{"id":145257,"date":"2007-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-08-28T10:41:01","modified_gmt":"2017-08-28T05:11:01","slug":"pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 18\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.130 of 2005\n\nPushparaj\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nvs\n\nInspector of Police\nAravakurichi Police Station\nKarur District\nCr.No.202 of 2002\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\tCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge, Karur, in S.C.No.118 of\n2003 dated 28.10.2004.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t:  Mr.A.Padmanaban\n\n^For Respondent\t\t:  Mr.N.Senthurpandian\n\t\t\t   Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
\n\tThe sole accused in a case of murder in S.C.No.118 of 2003 on the file of
\nthe Sessions Division, Karur, on being found guilty as per the charge and
\nawarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and default sentence,
\nhas challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in the course of this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The appellant\/accused was employed under the deceased Kodandaraman in
\nhis New Rajan Iyengar Bakery conducted by him at Chinnatharapuram.  P.W.2 is the
\nwife and P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased.  Previously, the
\naccused was employed under P.W.7 in his bakery, and on request by the deceased,
\nthe accused was sent for the work under the deceased.  The accused was asking
\nfor enhancement of salary.  The deceased was not amenable.  On 28.11.2002 at
\nabout 10.00 P.M., after the dinner, P.W.2 was sleeping in one room along with
\nthe deceased, while P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were in the other room.  At about 3.30 A.M.
\non 29.11.2002, they heard the distressing cry of the deceased.  All of them woke
\nup to find the accused uttering the words “He was demanding for enhancement of
\nsalary; but, the deceased was not ready to pay.”  Immediately, the accused
\nattacked him with M.O.4, an iron pipe, on his head.  Despite the attempt, P.Ws.1
\nto 4 could not catch him.  He fled away from the place of occurrence.  On
\nreceipt of the message, P.W.11 went to the house, and on the dictation by P.W.1,
\nEx.P1, the report, was written by P.W.11.  Then, P.W.1 proceeded to the
\nrespondent Police Station where P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, was on duty
\nat about 5.30 A.M.  On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be
\nregistered by the respondent police in Crime No.202\/2002 under Sec.302 of I.P.C.
\nThe express First Information Report, Ex.P13, was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of the said Circle, on receipt of the
\ncopy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an
\ninspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and a rough sketch,
\nEx.P14.  The dead body along with the scene of occurrence were photographed
\nthrough P.W.10, the Photographer.  The photos and negatives are marked as M.Os.7
\nand 8 respectively.  The Investigator recovered M.O.1, shirt, M.O.2, blanket,
\nand M.O.3, blanket piece, under a mahazar, Ex.P3.  In the presence of witnesses
\nand panchayatdars, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Kodandaraman and
\nprepared an inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P15.  The dead body was sent
\nto the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P7, for the purpose of
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) P.W.9, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital,
\nPallapatti, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead
\nbody of Kodandaraman and found one injury.  He issued a postmortem certificate,
\nEx.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhaemorrhage due to the injury to vital organs.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) On 30.11.2002 at about 5.00 A.M., P.W.7 was in his house.  At that
\ntime, the doors were knocked, and when he opened the door, he found the accused.
\nThe accused gave the narration of the incident, and immediately, P.W.7 took him
\nto the Police Station and handed over to the Police Officials at about 7.00 A.M.
\non that day.  During interrogation, he volunteered to give a confessional
\nstatement, which was recorded in the presence of two witnesses.  The admissible
\npart if marked as Ex.P4.  Consequent upon the confessional statement, he
\nproduced M.O.4, an iron pipe, and M.O.5, bloodstained shirt, which were
\nrecovered under Ex.P5, the mahazar.  He also produced a TVS 50 marked as M.O.6,
\nwhich was recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P6.  The accused was sent for judicial
\nremand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and
\nfrom the accused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences
\nDepartment, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P11, the Chemical Analyst’s
\nreport, and Ex.P12, the Serologist’s report.  P.W.17, the Inspector of Police,
\ntook up further investigation.  On completion of investigation, the Investigator
\nfiled the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was
\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 17
\nwitnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 8 material objects.  On completion
\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under
\nSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence
\nof the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.  No defence
\nwitness was examined.  On hearing the arguments advanced and looking into the
\nmaterials available, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution has
\nproved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found the appellant\/accused guilty as
\nper the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with the fine and default
\nsentence referred to above.  Hence, this appeal at the instance of the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned Counsel Mr.A.Padmanaban, advancing his arguments on behalf
\nof the appellant, would contend that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the wife and the children
\nof the deceased respectively; that they are very close relatives; that when
\ntheir evidence is scrutinized carefully, there are lot of discrepancies on the
\nvital particulars; that these discrepancies would got to the root of the matter;
\nthat under the circumstances, the lower Court should have rejected their
\nevidence; that in the instant case, the medical evidence did not support the
\nprosecution case; that the appearance of the accused before P.W.7 and the fact
\nthat it was he who took him to the Investigator and produced before him, and he
\nalso gave a confessional statement, which was also recorded by the Investigator,
\nand following the same, the material objects were recovered are nothing but a
\nconcocted story in order to strengthen the prosecution case, and thus, the lower
\nCourt should have rejected the same; that the scientific evidence did not
\nsupport the prosecution case; and that in short, it can be stated that the
\nprosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further the learned Counsel that even assuming that the
\nprosecution has proved the case that it was the accused who attacked him with
\nthe iron pipe on his head and caused his death, the act of the accused would not
\nattract the penal provisions of murder; that as per the evidence available, he
\ndemanded enhanced salary on the previous day, which was refused by the deceased,
\nand thus, there was a quarrel; that he gave a confessional statement which was
\nrelied on by the prosecution and accepted by the lower Court; that it would be
\nquite evident that at the time when the demand of enhanced salary was made, not
\nonly it was refused by the deceased, but also he used filthy language; that he
\nthought it shameful; that it was lingering in his mind, following which the
\noccurrence has taken place; that the filthy language used by the deceased,
\nprovoked him; that the consequence was the attack made by him; that the weapon
\nused by him, was only an iron pipe; that only one blow was given, and death has
\nbeen caused; that under the circumstances, it would not attract the penal
\nprovisions of murder; but, it would be culpable homicide not amounting to
\nmurder, and hence, it has got to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the
\ndecisions of this Court reported in 1951 MWN (CR) 274 (MOTTAI THEVAN V. STATE)
\nand in 1972 L.W. (CRL.) 244 (THANDAVAN, IN RE.).\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions, paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made, and made a
\nthorough scrutiny of the available materials.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.It is not a fact in controversy that in an incident that took place at
\n3.30 A.M. on 29.11.2002, the husband of P.W.2 one Kodandaraman, was done to
\ndeath.  Following the registration of the case by P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, the Investigating Officer, P.W.16, took up investigation.  He conducted
\ninquest on the dead body.  Following the same, the dead body was subjected to
\npostmortem by P.W.9, the Doctor, who has categorically opined that the injury
\nthat was caused on the skull and its corresponding internal injury caused the
\ndeath.  The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P8.  The contents of the
\npostmortem certificate and the evidence of the postmortem Doctor in respect of
\nthe fact that death was caused due to the homicidal violence, remain
\nunchallenged.  Under the circumstances, it can be factually recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that it was the
\naccused who attacked Kodandaraman with the iron pipe and caused his death, the
\nprosecution fortunately had the evidence of four witnesses.  They are P.Ws.1 to\n<\/p>\n
4.  P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are the children sufficiently matured, and P.W.2 is the
\nwife.  It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence has taken place
\ninside the house, that too at about 3.30 A.M., when all of them were sleeping;
\nthat they heard the distressing cry, woke up and found that he was demanding for
\nthe enhanced salary, and the deceased was refusing; and that in that course, he
\nattacked him with the iron pipe.  It is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 are close
\nrelations of the deceased.  This Court is mindful of the caution that merely
\nbecause of the relationship, their evidence cannot be discarded; but, the Court
\nmust apply the test of careful scrutiny.  Despite the exercise of that test,
\nthis Court is satisfied with their evidence since it has inspired the confidence
\nof the Court.  Despite the cross-examination, their evidence remained unshaken.
\nThat apart, their ocular testimony stood in full corroboration of the medical
\nevidence.  According to the postmortem Doctor, the injury that was caused on the
\nskull, and the corresponding internal injury have caused the death.  In the case
\non hand, the evidence of P.W.7 has got a role to play.  P.W.7 was the former
\nemployer of the accused.  He could not have anything to grind.  According to
\nP.W.7, on 30.11.2002 at about 5.00 A.M., the accused came to him and narrated
\nthe incident, and it was he who took him to the Investigator and handed over to
\nhim.  Thus, it would be quite clear that it is an extra-judicial confession.
\nFollowing the same, on arrest, he came forward to give a confessional statement
\nwhich was recorded.  Pursuant to the same, M.O.4, an iron pipe, M.O.5,
\nbloodstained shirt, and also M.O.6, the TVS 50, have been recovered.  The
\nrecovery of M.O.4, the weapon of crime, following the confessional statement,
\nwould be pointing to the nexus between the crime and the accused.  All would go
\nto show that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.  In
\nthe face of the overwhelming evidence, the contentions put forth by the learned
\nCounsel for the appellant, do not carry any merit whatsoever, and they are to be
\nrejected.  The lower Court has rightly found that it was the accused who
\ncommitted the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Coming to the second line of argument that the act of the accused would
\nnot attract the penal provisions of murder, the Court has to necessarily
\ndisagree with the learned Counsel for the appellant.  At the outset, the Court
\nmust state that both the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the
\nappellant, cannot be applied to the present facts of the case.  The occurrence
\nhas taken place at 3.30 A.M. in the residential premises of the deceased, when
\nhe was actually sleeping with his wife and three children.  Even as per the
\nprosecution case, there was a demand for enhancement of salary on the previous
\nevening that was on 28.11.2002 at about 3.30 P.M., and there was a wordy duel.
\nNow, at this juncture, it is to be pointed out that it was not the case of the
\naccused that he left the work at that time; but, he was working there.  The
\ncontention put forth by the appellant’s side that the words used by the
\ndeceased, were lingering in his mind, which provoked him, and the provocation
\ncontinued to be so, and due to that, he has acted so cannot be accepted even for
\na moment.  Had it been true that the use of the filthy language has provoked
\nhim, he would have acted immediately, but not done so, and there was no sudden
\nprovocation also.  Now, it is to be further pointed out that the occurrence has
\ntaken place at about 3.30 A.M., when the deceased was sleeping with his wife and
\nchildren in his residence, and it was the accused who took along with him an
\niron pipe and attacked him.  No material is available to show that the weapon of
\ncrime was taken from the residence of the deceased, and the attack was made by
\nhim; but, it was taken by him.  Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that
\nthe crime was also one premeditated.  Had it not been so, there was no reason
\nfor the accused to go to the residence of the deceased at about 3.30 A.M. and
\nthat too, when he was sleeping.  It was he who made him wake up and also began
\nto attack him.  All would go to show that it was a planned act, and no question
\nof application of any other provision except Sec.302 of I.P.C., would arise.  In
\nthe instant case, the act of the accused is one of murder.  The lower Court was
\nperfectly correct in applying the provisions of Sec.302 of I.P.C. and awarding
\nthe life imprisonment along with the fine and default sentence.  This Court is
\nunable to find anything to disturb the same either factually or legally.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Hence, this criminal appeal must fail and fails.  Accordingly, the same
\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The District and Sessions Judge
\n   Karur\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n   Aravakurichi Police Station
\n   Karur District
\n   (Cr.No.202\/2002)\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n
nsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18\/04\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR CRL.A.(MD) No.130 of 2005 Pushparaj .. Appellant vs Inspector of Police Aravakurichi Police Station Karur District Cr.No.202 of 2002 .. Respondent Criminal […]<\/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-145257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - 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\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-28T05:11:01+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:11:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2416,\"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\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:11:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - 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\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-28T05:11:01+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:11:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007"},"wordCount":2416,"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\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007","name":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:11:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushparaj-vs-inspector-of-police-on-18-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pushparaj vs Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/145257","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=145257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}