{"id":14664,"date":"2008-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-23T12:17:35","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T06:47:35","slug":"marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 16\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NO.562 OF 2007\n\n\nMarimuthu and Gnanaraj\t\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nState through by\nthe Inspector of Police,\nThalavaipuram Police Station,\nVirudhunagar District\n(Crime No.127 of 2005)\t\t\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the\njudgment of conviction and sentence made by the learned Principal Sessions\nJudge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur made in S.C.No.91 of 2006, dated\n28.09.2007.\n\n!For Appellant  ...  Mr.C.Meenakshi Ramaprabhu\n\n^For Respondent ...  Mr.C.Daniel Manoharan, APP\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Principal Sessions
\nDivision, Srivilliputhur made in S.C.No.91 of 2006, whereby the sole
\naccused\/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and on trial, he
\nwas found guilty on both charges and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI under Section 302 IPC and 6
\nmonths S.I. under Section 309 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.8 is the mother of the deceased Umamaheswari. One Palchamy is the
\nhusband of P.W.8. Originally, they are the native of Murambu, which is situated
\nnear Rajapalayam.  Following the love affairs between the deceased and the
\naccused, their marriage was arranged. At the time of marriage, the accused was
\nemployed in Bangalore and the deceased also went to Bangalore and they lived
\ntogether for some time. Since the accused did not have sufficient income in
\nBangalore, the father of the deceased got employment for the accused and also
\nfor the deceased in the Mill at Cholapuram. Accordingly, both were living at
\nCholapuram in a rental house, which belonged to P.W.10. They got only one
\ndaughter, who was in ailment and hence for the operation and for medical
\ntreatment, they were in need of money. The deceased made a request to her Master
\nfor loan, but this was not liked by the accused\/appellant. Apart from that,
\nthere were occasions, in which he suspected her fidelity.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)On the date of occurrence, namely on 27.7.2005, in the morning hours,
\nP.W.2 came out of the house to take water from the public pipe. At that time, he
\nheard a distressing cry from the house of the accused. He also found the accused
\ncoming out of the house with burn injuries. P.W.2 got into the house to witness
\nthe dead body of the deceased. When P.W.4, the Doctor attached to the Government
\nHospital, Rajapalayam, was in duty at about 9.00 a.m., the accused appeared and
\ninformed him that in the morning hours when his wife attempted to self immolate
\nherself, he intervened and went to her rescue and at that time, he sustained
\ninjuries. P.W.4 medically examined him and found 40% burn injuries in the body
\nof the accused. The Accident Register copy in that regard was marked as Ex.P.4.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)At about 6.30 a.m. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer of
\nTherkuvenganallur, was informed that the deceased was found dead in her house.
\nImmediately, he went over to the place of occurrence, verified the same and
\nthen, proceeded to the respondent police station. He gave Ex.P.1, the complaint
\nto P.W.16, the Inspector of Police.  On the strength of the same, a case came to
\nbe registered in Crime No.127 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R.
\nEx.P.12 was sent to the court.\n<\/p>\n
\td)P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer of the said division, on receipt
\nof the copy of the F.I.R., proceeded to the spot, made an enquiry and also
\nrecorded the statement of the witnesses. He also made an inquest in the presence
\nof the witnesses and panchayatdars. He gave Ex.P.9, the report, wherein he has
\nrecorded a finding that she might have been murdered on account of dowry demand.
\nFollowing the same, the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\te)P.W.3, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, on
\nreceipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the
\ndeceased.  He has issued Ex.P.2, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has
\nopined that the deceased would appear to have died 24 to 32 hours prior to post-
\nmortem due to 100% burn injuries and also the injury found on the skull.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)P.W.15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the said division took up
\ninvestigation, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. He proceeded to the spot and
\nmade an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.7, the
\nobservation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch. He recovered the material
\nobjects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Since no dowry
\ndemand is noticed by him, he handed over the entire records to the Inspector
\nconcerned for further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up the matter for further
\ninvestigation.  He proceeded with the investigation. The case was altered to
\nSections 302 and 309 IPC. The amended F.I.R. Ex.P.13, was despatched to the
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
\th)On 18.11.2005, the accused, who was all along in Thiruppur, came to
\nMurambu and made a confession about the occurrence to P.Ws.7 and 14.  On
\n19.11.2005, P.W.16 arrested the accused at the bus stop. When the accused
\nvoluntarily gave confessional statement, it was also recorded in the presence of
\nthe witnesses. Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand. Ex.P.16 is the
\nHyoid Bone report. Ex.P.5 is the Viscera report. On completion of the
\ninvestigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16
\nwitnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and 5 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on
\nthe side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313
\nCr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of
\nprosecution witnesses. The accused flatly denied them as false. No defence
\nwitness was examined. On hearing the submissions made and also scrutiny of the
\nmaterials available, the trial court took the view that the prosecution has
\nproved the case beyond reasonable doubt and entered a judgment of conviction and
\nsentence, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.C.Meenakshi
\nRamaprabhu, the learned counsel has made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)In the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and
\nit rested its case only on circumstantial evidence.  P.W.2, who was the
\nneighbour, found the accused\/appellant coming out of the house in or about the
\ntime of occurrence with burn injuries.  Further, it is to be pointed out that it
\nis admitted by the accused that while his wife attempted to commit suicide, in
\norder to save her, he took efforts, but he sustained injuries and thus, he came
\nout of the house with burn injuries and hence the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be
\ntaken to be in favour of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)The other circumstance is the extra judicial confession, which was
\nalleged to have been given by the accused to P.Ws.7 and 14 on 19.11.2005. It is
\npertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place on 27.7.2005, but the
\nextra judicial confession was alleged to have been made on 19.11.2005. It is
\nfurther to be pointed out that these two witnesses, to whom extra judicial
\nconfession was made, did not produce the accused before the police and hence
\nthere was a long interval. Thus, it would be nothing, but these two witnesses
\nhave been introduced in order to shape and strengthen the prosecution case, but
\nin vain.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Further, according to the police, he was arrested and his confessional
\nstatement was recorded, but it would not lead to any inference or any decision
\nor conclusion and under these circumstances, it was of no legal consequence at
\nall. Further, according to the post-mortem Doctor, death would have occurred out
\nof the injuries found on the skull and also due to 100% burn injuries. In the
\ncross-examination, he has clearly pointed out that the injury on the skull would
\nhave been occurred due to the fall. There was no fracture found. The case of
\nprosecution was that the accused attacked her with the iron rod and caused
\ninjuries, but no corresponding injury was found. Not even a suggestion was put
\nto the Doctor by the prosecution. Hence the medical evidence did not support the
\nprosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has not placed or proved any
\ncircumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and hence the
\naccused\/appellant is entitled for acquittal. The lower court has not considered
\nthe same, but has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence erroneously.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In the instant case, it is not in controversy that the wife of the
\naccused was found dead in her house at about 6.30 a.m. on 27.7.2005. When it was
\nbrought to the notice of the police by P.W.1, V.A.O., a case came to be
\nregistered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The inquest was made by the concerned
\nRevenue Divisional Officer and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by
\nP.W.3, the Doctor, who has issued Ex.P.2, the post-mortem certificate, wherein
\nhe has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of burn injuries and
\nalso the injury found on the skull and thus, there is no doubt that she died out
\nof those injuries.  The same is also not disputed by the appellant and hence, it
\nhas got to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant, the
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It has placed a few circumstances
\nand has made an attempt to prove the same. The court is mindful of caution made
\nby the Apex Court and also it is also a settled proposition of law that in a
\ngiven case like this when the prosecution rested its case on circumstantial
\nevidence, all the circumstances necessary must be placed and proved and they
\nshould make a complete chain even without a snap, pointing to the hypotheses
\nthat except the accused no one could have committed the offence. The court is
\nafraid, if this test is applied, whether the circumstances could be taken as
\nproved.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is P.W.2, who saw
\nthe accused coming out of the house in or about the time of occurrence. This
\nfact is not disputed by the accused. According to the prosecution, it was the
\naccused who set her ablaze after attacking her with the iron rod. According to
\nthe accused, she set fire herself in an attempt to commit suicide and he
\nattempted to rescue her and in that process, he sustained injuries and with the
\nburn injuries, he came out of the house and proceeded to the hospital. According
\nto P.W.2, he saw the accused coming outside of the house with burn injuries.
\nThus, the evidence of P.W.2 in no way would be helpful to the prosecution case,
\npointing to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the extra
\njudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to P.Ws.7 and 14.
\nAdmittedly, the occurrence has taken place on 27.7.2005. According to the
\nprosecution, the extra judicial confession was given to P.Ws.7 and 14 only on
\n19.11.2005, i.e. nearly after an interval of 4 months. Such an act of the
\naccused coming back to his native place and making such a confession to two
\npersons is highly improbable and unbelievable. Thus, it casts a doubt whether
\nthese two witnesses could have been introduced to strengthen the case, if
\npossible. The court must look the attendant circumstance and hence the interval
\nof four months would be sufficient to reject that part of the evidence in
\nrespect of extra judicial confession.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the medical
\nopinion given by P.W.3, the Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem. According to
\nhim, the death would have occurred due to the injuries on skull and also due to
\n100% burn injuries.  The specific case of the prosecution was that he attacked
\nhis wife with the iron rod and caused injuries on skull. But there is no direct
\nevidence. Since the prosecution rested its case on circumstantial evidence, the
\ncourt must see whether such circumstances are available.  Even the post-mortem
\nDoctor has clearly stated in the cross-examination that  a sudden fall would be
\nsufficient to cause such injury on the head.  On the contrary, not even one
\nquestion was put to the post-mortem Doctor to prove the fact that the injury
\nthat was found on the skull of the deceased could have been caused by the attack
\nwith iron rod. Hence the prosecution has not proved the fact. On the contrary,
\nthe defence made an attempt to disprove the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Added circumstance was that originally, the case was registered under
\nSection 174 Cr.P.C. Had it been true that P.W.2, who has actually seen the
\naccused coming out of the house with burn injuries, said so to the police, the
\npolice personnel would have fixed the accused there itself and there was no need
\nto register the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. But, the case was altered to
\nSection 302 IPC after a long lapse of time. Even, the Revenue Divisional
\nOfficer, who made an enquiry, has not even whispered anything about the act of
\nthe accused. All would go to show that the prosecution has not proved the case
\neither by placing the circumstances necessary or proving the same, pointing to
\nthe complicity of the offender. The lower court has not considered either
\nfactual or legal positions. Hence it is a fit case where the accused\/appellant
\nis entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the
\njudgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court.
\nThe appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is
\ndirected to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection
\nwith any other case. The fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
vvk<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Thalavaipuram Police Station,
\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Virudhunagar District
\n  Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NO.562 OF 2007 Marimuthu and Gnanaraj .. Appellant Vs. State through by the Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14664","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMarimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - 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\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T06:47:35+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\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T06:47:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2384,\"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\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T06:47:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - 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\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T06:47:35+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\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T06:47:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008"},"wordCount":2384,"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\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008","name":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T06:47:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-and-gnanaraj-vs-state-through-by-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marimuthu And Gnanaraj vs State Through By on 16 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/14664","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=14664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14664\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}