W.6, based on Ex.P-1
\ncomplaint, registered a case in Crime No.480\/2007 under Section 302 IPC and
\nprepared Ex.P-4, the First Information Report, despatched the same to the Court
\nP.W.7, the Head Constable, and also the copies to the higher police officials
\nfor further action.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(d)On receipt of a copy of Ex.P-4 FIR, P.W.12, the Inspector
\nof Police, took up the investigation and rushed to the residence of P.W.1 where
\nthe body of the child was kept.  He made an observation of the scene place, in
\nthe presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P-10, the  observation mahazar and
\nalso drew Ex.P-11, the  rough sketch.  He conducted inquest on the body of the
\ndeceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-12,
\nthe Inquest Report and sent the same to the Court through P.W.8, the Head
\nConstable.  P.W.12 also made an observation of the surrounding areas of the
\nscene place and prepared    Ex.P-13, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-14, the
\nrough sketch.  He enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements.
\nThereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem through P.W.9, the
\nHead Constable, with Ex.P-7, the requisition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(e)P.W.10, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital at
\nKadayanallur, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased  at 03.00 p.m. on
\n16.10.2007.  On completion of postmortem, P.W.10 issued Ex.P-8, the postmortem
\ncertificate, reserving her opinion as to the cause of death pending chemical
\nanalysis report.  On receipt of Ex.P-9, the Chemical Examiner’s Report, P.W.10,
\nthe Doctor, gave her final opinion that “death due to external forceful
\ncompression (may be by hand) of larynx.” After postmortem, P.W.9, the Head
\nConstable, recovered M.Os.4 and 5 from the body of the deceased and handed over
\nthe same to P.W.12, the Investigation Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(f)Pending investigation, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police,
\narrested the accused on 36.10.2007 at 06.30 p.m. in the presence witnesses and
\nrecorded the voluntary confessional statement given by him, pursuant to which
\nthe accused took and produced M.O.3, the Dollar, and the same was recovered by
\nP.W.12 under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by witnesses.  Thereafter, the accused was
\nsent to judicial custody.   P.W.12 completed the investigation and filed the
\nfinal report against the accused under Section 302 IPC on 20.02.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by
\nthe Sessions Court in S.C.No.206\/2008 and necessary charge was framed.  To prove
\nthe charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1
\nto 12 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17 and produced M.Os.1 to 5.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was
\nquestioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the
\nincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he
\ndenied all of them as false.  On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor
\ndocumentary evidence was let it. The trial court, after hearing the parties,
\ntook the view that the prosecution has proved the charge against accused beyond
\nreasonable doubt, found him guilty on the charge of murder, convicted him
\nthereunder and awarded life imprisonment and hence this appeal at the instance
\nof the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant\/accused, the
\nlearned counsel Mr.V.Kathirvelu would submit that in the instant case the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 should not be believed, since both of them are closely
\nrelated, not only inter se but also to the deceased child.  He would contend
\nthat according to the evidence of P.W.1, the accused did not visit her or the
\nchild in the past and therefore it is highly improbable to say that the
\nappellant\/accused, on the date of occurrence, took the child to his house and
\nfurther, according to P.W.1 and P.W.2, when they went to the house of accused
\nthey found the accused pressing the nose and mouth of the child but, the
\ninjuries noticed by P.W.10, the postmortem doctor and found mentioned in the
\npostmortem certificate would not have been caused by doing so and even the
\nexpert opinion canvassed by the prosecution through P.W.5, the District Police
\nSurgeon & Professor of Forensic Medicine, through Ex.P-3, was not in favour of
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.Added further the learned counsel,  Ex.P-4 FIR was
\nregistered at 10.00 a.m. and it has reached the court only at about 10.00 p.m.
\nand even the P.W.7, the constable, who took the same to the Court, has stated
\nbefore the Court that he handed over the FIR at Judicial Magistrate Court,
\nTenkasi, at 01.30 p.m. and thus there was huge delay in the FIR reaching the
\nCourt which remain unexplained and this inordinate delay clearly indicates that
\nthe case was actually foisted against the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.Added further the learned counsel, though the prosecution
\nclaims that the statement of eye-witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, were recorded
\non the very day of occurrence, i.e. 16.10.2007, those statements of witnesses
\nwere actually sent to the Court only on 20.02.2010, along with final report,
\nwhich would be clearly indicative of the fact that those statements said to have
\nbeen recorded by the prosecution on the very day of occurrence are nothing but
\nfalse and all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to
\nprove its case but, the trial court, since it was a case of infanticide, was
\ncarried away by the said fact and found the appellant\/accused guilty of murder
\nand in view of the same it is a fit case where the judgment of the trial court
\nhas got to be set aside in the hands of this Court and the appellant\/accuse has
\ngot to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on
\nall the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and paid its anxious
\nconsideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials
\non record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.It is not in controversy that the child of P.W.1 and the
\naccused, aged about 4-1\/2 months, was taken to hospital on 16.10.2007 and the
\ndoctor who examined the child declared her brought dead and pursuant to the
\nregistration of a case in Crime No.480\/2007 by P.W.6, the Sub-Inspector of
\nPolice, attached to the respondent police, the case was taken up for
\ninvestigation by the Inspector of Police P.w.12 and following the inquest report
\nprepared pursuant to the inquest made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem
\nby P.W.10, who has given her final opinion after receipt of chemical analysis
\nreport that “death due to external forceful compression (may be by hand) of
\nlarynx.” Thus, it is clear that the child of P.W.1 died out of homicidal
\nviolence and therefore the trial court was perfectly correct in recording so.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.In order to prove the charge of murder against the accused,
\nthe prosecution to its benefit had the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.  P.W.1 is the
\nwife of the appellant.  It is true that she is the mother of the deceased child
\nand P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1.  It is settled proposition of law that mere
\nrelationship of the witnesses with the deceased cannot be a reason to brush
\naside their evidence but, their evidence should be subjected to careful scrutiny
\nand at the same time, the court must look into the attending circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.In the instant case, P.W.1 is the wife the
\nappellant\/accused and their marriage has taken place just 1-1\/2 years prior to
\nthe occurrence. The child was born 4-1\/2 months prior to the date of occurrence.
\nIt is not the case of the appellant\/accused that P.W.1, his wife, has got any
\ngrudge or complaint against him and no circumstance or reason was brought to the
\nnotice of the court to cast any doubt on her evidence.  In the absence of any
\nsuch circumstance or reason, the court is unable to agree with the contention
\nput-forward by the learned counsel for the appellant\/accused.  There is no
\nreason why P.W.1 should come before a court of law to give evidence against her
\nhusband himself.  Apart from that, P.W.2 is the brother P.W.1 whose evidence
\nstood in full corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1.  Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 in the
\nsame and one voice would state that it was the accused who actually pressed the
\nmouth and nose of the child.  It is pertinent to point out that the child was
\nonly 4-1\/2 months old and not even a hard pressure or force was necessary to
\nbring an end to the life of the child.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The injuries noticed by P.W.10, the postmortem doctor and
\nfound mentioned in Ex.P-8 postmortem certificate are as follows.
\n\t“1.Abrasion on the external nose – right side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 2.Nail marking present above the right \t\t   eyebrow.”\n<\/p>\n
Apart from the above external injuries, 10 ml. of blood was actually found
\nfrozen on the backside of the neck.  The contention put-forth by the learned
\ncounsel that the child would have fallen down from the hands of the
\naccused\/appellant and because of that fall those injuries would have been caused
\ncannot be countenanced, since no other abrasion or any other injury was found
\nnoticed on the face or the skull of the child.  The ocular testimony projected
\nby the prosecution, through P.W.1 and P.W.2, stood fully corroborated with the
\nmedical evidence, as could be looked into from the injuries noticed in the
\npostmortem certificate.  Thus, the Court is satisfied that the evidence let in
\nby the prosecution was true, genuine and also convincing and acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.It is true, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, that there is delay in the FIR reaching the Court.  It is well
\nsettled law that mere delay either in registering the case or in despatching the
\nFIR or the FIR reaching the court by itself cannot be a reason to reject the
\ncase of the prosecution  but, it must be looked from all aspects put-forth in a
\nparticular case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.Apart from the above, it was brought to the notice of the
\nCourt that the statements of eye-witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, though claimed
\nby the investigator that they have been recorded on the very day of occurrence,
\ni.e. 16.10.2007, they have reached the court only on 20th February, 2008, along
\nwith the final report.  On a perusal of the records, though it is found that the
\nstatements of P.Ws.1 and 2 have reached the Court only along with the final
\nreport, this is actually an irregularity committed by the investigator.  In the
\nopinion of the court, when the evidence of eye-witnesses placed before the trial
\ncourt was convincing and acceptable and also stood fully corroborated by the
\nmedical evidence, the mere delay caused by the investigator in sending the
\nstatements of witnesses to the Court cannot be a reason to reject the
\nprosecution case.  In the instant case, sufficient evidence is available for the
\nprosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant\/accused and the trial court
\nhas marshalled the evidence in proper perspective and found the
\nappellant\/accused guilty under the charge murder and rendered the judgment of
\nconviction  and the same has got to be affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.This is a case of heinous crime where infanticide has been
\ncommitted by the appellant\/accused,  causing the death of his own daughter, aged
\nfour months and in such circumstances, the trial court was perfectly right in
\nfinding the appellant\/accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to
\nundergo life imprisonment and  there is nothing to disturb the same either
\nfactually or legally and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed
\nconfirming the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court n
\nS.C.No.206\/2008, dated 21.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
gb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.I-Additional Sessions Judge,
\n  Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Kadayanallur Police Station,
\n  Tirunelveli District.\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 Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30\/06\/2010 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DURAISWAMY Criminal Appeal (MD) No.362 of 2009 Muthu alias Muthupandi, …Appellant\/ S\/o.Ramasamy Thevar. Sole Accused vs The State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, […]<\/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-136752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 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\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-21T00:10:57+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T00:10:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2437,\"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\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T00:10:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 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":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 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\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-21T00:10:57+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T00:10:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"wordCount":2437,"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\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2","name":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T00:10:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthu-alias-muthupandi-vs-the-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthu Alias Muthupandi vs The State on 30 June, 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\/136752","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=136752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}