{"id":141391,"date":"2005-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005"},"modified":"2014-07-21T15:48:18","modified_gmt":"2014-07-21T10:18:18","slug":"chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 15\/09\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE  N.DHINAKAR        \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE  M.CHOCKALINGAM           \n\nCrl.A No. 1043 of 2000\n\nChellamuthu                                            ... Appellant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nOmalur Police Station.                                  ... Respondent\n\n\n        Prayer:  Appeal against the judgment passed by the  learned  Principal\nSessions Judge, Salem, in S.C.No.126 of 1999 dated :  20.9.2000.\n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.K.V.Sridharan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayan  \n                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.  DHINAKAR,J.) <\/p>\n
        The  appellant,  who  was  arrayed as A-1 in S.C.No.126 of 1999 on the
\nfile of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,  Salem,  was  tried  along  with
\nthree other  accused, who were arrayed as A-2 to A-4.  The other three accused
\nwere acquitted by the trial Judge and the appellant alone was convicted.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Charge No.1 was framed under Section 4 of  the  Dowry  Prohibition
\nAct  against  the  appellant  and the other three accused, who were acquitted.
\nThe appellant and the other three accused  were  also  charged  under  Section
\n498-A IPC.    Charge  Nos.3  and 4 were framed against the appellant and three
\nothers under Section 302  read  with  34  IPC.    for  causing  the  death  of
\nGandhimathi and  Pappathi  respectively.    The  learned  trial  judge,  while
\nacquitting the appellant and the other three accused under Section  4  of  the
\nDowry Prohibition Act as well as under Section 498-A IPC., found the appellant
\nalone guilty under Section 306 IPC.  under Charge No.3, while he acquitted the
\nother three  accused  under the said charge.  Similarly, the trial Judge found
\nthe appellant guilty under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.  under charge  No.4,
\nthough the appellant was charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.  On being
\nfound  guilty,  the  appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment
\nunder Charge No.3 and imprisonment for life under Charge No.4.  This appeal is
\nagainst the said conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The allegation against the appellant and the other  three  accused
\nis that they demanded dowry from Gandhimathi, who hereinafter will be referred
\nto  as  “D-1”,  and subjected her to cruelty and later, beat her with a wooden
\nstick and also beat Pappathi, her daughter, who hereinafter will  be  referred
\nto as “D-2”, and thereafter threw the dead bodies into the well.  To prove the
\nabove  charges, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 17
\nand relied on Exs.P-1 to P-21.  Refuting the  said  allegations,  the  defence
\nexamined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.D-1.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral
\nand documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        P.W.1, Srirangayee,  is  the  mother  of  Gandhimathi,  D-1.    P.W.2,
\nValarmathi, is  the  elder  sister  of D-1.  D-1 is the wife of the appellant,
\nChellamuthu.  A-2 is the son of A-1 born through his first wife and A-3 is the
\nwife of A-2.  A-4 is the mother of A-3.  D-1 was  given  in  marriage  to  the
\nappellant after  the death of his first wife.  This was ten years prior to the
\ndate of incident.  At the time of marriage, 5 sovereigns of gold were given as
\nsridhana property.  A female child was born to D-1 within  two  years  of  the
\nmarriage.   Later,  the  appellant  took  the  deceased to his house after the
\nchild’s birth, where the child died.  According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the child was
\nmurdered.  After one year, D-1 became pregnant and another  female  child  was
\nborn in the house of P.W.1.  The appellant was owning 12 acres of land and the
\nother accused  were  residing  adjacent  to  the  house of the appellant.  D-1
\ninformed P.W.1, her mother, that her husband, viz., the appellant herein,  did
\nnot  want  the  second  female  child to live, as he has already a legal heir.
\nWhen D-1 was sent to the house of her husband,  she  was  gifted  with  silver
\narticles  and Rs.5,000\/- in cash; but D-1 was not happy in her husband’s house
\nand she was complaining to her mother, P.W.1.  A Panchayat was convened in the
\npresence of Appa Chetty.  Three months thereafter, at about 6.00 p.m.,  P.Ws.1
\nand  2 were informed that her daughter, D-1, and her grand daughter, D-2, have
\ndied.  P.W.1 accompanied by P.Ws.2, 8 and her son, Mathiazhagan, went  to  the
\nvillage and found  two  dead bodies floating in the well.  P.  W.4, one of the
\nvillagers, removed the dead bodies from the  well  and  thereafter,  P.W.3,  a
\nvillager,  went  to  Omalur Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.14, the
\nSub Inspector of Police, at noon on 2.4.19 94.  On the  complaint,  Ex.P-1,  a
\ncase in  Crime  No.570  of  1994 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.  and
\ninvestigation was taken up by P.W.16, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,  as
\nD-1 died within seven years of the date of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  P.W.16, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on reaching the scene
\nof  occurrence,  prepared  an  observation  mahazar, Ex.P-14, and drew a rough
\nsketch, Ex.P-20.  He questioned P.W.1 and other witnesses and their statements
\nwere recorded.  The inquest was conducted by the Revenue  Divisional  officer,
\nRajangam.   (He  died during trial and therefore, the inquest conducted by him
\nwas spoken to by P.W.13, the clerk, who knew the hand writing and signature of
\nthe said officer).  Exs.  P-17 and P-18 are the inquest  reports  relating  to
\nD-1 and  D-2  respectively.   After the inquest, a requisition was sent to the
\ndoctor to conduct autopsy on the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  On receipt of the  requisition,  P.W.5,  Civil  Assistant  Surgeon
\nattached to Government Hospital, Omalur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of
\nD-1, Gandhimathi, and found the following:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Female  body  lying  on  the  back with pugilistic attitude with foul
\nsmelling.  Whole body oedematous  and  skin  peeled  off.    Maggots  present.
\nGreenish discolouration  seen  all  over  the body.  Eyes and tongue protruded
\nout.  Lips swollen and everted.  Breast distended.  Abdomen greatly distended.
\nScalp heirs easily pulled out.  A frothy reddish  fluid  from  the  mouth  and
\nnostrils.  No external  injuries.  On opening the thorax, lungs distended.  On
\nsection, large quantity of frothy blood stained fluid came out.”\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P-3, the post-mortem certificate, reserving  his  opinion
\npending  the  receipt  of the report of the chemical analyst regarding viscera
\nand the hyoid bone and later, after the receipt of the reports,  he  gave  his
\nfinal  opinion  under Ex.P-6 opining that death was on account of asphyxia due
\nto drowning.  He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of D-2, Pappathi, and
\nfound the following:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Female  baby  lying  on  the  back with pugilistic attitude with foul
\nsmelling.  Whole body oedematous and skin peeled off.  Eyes  closed.    Tongue
\ninside the mouth.   Abdomen  distended.    Scalp  hairs easily pulled out.  No
\nexternal injuries.  On opening the  thorax:-  there  is  a  fracture  of  ribs
\n3,4,5,6 Anterior chest wall right side.  Left side all ribs fractured.”\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P-8, the post-mortem  certificate,  and  thereafter,  the
\nfinal  opinion,  Ex.P-11,  after  the  receipt  of  the  reports of the expert
\nregarding viscera and hyoid  bone,  opining  that  death  was  on  account  of
\nasphyxia due to drowning.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   P.W.16,  in  the  meantime, examined witnesses and recorded their
\nstatements including the doctors.  The appellant was arrested by P.W.17 on the
\ndirection of P.W.16 on  8.4.1994  at  about  8.00  a.m.,  while  he  was  near
\nPagalpatty bus  stop.    The  final  report  was filed after the completion of
\ninvestigation on 30.8.1995.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  When the  appellant  was  questioned  under  Section  313  of  the
\nCr.P.C.,  on  the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied
\nall the incriminating circumstances and he filed a written statement.  In  the
\nsaid  statement,  he has stated that after the death of his first wife, he was
\nnot on cordial terms with his son and about four years prior to  the  date  of
\nincident, the family property was partitioned between him and his son.  He has
\nstated that as he felt that he and his family members should be taken care of,
\nhe  married D-1 and that too on the pressure exerted upon him by his relatives
\nand friends.  He has further stated that at the time of  marriage,  he  gifted
\ngold  jewels  to  his wife and the evidence of P.W.1 that 5 sovereigns of gold
\njewels were given to her as sridhana property is false.  He also  refuted  the
\nallegation  that  the first child was murdered by him, since according to him,
\nthe child was a stillborn one and he was not even informed about the said fact
\nand he came to know of it only after the child was buried in  the  village  of
\nP.W.1.   He  has  also denied that he wanted to murder the second child as she
\nhappened to be a female and that according to him, four days prior to the date
\nof occurrence, he left for Salem to visit his daughter, Savithri.  He  further
\nalleged that he returned to the village only on 2.4.1994 and came to know that
\nhis wife, Gandhimathi and his daughter, Pappathi, had fallen into the well and
\nthat  he  sent  intimation  to  the  parents  of the deceased through his farm
\nservant.  He has also stated that police officers arrived  and  he  was  taken
\ninto  custody  and  detained at the police station till he was produced before
\nthe Magistrate.  He denied the evidence given by P.W.3 and that  he  has  also
\nstated that he never quarrelled with his wife, D-1, as claimed by P.W.8 in his
\nevidence.  According to him, P.W.8 was not on cordial terms with him and P.W.9
\nis a  close  friend of P.Ws.1 and 2.  He has also alleged that the prosecution
\nhas suppressed the fact that it was he  who  gave  intimation  to  the  police
\nauthorities  regarding the death of D-1 and D-2 and made it appear as if P.W.3
\nhad given a complaint on seeing the dead bodies and  according  to  him,  Appa
\nchetti, the Panchayat Board President, is a close relative of P.Ws.1 and 2 and
\nsince  a  complaint was given against Appa Chetti by his relative, Palanisamy,
\nat Omalur Police Station, a false case  had  been  foisted  upon  him  on  the
\ninstigation of the said Appu Chetti.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  appellant  examined D.W.1, Palanisamy, who, in his evidence,
\nhas stated that the appellant left for Salem on Tuesday, i.e., four days prior
\nto the date of occurrence, to visit his daughter and returned to  the  village
\nonly  on 2.4.1994 and later, on going to the backyard, the appellant found the
\nbodies of D-1 and D-2 floating in the well.   According  to  him,  the  family
\nproperty  was  partitioned  between the appellant and his son born through his
\nfirst wife.  D.W.1 has also stated that  the  appellant  went  to  the  police
\nstation  to  lay  a  complaint  and  later,  he  came  to know that the police
\nofficers, on reaching the scene, took the appellant to the police station  and
\nwhen  questioned,  he  was  informed  that  they  are investigating the crime.
\nD.W.2, the son-in-law, of the appellant was examined to say that the appellant
\nvisited his house on Tuesday and left on Saturday.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that  the
\ntrial  Judge  committed  grave  illegality  in  convicting the appellant under
\nSection 302 read with 109 IPC., as no charge was framed against him under  the
\nsaid  section,  since the charge framed against him under Charge No.4 was only
\nunder Section 302 read with 34 IPC.  The learned counsel further contends that
\nthe trial Judge, having framed a charge under Section 302 read  with  34  IPC.
\nas regards the death of D-1 under charge No.3, chose to convict him only under
\nSection 306  IPC.    and  in  the  absence  of any evidence that the appellant
\ninstigated D-1 to commit suicide and the evidence of P.W.8 not having been put
\nto the appellant, when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the<\/p>\n
appellant had no opportunity to give explanation for the alleged incriminating
\ncircumstance brought out through the evidence  of  P.W.8  and  therefore,  the
\nconviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC.  is also bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  doctor,  P.W.5, conducted autopsy on the two dead bodies of
\nD-1 and D-2.  The opinion of the doctor, as could be  seen  from  Exs.P-5  and
\nP-11, is  that they died on account of asphyxia due to drowning.  Exs.P-15 and
\nP-16 are the reports of the rts, who examined the hyoid bone and  viscera  and
\nthe two reports show that no opinion could be given by them as to the cause of
\ndeath.   In  any  event, as we stated earlier, according to the doctor, P.W.5,
\nwho conducted autopsy, both D-1 and D-2 died on account  of  asphyxia  due  to
\ndrowning.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The allegation under Charge No.3 against the appellant is that he
\nbeat  D-1,  murdered  her  and  thereafter, threw the dead body into the well.
\nSimilarly, the trial Judge framed a charge against the appellant  for  causing
\nthe  death of D-2 by alleging in the said charge that D-2 was beaten, murdered
\nand thereafter, the dead body was thrown into the well.  The charge framed  by
\nthe trial Court and the evidence of the doctor, therefore, do not go together,
\nas they  are inconsistent.  As per the charge, the two deceased, viz., D-1 and
\nD-2, have been murdered and thereafter, the dead bodies were thrown  into  the
\nwell;  but  as  per  the evidence of the doctor, P.W.5, who conducted autopsy,
\ndeath was on account of asphyxia due to drowning, which means  that  both  D-1
\nand D-2  were alive when they fell into the well.  In the above circumstances,
\nit is for the prosecution to show as to how both of them fell into the well
\nwhether they were pushed or fell accidentally, especially when the well had no
\nparapet wall,  which could be seen from Ex.P-14, the observation mahazar.  The
\nprosecution did not produce any material to infer that both the deceased  were
\npushed into  the  well.    On  the  contrary,  the prosecution came out with a
\nversion that both of them were murdered and their bodies were thrown into  the
\nwell by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   We  will  now  analyse the evidence of the witnesses to find out
\nwhether the same can be accepted.  The prosecution, through  P.W.1,  came  out
\nwith  a version that the first female child born to the appellant was murdered
\nby him; but it is to be remembered that  no  complaint  was  given  either  by
\nP.Ws.1.  2, 8 or by P.W.9 regarding the said fact and it is for the first time
\nthey  had  come  out  with  such a version by stating that the first child was
\nmurdered by the appellant.  There is absolutely no material on record to  show
\nthat the appellant murdered his first female child and it looks as if that the
\nwitnesses were  giving  evidence with vengeance against the appellant.  Though
\nP.Ws.1, 2 , 8 and 9 have stated that  the  appellant  informed  D-1  that  the
\nsecond child also should be murdered, they did not mention the said fact, when
\nthey were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of the
\nCr.P.C.   by  the investigating officer and for the first time, they have come
\nout with such version in Court.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  According to P.W.8, about two or three days prior to the date  of
\nincident, he  saw the appellant and D-1 quarrelling with each other.  P.W.8 is
\nclosely related to P.W.1.  When cross-examined, he could not say as to the day
\non which he found D-1 and the  appellant  quarrelling  with  each  other;  but
\nstated that  it  might have been a Wednesday or a Thursday.  During the course
\nof investigation, P.W.8 did not even whisper a word that he saw the  appellant
\nand  D-1  quarrelling  with each other and P.W.8 had come out with the present
\nversion only in Court.  This evidence  of  P.W.8  was  not  even  put  to  the
\nappellant, when  he  was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  Therefore,
\nthe appellant did not have an opportunity to give an explanation for the  said
\nevidence given by  P.W.8.   It is trite that Section 313 Cr.P.C.  is mandatory
\nin nature and if no questions are put to the appellant, then the said evidence
\ncannot be used against him to find him guilty.  The trial Judge has  committed
\nthe  above  illegality  by  taking  the evidence of P.W.8, relying upon it and
\nconvicting the appellant, without even questioning him under  Section  313  of
\nthe Cr.P.C.  as regards the said evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  prosecution  examined  P.W.9, who is a mahazar witness, and
\naccording to him, he heard D-1 telling P.W.1  that  the  appellant  wanted  to
\nmurder the second child also.  When cross-examined, he has stated that D-1 and
\nP.W.1  were  seen talking with each other about two or three days prior to the
\ndate of incident; but this evidence of P.W.9 is not supported either by  P.W.1
\nor  by P.W.2, since according to them, the deceased was seen alive about three
\nmonths prior to the date of incident and that they  came  to  know  about  the
\ndeath of  D-1  and  D-2  only  on  2.4.1994.  It is, therefore, clear that the
\nevidence of P.W.9 that he saw D-1 and P.W.1 talking with each other about  two
\nor  three days prior to the date of incident cannot be true and it is false on
\nthe face of it.  If D-1 has actually informed P.W.1 about the decision of  the
\nappellant  to  murder  the  second  child,  then  P.W.1  would  have certainly
\nmentioned the said fact to P.W.16, who registered the crime and later  altered
\nit to  one under Section 306 and 304-B IPC.  A perusal of Ex.P-21, the express
\nreport, in the altered crime reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Investigation made so far discloses that the husband of the  deceased
\nGandhimathi,  Chellamuthu,  has ill-treated the deceased Gandhimathi demanding
\ndowry and due to harassment, the said Gandhimathi and  her  seven  months  old
\nfemale child  Pappathi  have  died.    Since  the offences under Sections 306,
\n304(B) IPC.  and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are  made  out,  I  am
\naltering the section  from  174  Cr.P.C.    to  Sections 306, 304(B) IPC.  and
\nSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.”\n<\/p>\n
No where it has been whispered that the appellant was bent upon murdering  the
\nsecond child as he was not inclined to have a female child.  It is, therefore,
\nclear that the present version given by the witnesses could only be considered
\nas an  after thought.  We, therefore, reject the evidence of the witnesses, as
\nnot trustworthy and unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  We have already noted that  the  trial  Judge,  having  framed  a
\ncharge under  Section  302  read  with  34  IPC.    as  regards  the  death of
\nGandhimathi, chose to convict the appellant under Section 306 IPC.  In  DALBIR
\nSINGH -vs-  STATE  OF  U.P.  (2004 SUPREME COURT CASES (Cri) 1592, the Supreme
\nCourt held that in view of  Section  464  Cr.P.C.,  it  is  possible  for  the
\nAppellate  or  Revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which
\nno charge was framed unless the court is of the  opinion  that  a  failure  of
\njustice  would  in  fact  occasion  and in order to judge whether a failure of
\njustice has been occasioned, it  will  be  relevant  to  examine  whether  the
\naccused  was  aware  of  the  basic ingredients of the offence for which he is
\nbeing convicted and whether the main facts sought to  be  established  against
\nhim  were  explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend
\nhimself.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  When we look at the facts in this present  appeal,  it  could  be
\nseen, as we noted earlier, that though the prosecution relied heavily upon the
\nevidence  of  P.W.8  to  establish that D-1, Gandhimathi, would have committed
\nsuicide on account of the quarrel with her husband about  two  or  three  days
\nprior to the date of incident, the appellant was not questioned as regards the
\nsaid evidence,  when  he  was  examined  under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  The
\nappellant, therefore, had no opportunity to give an explanation regarding  the
\nevidence given  by  P.W.8.   In fact, we have already noticed that P.W.8 could
\nnot even say as to the day on which he saw the appellant and D-1, Gandhimathi,
\nquarrelling with each other and that he did not mention the  said  fact,  when
\nhis statement  was  recorded  under  Section  161  of  the  Cr.P.C.    by  the
\ninvestigating officer and for the first time, in Court,  P.W.8  had  come  out
\nwith such  a  version.    Even, at the risk of repetition, we have to say, the
\nCourt did not question the appellant as regards the  evidence  of  P.W.8,  and
\ntherefore, the   appellant  was  completely  prejudiced.    The  trial  Court,
\ntherefore, was not justified  in  taking  that  evidence  and  convicting  the
\nappellant without questioning him on the said evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   The  trial  Court  framed  a  charge against the appellant under
\nSection 302 read with 34 IPC.  under charge No.4 for causing the death of D-2,
\nPappathi, by alleging that he has beaten D-2, Pappathi,  and  threw  her  body
\ninto the  well.    The trial Court, having framed such a charge, while finding
\nthe appellant not guilty as charged, found him guilty only under  Section  302
\nread with 109  IPC.   The trial Court totally forgot that Section 109 IPC.  is
\nby itself an offence though punishable in the context of other offences.  When
\nthe direct involvement of the appellant in the crime could not be established,
\nit is difficult to uphold the view of the trial Court that he could lopsidedly
\nbe taken to have answered the charge of abetment and convicted on that  basis.
\nThere  would, as is plain, be serious miscarriage of justice to the accused in
\ncausing great prejudice to his defence, since the roles of the perpetrator and
\nabettor of the crime are distinct,  standing  apart  from  each  other.    The
\nappellant,  having  faced  a  trial  for  an offence of murder for sharing the
\ncommon intention of the other accused, could in  any  event  be  substitutedly
\nconvicted  for  an offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 109 IPC.,
\nsince it is not only a legal flaw but also a grave prejudice to the  appellant
\nin projecting  his  defence.  Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under
\nSection 302 read with 109 IPC.  under charge No.4 cannot also be sustained, as
\nthe conviction is illegal on the face of it.  In view of the  discussion  made
\nabove, appellant is to be acquitted and he is, accordingly, acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In  the  result,  the appeal is allowed.  It is reported that the
\nappellant is on bail.  His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
bs\/<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Collector, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Director General of Police, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15\/09\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.A No. 1043 of 2000 Chellamuthu … Appellant. -Vs- State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur Police Station. … Respondent […]<\/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-141391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - 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\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-21T10:18:18+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-21T10:18:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3738,\"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\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-21T10:18:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - 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\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-21T10:18:18+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-21T10:18:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005"},"wordCount":3738,"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\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005","name":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-21T10:18:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamuthu-vs-state-rep-by-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chellamuthu vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2005"}]},{"@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\/141391","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=141391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}