{"id":145583,"date":"2007-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-06-08T05:57:55","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T00:27:55","slug":"chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Panchal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C.K. Thakker, J.M. Panchal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  79 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nCHINNATHAMAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER &amp; J.M. PANCHAL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>J.M. PANCHAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated<br \/>\n28th March, 2005 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at<br \/>\nMadras in Criminal Appeal No.648 of 1997, by which,<br \/>\njudgment dated February 14, 1997 passed by learned First<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Sessions Case<br \/>\nNo.63 of 1996, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code (for short the Code) and sentencing<br \/>\nhim to R.I. for life, is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe facts emerging from the record of the case are<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe appellant is a resident of village<br \/>\nThirumalainaickenpalayam.  The name of his younger brother<br \/>\nis Dorai @ Nataraj, who was also residing in the same village<br \/>\nat the relevant time.  The elder daughter of Nataraj was going<br \/>\nto Pioneer Mill School for studies.  She had an affair with one<br \/>\nKirshnamurthy, who was a teacher in the school.  Therefore,<br \/>\nMr. Dorai vacated his house situated in village and shifted his<br \/>\nfamily to a house located in the garden.  He also stopped<br \/>\nPunitha from attending the school.  Punitha, however, eloped<br \/>\nwith her teacher and, therefore, a missing report was lodged<br \/>\nby Dorai @ Nataraj with Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station.<br \/>\nThe appellant came to know that his uncles grandson<br \/>\nMaruthachalam and his sisters son Chandran had facilitated<br \/>\nelopement of Punitha with her teacher and, therefore, scolded<br \/>\nboth of them.  The incident in question took place on April 27,<br \/>\n1994.  On the date of incident at about 10.00 AM the<br \/>\nappellant was repairing the leakage in the pipe fitted near the<br \/>\nwell situated in his field.  Maruthachalam with his brother<br \/>\nSenthil Kumar approached the appellant and asked him to<br \/>\ngive bitterguard.  The appellant refused to give bitterguard<br \/>\nsaying that they had defamed his family by helping Punitha to<br \/>\nelope with her teacher.  Thereupon a verbal altercation took<br \/>\nplace.  The appellant picked up aruval (sickle) lying on the<br \/>\nground and caused injuries on the neck of Maruthachalam.<br \/>\nThereupon Senthil Kumar raised shouts as result of which<br \/>\nThiru Ramasamy, the father of Maruthachalam, who was<br \/>\nworking in his field rushed at the place of incident.  The<br \/>\nappellant after causing injuries to Maruthachalam left his field<br \/>\nand went to village Administrative Officer with the sickle.  The<br \/>\nvillage Administrative Officer recorded the statement of the<br \/>\nappellant and took him to Periyanaickenpalayam Police<br \/>\nStation with sickle.  At the said police station, Thiru Jayabalan<br \/>\nwas discharging duties as sub-inspector.  On the basis of the<br \/>\nstatement made by the appellant before the village<br \/>\nAdministrative Officer, the sub-inspector registered an offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 302 of the Code against the<br \/>\nappellant and commenced investigation.  The police officer<br \/>\nwent to the place of incident and seized incriminating articles<br \/>\nunder a panchnama.  The dead body of the deceased was sent<br \/>\nto the hospital for autopsy.   The police officer also recorded<br \/>\nthe statements of those persons who were found to be<br \/>\nconversant with the facts of the case.  The incriminating<br \/>\narticles seized were sent to forensic science laboratory for<br \/>\nanalysis.  On completion of investigation the appellant was<br \/>\nchargesheeted for commission of offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 302 IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nCourt No.VI Coimbatore.  As the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 302 IPC is exclusively triable by court of session, the<br \/>\ncase was committed to the court of learned Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Coimbatore for trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe learned Sessions Judge framed charge against<br \/>\nthe appellant for commission of offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 302 IPC.  It was read over and explained to him.  He<br \/>\npleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.   The<br \/>\nprosecution, therefore, examined 12 witnesses to prove its<br \/>\ncase against the appellant and also produced necessary<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tAfter recording of the evidence of prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses was over, the learned judge explained to the<br \/>\nappellant the circumstances appearing against him in the<br \/>\nevidence of the prosecution and recorded his statement under<br \/>\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  In his further<br \/>\nstatement, the case of the appellant was that of total denial.<br \/>\nHe did not examine any witness in his defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tOn appreciation of evidence adduced by the<br \/>\nprosecution the learned judge held that it was proved that the<br \/>\ndeceased had died a homicidal death.  After placing reliance<br \/>\non the testimony of eye-witnesses the learned judge concluded<br \/>\nthat the appellant was the author of injuries sustained by the<br \/>\ndeceased.  The learned judge thereafter considered the nature<br \/>\nof the offence committed by the appellant.  After taking into<br \/>\nconsideration the facts of the case and the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 300 IPC, the learned judge concluded that the<br \/>\nappellant had committed an offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n302 IPC.  Therefore, he convicted the appellant under Section<br \/>\n302 IPC and imposed sentence of R.I. for life vide judgment<br \/>\ndated February 14, 1997.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant<br \/>\npreferred an appeal before the High court of Judicature at<br \/>\nMadras.  The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed<br \/>\nthe appeal by its Judgment dated March 28, 2005 giving rise<br \/>\nto the instant appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThis Court has heard the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties and considered the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tThe fact that the deceased died a homicidal death is<br \/>\nnot in dispute before this Court.  The medical officer who had<br \/>\nperformed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has<br \/>\nmentioned in detail the injuries noticed by him, in his<br \/>\nsubstantive evidence before the court.  Eye-witness Senthil<br \/>\nKumar has stated in his testimony that the appellant had<br \/>\ncaused injuries on the neck of the deceased by means of a<br \/>\nsickle.  The autopsy report also mentions in detail the injuries<br \/>\nsustained by the deceased.  It is nobodys case that the<br \/>\ninjuries found on the dead body of the deceased were self<br \/>\ninflicted.  Therefore, the fact that the deceased died a<br \/>\nhomicidal death stands proved beyond pale of doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tThe testimony of eye-witness Senthil Kumar would<br \/>\nindicate that on the day of the incident the deceased in his<br \/>\ncompany had gone to the field of the appellant and had<br \/>\ndemanded bitterguard.  According to the said witness because<br \/>\nof the elopement of Punitha with her teacher, the appellant<br \/>\nwas annoyed and had, therefore, refused to give bitterguard<br \/>\nsaying that they had defamed his family.  What is stated by<br \/>\nthe said witness is that the deceased had thereupon asked the<br \/>\nappellant to talk in a decent manner and had hardly turned<br \/>\nhis back to leave the field of the appellant when the appellant<br \/>\nhad delivered a blow with sickle on the neck of the deceased.<br \/>\nThough this witness was cross-examined at length nothing<br \/>\nsubstantial could be brought on record which would cast a<br \/>\ndoubt on his assertion that the appellant was the author of<br \/>\nthe injuries sustained by the deceased.  Similarly, another<br \/>\nwitness Thiru Ramasami has also deposed that on the day of<br \/>\nincident he had seen the deceased going towards the field of<br \/>\nthe appellant in the company of Senthil Kumar and had asked<br \/>\nthe deceased as to where he was going.  According to this<br \/>\nwitness thereupon the deceased had informed the witness that<br \/>\nhe was going to the field of the appellant to get bitterguard.<br \/>\nWhat is asserted by the witness is that he had advised the<br \/>\ndeceased not to go to the field of the appellant as the appellant<br \/>\nwas nurturing a feeling that they had helped Punitha to elope<br \/>\nwith her teacher.  The witness has further stated that the<br \/>\ndeceased had stated that they would come back if the<br \/>\nappellant was not inclined to give bitterguard.  The witness<br \/>\nhas also stated that he had heard altercation taking place<br \/>\nbetween the appellant and the deceased but was not able to<br \/>\nfollow the same as he was at a little distance.  What is claimed<br \/>\nby the witness is that he had seen the appellant delivering<br \/>\nblow to the deceased and that he had gone to the field of the<br \/>\nappellant to help his injured son who was bleeding profusely.<br \/>\nThe witness has mentioned that the people who were in the<br \/>\nnearby fields, had gathered and thereafter he had gone to the<br \/>\npolice station where he had learnt that the appellant had<br \/>\nalready lodged a complaint against himself.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tThis witness is also cross-examined in detail, but<br \/>\nnothing could be brought on record to impeach his credibility.<br \/>\nThis witness stands fully corroborated in material particulars<br \/>\nby the testimony of witness Senthil Kumar.  This Court finds<br \/>\nthat the Sessions Court and High Court were justified in<br \/>\nholding that the appellant was the author of the injuries<br \/>\nsustained by the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThis brings the court to consider the question as to<br \/>\nwhich offence is committed by the appellant.  Admittedly, the<br \/>\nincident had taken place in the field\/garden belonging to the<br \/>\nappellant, where he was engaged in his farming activities.<br \/>\nFrom the evidence led by the prosecution it is evident that the<br \/>\ndeceased, in the company of witness Senthil Kumar had gone<br \/>\nto the field of the appellant to get bitterguard though they were<br \/>\nwarned not to do so by the father of the deceased.  In spite of<br \/>\nknowing that the appellant was nurturing a feeling that the<br \/>\ndeceased and his own sisters son had facilitated elopement of<br \/>\nPunitha with her teacher, the deceased in the company of<br \/>\nSenthil Kumar had gone to the field of the appellant on the<br \/>\npretext of getting bitterguard.  The testimony of the father of<br \/>\nthe deceased establishes that his deceased son, in the<br \/>\ncompany of witness Senthil Kumar had stayed in the field of<br \/>\nthe appellant for about 15 minutes and that there was an<br \/>\naltercation between the appellant and the deceased.  The<br \/>\nappellant never knew and anticipated that the deceased would<br \/>\nenter his field  nor had prepared himself in advance to attack<br \/>\nthe deceased.  Thus there was no premeditation or pre-plan on<br \/>\nthe part of the appellant, to cause the death of the deceased.<br \/>\nThough the appellant is senior in age to the deceased, the<br \/>\ndeceased had advised the appellant to behave nicely without<br \/>\nrhyme or reason, when the appellant had refused to part with<br \/>\nbitterguard saying that the deceased and others had disgraced<br \/>\nhis family by facilitating elopement of Punitha with her<br \/>\nteacher.  It is not the case of the prosecution that on seeing<br \/>\nthat the deceased was entering his field in the company of<br \/>\nSenthil Kumar, the appellant had straightway attacked him.<br \/>\nThe evidence led by the prosecution clearly establishes that<br \/>\nafter verbal duel, which had lasted for pretty long time, the<br \/>\nappellant had picked up a sickle which is an agricultural<br \/>\nimplement, lying on the ground and delivered a blow on the<br \/>\nneck of the deceased.  By entering the field of the appellant on<br \/>\nthe pretext of getting bitterguard, though he was knowing fully<br \/>\nwell that the appellant was nurturing a feeling that he had<br \/>\nplayed a role in the elopement of Punitha with her teacher as<br \/>\nwell as engaging himself in an altercation with the appellant,<br \/>\nand advising the appellant to behave the deceased had offered<br \/>\ngrave and sudden provocation to the appellant as a result of<br \/>\nwhich the appellant, in the heat of the moment had delivered a<br \/>\nblow with sickle to the deceased. The medical officer who had<br \/>\nperformed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has not<br \/>\nstated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were<br \/>\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.<br \/>\nIt is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had<br \/>\nacted cruelly, in the sense that he had delivered successive<br \/>\nblows to the deceased.  There was sufficient time and<br \/>\nopportunity to the appellant to give repeated blows.  It is not<br \/>\nthe case of the prosecution that the appellant wanted to<br \/>\ndeliver other blows and that he was prevented from doing so,<br \/>\nby any person.  So, there is reasonable ground to believe that<br \/>\nafter giving the blow, the appellant had stopped and not acted<br \/>\ncruelly.  As noticed earlier, the appellant was doing his work<br \/>\nand was not waiting for the deceased to come.  On the facts<br \/>\nand in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the<br \/>\nopinion that Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC would apply to the<br \/>\nfacts of the case and the offence committed by the appellant<br \/>\nwould be one punishable under Section 304 IPC.  There is<br \/>\nnothing on record to indicate that the appellant had<br \/>\ncommitted culpable homicide amounting to murder by causing<br \/>\ndeath of the deceased with the intention of causing death of<br \/>\nthe deceased or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to<br \/>\ncause his death.  Therefore, the provisions of Part II of Sction<br \/>\n304 IPC would apply to the facts of the case on hand.  Thus,<br \/>\nthe appeal will have to be allowed by converting the conviction<br \/>\nof the appellant under Section 302 IPC to one punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 304 Part II IPC.  This Court has considered the<br \/>\nsubmissions advanced at the bar for the purpose of imposition<br \/>\nof sentence on the appellant for commission of offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.  As held earlier<br \/>\nthere was no pre-meditation or pre plan on the part of the<br \/>\nappellant to cause death of the deceased, and the occurrence<br \/>\nhad taken place when the deceased, with another had entered<br \/>\nthe field of the appellant and engaged himself in an altercation<br \/>\nwith the appellant when the appellant had refused to part with<br \/>\nbitterguard.   Having regard to the attending circumstances in<br \/>\nwhich the incident had taken place, this Court is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the interest of justice would be served if the<br \/>\nappellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years<br \/>\nfor commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part<br \/>\nII IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tFor the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly<br \/>\nsucceeds.  The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at<br \/>\nMadras dated March 28, 2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo.648 of 1997, confirming the conviction of the appellant<br \/>\nunder Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment<br \/>\nrecorded by the learned First Additional sessions Judge,<br \/>\nCoimbatore vide judgment dated February 14, 1997, delivered<br \/>\nin Sessions Case NO.63 of 1996, is set aside.  Instead the<br \/>\nappellant is convicted for commission of an offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 304 Part II IPC for the said offence.  The<br \/>\nappellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<br \/>\nfive years and a fine of Rs.5,000\/-, in default, simple<br \/>\nimprisonment for one year.  The appeal accordingly stands<br \/>\ndisposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 Author: J Panchal Bench: C.K. Thakker, J.M. Panchal CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 79 of 2006 PETITIONER: CHINNATHAMAN RESPONDENT: STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER &amp; J.M. PANCHAL JUDGMENT: J U D G [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T00:27:55+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\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T00:27:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2385,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T00:27:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 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":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T00:27:55+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\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T00:27:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007"},"wordCount":2385,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007","name":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T00:27:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathaman-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 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\/145583","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=145583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}