{"id":144388,"date":"2006-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006"},"modified":"2018-09-23T12:04:10","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T06:34:10","slug":"subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 12\/07\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\n\nCRL.A.Nos.1080 of 2000\nCRL.A.Nos.1456 of 2002\n\n\n1.Subban\n2.Velakkapatti alias Vellaichamy\t.. \tAppellants\n\t\t\t\t\t\tin CA 1080\/2000\n\nVeluchamy\t\t\t\t.. \tAppellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCA 1456\/2002\n\nvs\n\n\nInspector of Police\nVadamadurai Police Station\nDindigul Dist.\nCrime No.571 of 1999\t\t\t.. \tRespondent in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tboth appeals<\/p>\n
\tCriminal appeals preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nagainst the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, made in
\nS.C.No.30\/2000 and dated 20.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellants\t\t…\tMr.A.Padmanaban
\n\t\t\t\tfor appellants in CA 1080\/2000<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tMr.S.Nagamuthu
\n\t\t\t\tAmicus Curiae
\n\t\t\t\tfor appellant in CA 1456\/2002<\/p>\n
For Respondent\t\t…\tMr.S.P.Samuel Raj, A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern these two appeals in Crl.A.Nos.1080\/2000 and
\n1456\/2002, which were filed by A-2 and A-3 and A-1 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The appellants before this Court stood charged, tried and found guilty
\nin a case of murder by the Principal Sessions Division, Dindigul, in S.C.No.30
\nof 2000.  A-1 stood charged under Sec.302 (2 counts) of I.P.C., found guilty and
\nawarded life imprisonment along with fine for two counts.  A-2 and A-3 stood
\ncharged under Sec.302 read with 34 (2 counts) of I.P.C., found guilty and
\nawarded life imprisonment along with fine for each count.  A-1 to A-3 who stood
\ncharged under Sec.201 (2 counts) of I.P.C., were found guilty and sentenced to
\ntwo years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine for each count.  The sentences
\nwere directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals, shorn of
\nunnecessary details, can be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.1 is the son of the first deceased Thodakala Gounder.  P.W.8
\nRajammal, is the daughter of the first deceased.  She was given in marriage to
\nthe first accused Veluchamy.  The second deceased Lakshmiammal, was the mother
\nof the first accused.  A-1 was a resident of Kalathur, while A-2 belonged to
\nPuthumaniarampatti Village.  A-3 also belonged to Kalathur Village. A-2 and A-3
\nwere associates.  On the information given by A-1 that he was an agriculturist,
\nP.W.8 was given in marriage to him.  Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of
\nP.W.1 and his father that he was a Sorcerer.  A-1 had a friend by name Raman,
\nwho was also associated in the witchcraft of A-1.  After the marriage was over,
\nP.W.8 came to know that he was carrying on his witchcraft in his house along
\nwith his associates.  P.W.1, when he went over to the house of A-1, came to know
\nabout the same.  A few months prior to the occurrence, A-1 accompanied by
\nothers, went over to the burial ground at witching hour, and when he was
\nreturning, just in the corner of the house of P.W.6, he made a ditch and was
\nputting ashes.  The same was witnessed by P.W.7, who shouted at him, and a crowd
\ngathered.  A-1 was tied in a lamppost along with his father-in-law Thodakala
\nGounder, and a panchayat was constituted, in which A-1, A-2 and Thodakala
\nGounder were imposed a fine of Rs.25,000\/- each.  A-2 paid the same.  A-1 had no
\nmoney.   Thodakala Gounder by mortgaging his properties, got the said amount and
\npaid the entire sum of Rs.50,000\/- which includes Rs.25,000\/- imposed on A-1.
\nThereafter, A-1 returned to his place.  Many a demand was made by Thodakala
\nGounder, the first deceased, for the return of Rs.25,000\/- by his son-in-law, A-\n<\/p>\n
1.  He did not pay the same.  Following a quarrel, P.W.8 came to the house of
\nher father, and she was staying over there.  A-1 came to the village of the
\nfirst deceased Thodakala Gounder, and made a request to send his daughter to his
\nhouse, to which course the first deceased Thodakala Gounder, was not amenable.
\nBut, he would further add that A-1 should return the money of Rs.25,000\/- before
\ntaking his daughter.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) While the matter stood thus, Thodakala Gounder was informed that he
\ncan come and get the money from A-1.  For the purpose of getting the money,
\nThodakala Gounder went to the place of A-1.  When he went over there, A-1 asked
\nhim to take oleander seeds which was mixed with the gingili oil.  When Thodakala
\nGounder denied, he was forced by A-1 to consume the same, and A-2 and A-3 were
\nalso present to intimidate him.  He was administered so, and within a short span
\nof time, he died.  This was witnessed by P.W.2.  At the time of the occurrence,
\nthe second deceased Lakshmiammal, the mother of A-1, witnessed the same.  While
\nshe questioned about the same, they also thought it fit to murder her.  They
\nfollowed the same procedure adopted to Thodakala Gounder.  Within a short span
\nof consumption of oleander seeds mixed with gingili oil, she died.  A-2 and A-3
\nassisted A-1 in both the acts.  Both the dead bodies were buried in the land of
\nA-1.  Ex.P1, the letter, was addressed by A-1 as if it was written by his
\nfather-in-law Thodakala Gounder, to P.W.1 stating that he could take P.W.8 also
\nto his place.  P.W.1 handed over the letter to P.W.10, one of the important
\npersons of the village, who in turn handed over to P.W.4, a practising Lawyer.
\nOn 28.11.1999, P.W.1 accompanied by P.Ws.3, 4 and 10, went to the house of A-1
\nand made an enquiry.  But, A-1 was giving evasive answers, and thereafter, A-1
\ncame forward to give a confession wherein he has narrated the entire incident,
\nin which both of them were murdered.  Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Vadamadurai
\nPolice Station on 30.11.1999 and gave Ex.P2, the report.  On the strength of
\nEx.P2, P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.571\/99
\nunder Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.  The printed First Information Report,
\nEx.P30, was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation.  He gave a
\nrequisition to P.W.17, the Tahsildar of Vadasendur.  He also sent a requisition
\nto the Medical Person attached to the Government Hospital for the purpose of
\nautopsy.  Accompanied by P.W.25, the Doctor, attached to the Government
\nHospital, P.W.17, the Tahsildar, proceeded to the place of occurrence.  A-1 was
\narrested on 2.12.1999 at 7.00 A.M. in the presence of P.W.20, the Village
\nAdministrative Officer.  Thereafter, he gave a confessional statement which was
\nalso recorded in the presence of two witnesses.  Following the same, he
\nidentified the place where both the dead bodies were buried, and they were
\nexhumed in the presence of the Tahsildar. After exhumation of both the dead
\nbodies, the observation mahazar in that regard and sketch were prepared.
\nThereafter, P.W.17 conducted inquest on the dead bodies of Thodakala Gounder and
\nLakshmiammal and prepared Exs.P9 and P10, the inquest reports, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) P.W.25, the District Police Surgeon, Professor of Forensic Medicine,
\nMadurai Medical College, Madurai, conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of
\nThodakala Gounder and Lakshmiammal in the presence of Tahsildar and witnesses
\nand prepared two postmortem certificates, Exs.P24 and P27 respectively.  The
\nviscera of both the deceased were retained for the purpose of analysis.  On
\nreceipt of the viscera report, the Doctor has opined that both the deceased
\nwould appear to have died of oleander poisoning about 12 to 15 days prior to
\npostmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) Following the confessional statement given by A-1, A-2 and A-3 were
\narrested.  On their confession, two spades were also recovered.  They were all
\nsent to judicial remand.  All the material objects recovered from the place of
\noccurrence and from the dead body, were subjected to chemical analysis.  Ex.P28
\nis the Chemical Analyst’s report.  On completion of the investigation, the
\nInvestigator filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were
\nframed against the accused.  In order to substantiate the charges levelled
\nagainst the appellants\/accused, the prosecution marched 29 witnesses and relied
\non 32 exhibits and 18 material objects.  On completion of the evidence on the
\nside of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as
\nto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution
\nwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false.  No defence witness was examined.
\nOn completion of the trial, both sides were heard by the trial Court.  After
\ndoing so and going through the materials, the trial Court found all of them
\nguilty as per the charges and awarded punishments referred to above.  Hence,
\nthese appeals at the instance of the appellants before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Arguing for the respective appellants, the learned Counsel would submit
\nthat in the instant case, the prosecution had only one witness to speak about
\nthe crime that was P.W.2; that P.W.2 has also turned hostile, and thus, the
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that under the circumstances, the
\nprosecution rested its case only on the circumstantial evidence; that in the
\ninstant case, not even one circumstance was available for the prosecution, which
\nwould connect the accused with the crime; that in the instant case, according to
\nthe prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 18.11.1999 at 7.00 P.M., in
\nwhich both the deceased Thodakala Gounder, the father of P.W.1, and
\nLakshmiammal, the mother of A-1, were killed by administering oleander seeds
\nmixed with gingili oil by A-1 with the assistance of A-2 and A-3, where they
\nshared the common intention, and following the same, they buried the dead bodies
\nin the land of A-1, which came to the knowledge of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 10 on
\n28.11.1999, pursuant to the letter Ex.P1, alleged to have been written by A-1 to
\nP.W.1; that in the instant case, in order to prove any one of the above facts,
\nthe prosecution has not brought forth any circumstance which could be accepted
\nby the Court; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place
\non 18.11.1999; but, P.W.1 came to know only in pursuance of the letter alleged
\nto have been written by A-1, which is marked as Ex.P1; that there is no evidence
\nthrough which the prosecution can prove that it was the letter written by A-1;
\nand that from 18.11.1999 onwards, for a period of 10 days, either P.W.1 or other
\nfamily members did not make any search in respect of Thodakala Gounder.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned Counsel would further submit that according to P.Ws.1 and 8,
\nthe son and daughter of Thodakala Gounder respectively, the letter was received,
\nand after receipt of the letter, it was handed over to P.W.10, one of the
\nimportant persons of the village; that according to P.W.10, he handed over the
\nsame to his brother, P.W.4, a practising Advocate; that all of them namely
\nP.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 10, went to the house of A-1 at Kalathur on 28.11.1999, and
\nwhen they made enquiry, there were evasive answers by A-1; that according to the
\nprosecution, when he made confession, he came out with truth as to the
\noccurrence; that at this juncture, it has to be pointed out that this piece of
\nevidence namely extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to
\nP.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 10, was much relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the
\nlower Court also; that it has to be stated that though the entire narration of
\nthe incident was made on 28.11.1999 itself, they went to the Police Station only
\non 30.11.1999; but, for a period of nearly 2 days, they did not even whisper to
\nanybody; that P.W.4 was a practising lawyer; that had it been true, there was no
\nimpediment for any one of the witnesses and in particular P.W.4, to go over to
\nthe Police Station to set the law in motion; that the prosecution has no
\nexplanation to offer; and that under the circumstances, it is highly doubtful
\nwhether such an extra-judicial confession could have been made by A-1 at that
\ntime as put forth by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Added further the learned Counsel that according to the Investigating
\nOfficer, a case came to be registered by the respondent police on 30.11.1999
\ni.e., after two days from the date of the alleged extra-judicial confession;
\nthat the circumstances much relied on by the prosecution is the communication,
\naddressed to P.W.17, the Tahsildar; that on receipt of the communication, he
\ncame to the spot on 2.12.1999 during which A-1 came forward to give a
\nconfessional statement; that apart from that, he identified the place where both
\nthe dead bodies were buried, and they were exhumed; that this part of the
\nevidence was much relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the lower Court
\nalso; but, Ex.P7 is the communication addressed by the respondent police to the
\nTahsildar; that a perusal of Ex.P7 would clearly reveal that the same was
\naddressed to the Tahsildar on 30.11.1999; that if to be so, the Tahsildar came
\nto the spot only on 2.12.1999; that the explanation tendered by the prosecution
\nthat the postmortem Doctor was not available, and therefore, the Tahsildar
\nwaited for two days, cannot be a reason; that in the instant case, the fact that
\nA-1 has identified the place where both the dead bodies were buried, was of no
\nuse to the prosecution since it was not one recovered following any confession
\ngiven by A-1, and also for the simple reason that even as per the communication
\naddressed to the Tahsildar by the respondent police under Ex.P7, the place where
\nthe dead bodies were buried, came to the knowledge of the police on 30.11.1999
\nitself, and therefore, the fact that the dead bodies were identified by the
\naccused on 2.12.1999 in the presence of the Tahsildar was of no consequence;
\nthat it cannot be stated that it was a fact recovered pursuant to a confessional
\nstatement made, and thus, this part of the evidence was also not available for
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned Counsel would further submit that so far as A-2 and A-3 are
\nconcerned, there is no whisper about both of them by the prosecution witnesses;
\nthat even in the first complaint made, there is nothing to connect A-2 and A-3
\nwith the crime in question; that apart from that, any amount of confessional
\nstatement made by A-1, would not bind them; that the prosecution also relied
\nupon the recovery of two spades from these two accused, which was of no
\nconsequence; that simply because there was recovery of two spades, it cannot be
\ntaken that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-2 and A-3; that in the
\ninstant case, the lower Court has also relied on the scientific evidence
\nindicating that poisonous substance was found in the body of both the deceased,
\nwhich would be of no avail, for the simple reason that the prosecution had no
\nevidence to prove that it was A-1 who joined with A-2 and A-3, for administering
\nthe said poisonous substance; that under the circumstances, the prosecution had
\nno evidence to offer; but, the lower Court has found them guilty and hence, they
\nare entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.It is not in controversy that following the complaint given by P.W.1 to
\nthe respondent police, and the communication addressed by the respondent police
\nto P.W.17, the Tahsildar, both the dead bodies of Thodakala Gounder and
\nLakshmiammal, were exhumed in the presence of the Tahsildar, and inquest was
\nmade.  Thereafter, both the bodies were subjected to postmortem, and the Doctor
\nhas also given his opinion to the effect that both of them died out of oleander
\npoisoning.  From the evidence, it is clear that both Thodakala Gounder and
\nLakshmiammal died out of homicidal violence.  It is not a fact disputed by the
\nappellants either before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence, it
\ncould be safely recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Now, the next question that would arise for consideration is whether
\nthe prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
\nAccording to the prosecution, the motive for A-1 to murder his father-in-law,
\nthe first deceased, Thodakala Gounder, was that there was a panchayat, in which
\nthe first deceased paid Rs.50,000\/- i.e., Rs.25,000\/- for himself and
\nRs.25,000\/- on behalf of the son-in-law, A-1, and he was making a demand
\ntherefor, and he also refused to send his daughter, P.W.8, to the house of A-1,
\nand therefore, A-1 became aggrieved.  It is the case of the prosecution that
\nwhen Thodakala Gounder went over to demand the same, A-1 administered oleander
\nseeds mixed with gingili oil, and when Thodakala Gounder denied, he was
\ncompelled to consume it, and this was done by A-1 with the assistance of A-2 and
\nA-3, and thus, they caused his death.  The further case of the prosecution is
\nthat when it was witnessed by Lakshmiammal, the mother of A-1, she was also done
\nto death in the same manner. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution
\nexamined only one eyewitness P.W.2.  P.W.2 has turned hostile, and a reading of
\nher evidence would disclose that the same could not be used for the prosecution
\ncase at any point.  Thus, the prosecution had rested its case only on the
\ncircumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution relied on the
\nfollowing circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
(i) A letter was written by A-1 to P.W.1, wherein he invited him to come to his
\nhouse along with his wife P.W.8;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) At the time when P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 10 went to his house,   A-1 made extra-
\njudicial confession narrating the entire incident;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) After the case was registered, at the time of the inquest,  A-1 identified
\nthe place where both the dead bodies were actually buried;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The poisonous substance was found in the dead bodies; and\n<\/p>\n
(v) Pursuant to the confession made by A-2 and A-3 on their arrest, the
\nInvestigator recovered two spades.\n<\/p>\n
The above are the only circumstances relied on by the prosecution. When the
\nevidence available is scrutinised, this Court is of the considered opinion that
\nthough the prosecution made an attempt to prove the case with the aid of the
\nabove five circumstances, no one of the circumstances was pointing to the guilt
\nof the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that from 18.11.1999,
\nThodakala Gounder was not found.  P.W.1, his son, and P.W.8, his daughter, did
\nnot make any attempt to search Thodakala Gounder till the time when P.W.1 gave a
\ncomplaint to the police; but, P.W.1 came forward to give evidence stating that
\nhe received a letter Ex.P1.  A reading of the letter would indicate that P.W.1
\nwas invited by A-1 along with his wife P.W.8 to the house of A-1.  According to
\nP.W.1, he handed over this letter to P.W.10 one of the important persons of the
\nvillage, who in turn handed over to P.W.4, Murugan, a practising Advocate, and
\nall of them went to the house of A-1 on 28.11.1999.  All the four witnesses
\nP.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 10, have spoken to the fact that A-1 made a confessional
\nstatement to all of them narrating the entire incident.  Thus, from the evidence
\nof the prosecution witnesses, it would be quite clear that the murder of both
\nthe deceased came to the knowledge of these four witnesses on 28.11.1999 itself.
\nIf to be so, at least one of the witnesses and in particular P.W.4, a practising
\nLawyer, would have gone to the Police Station to give a complaint immediately.
\nBut, the complaint was given by P.W.1 to the Inspector of Police only on
\n30.11.1999.  What was the reason for such a delay remained unexplained.  At this
\njuncture, it has to be pointed out that P.W.4, a practising Lawyer, even after
\nhearing such a narration of the incident, did not go to the Police Station, and
\ninstead, he kept quiet without making any complaint to the police.  It can be
\nwell stated that he has not done anything at that time.  Thus, it casts a doubt
\nwhether A-1 would have made such an extra-judicial confession to P.Ws.1, 3, 4
\nand 10 at that juncture.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.After the case was registered by the police on 30.11.1999, a
\ncommunication, Ex.P7, was addressed to P.W.17, the Tahsildar.  A perusal of
\nEx.P7, the letter, would clearly reveal that the communication was addressed on
\n30.11.1999.  P.W.17, the Tahsildar, has deposed to the effect that he received
\nthe communication on 30.11.1999 itself.  According to P.W.17, he informed to the
\npostmortem Doctor, P.W.25, and he was able to get the Doctor’s help only on
\n2.12.1999, and when he took him to the place of burial of the dead bodies of
\nThodakala Gounder and Lakshmiammal, it was identified by A-1.  This is a  strong
\ncircumstance, relied on by the prosecution and also accepted by the lower Court.
\nBut, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was in no way helpful to
\nthe prosecution case.  A perusal of Ex.P7 would indicate that it gives a
\nnarration of the entire story of the prosecution case.  Apart from that, the
\nplace where both the dead bodies were buried, was known to the police even on
\n30.11.1999.  If to be so, it cannot be said to be a recovery of a fact on the
\nconfession made by A-1, after he was arrested on 2.12.1999.  Thus, the
\nidentification of the burial place by A-1 on 2.12.1999 was nothing but a
\nsubsequent introduction, since it was already known to the police; but, the
\npolice has not taken any steps in that regard.  In such circumstances, it cannot
\nbe stated to be a recovery made by the police, following the confessional
\nstatement made by A-1, and the same cannot be claimed to be one under Sec.27 of
\nthe Evidence Act.  Thus, that part of the evidence was of no use to the
\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.So far as the letter alleged to have been written by A-1, which was
\nmarked as Ex.P1, and which was also handed over to the Police Officer at the
\ntime of the registration of the case, is concerned, there is no material
\navailable to show that it was one written by A-1.  Apart from that, the chemical
\nreport, which would speak about the availability of poisonous substance in the
\ndead bodies was of no help to the prosecution case since mere presence of the
\npoisonous substance in the dead bodies cannot be taken as proof for the
\nprosecution case to the effect that it was administered by the accused.  Thus,
\nthis part of the evidence and circumstance relied on by the prosecution would in
\nno way connect A-1 with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.So far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, what was available for the
\nprosecution was only the recovery of two spades from them pursuant to their
\narrest and confession.  Merely because there was recovery of two spades from A-2
\nand A-3, it cannot be stated that they shared the common intention of A-1, or
\nthey got any nexus to the crime in question.  At the same time, it cannot also
\nbe taken that the culpability of these accused has been proved.  Added
\ncircumstance is that at the time when the complaint was made, the names of A-2
\nand A-3 were not mentioned in the F.I.R.  Even in Ex.P2, the complaint, which
\ncame into existence on 30.11.1999, the names of A-2 and A-3 were not mentioned.
\nThis is a strong circumstance in favour of A-2 and A-3.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Therefore, the cumulative fact is that there is a case where the
\nprosecution rested the same on circumstantial evidence; but, the circumstances
\nare neither placed in full nor pointing to the guilt of the accused as narrated
\nabove.  In the instant case, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has proved
\nthe charges levelled against them, in any way.  Under the circumstances, the
\nconviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court on the appellants have got to
\nbe set aside, and accordingly, all the appellants\/A-1 to A-3 are entitled for an
\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In the result, both these criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside
\nthe judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.  The
\nappellants\/A-1 to A-3 are  acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
\nThey<\/p>\n
are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in any
\nother case.  The fine amounts paid by them, if any, will be refunded to them.
\n\tMr.S.Nagamuthu, appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal in
\nC.A.No.1456\/2002 on behalf of the appellant, is entitled to get remuneration
\nfrom the Legal Aid, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1)The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul\n<\/p>\n
2)The Inspector of Police
\n   Vadamadurai Police Station
\n   Dindigul Distict, (Crime No.571 of 1999)\n<\/p>\n
3)The Public Prosecutor
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12\/07\/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU CRL.A.Nos.1080 of 2000 CRL.A.Nos.1456 of 2002 1.Subban 2.Velakkapatti alias Vellaichamy .. Appellants in CA 1080\/2000 Veluchamy .. Appellant in CA 1456\/2002 vs […]<\/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-144388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - 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\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-23T06:34:10+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T06:34:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4103,\"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\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T06:34:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - 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\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-23T06:34:10+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T06:34:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006"},"wordCount":4103,"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\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006","name":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T06:34:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subban-vs-inspector-of-police-on-12-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subban vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/144388","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=144388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}