{"id":146935,"date":"2003-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003"},"modified":"2019-03-27T05:24:42","modified_gmt":"2019-03-26T23:54:42","slug":"rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nC.A.No.1384 of 2002\n\nRahamathulla                                   .. Appellant\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nTiruppur South Police Station\nTiruppur, Coimbatore Dt.\n(Cr.No. 648 of 2000)                    .. Respondent\n\n        This criminal appeal is preferred under S.374 of The Code of  Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions\nJudge,  Coimbatore  at  Tiruppur (Fast Track Court No.5) made in S.C.No.455 of\n2001 dated 30.7.2002.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.B.Ramamoorthy\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan\n                Government Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        The appellant who was ranked as A-1 along with 2 others and who  stood
\ncharged  under  S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Ss 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.
\nand found guilty under Ss 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.  and sentenced to  undergo
\n2 years  R.I.  and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-, in default, to undergo 1 year
\nS.I.  and 7 years R.I.  respectively has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal  can  be
\nstated thus:\n<\/p>\n
        (a)   The   victim   Rajumma  @  Rajunnisha,  the  daughter  of  P.W.1
\nSathakkathullah and P.W.4 Immarammal, was married by A-1, the son of  A-2  and
\nA-3  on  13.2.1998 in accordance with the customs and rites among Mohammedans.
\nAt the time of marriage, Rajumma was 23 years old.  P.W.5 Sathique  and  P.W.6
\nSumaiah were the brother and sister of the deceased respectively.  At the time
\nof  marriage  15  sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.15,000\/- cash were given as
\ndowry.  They were living happily for a short-while.  Thereafter, A-1 began  to
\ndemand dowry.   In  the  year  1999,  they  had  a  male child.  Thereafter, a
\nseparate family was set up by A-1 and the deceased at Door  No.106,  Asanbhava
\nBig Shop Lane, Tiruppur, while P.W.1 and his family were living in Door No.123
\nin the  same  Street.   After the separate family was set up, A-1 continued to
\ndemand dowry from the deceased for purchasing a gas stove, and  in  turn,  the
\ndemand was  made to P.W.1, and he met the demand by giving Rs.4 ,500\/-.  After
\nthe birth of the second child, there was a demand for jewels, and  there  were
\nintermittent demands  by A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3.  On 13.7.2000,
\nP.W.6 the younger sister of the deceased, when she came back from her  School,
\nmet the deceased, by which time the deceased was weeping.  P.W.6 came home and
\ninformed the same to her parents.  P.W.1 and others came to know at about 1.30
\nP.M.   that  his  daughter  has  committed  suicide in the house where she was
\nliving with A-1.  P.W.1 and others went there and  found  herself  hanging  by
\nusing M.Os.1  and  2.    They took the victim to Veeramani Hospital, where the
\nDoctor declared her dead.  Then, they brought the dead body of the deceased to
\nthe Government Hospital, Tiruppur.   P.W.1  entertained  a  suspicion  whether
\nthere was  some foul-play in the death of his daughter.  He lodged a complaint
\nbefore Tiruppur Police Station under Ex.P1 at about 11.15 P.M.   on  the  same
\nday.  On  the  strength of Ex.  P1, P.W.10 Sukumaran, Sub Inspector of Police,
\nTiruppur South Police Station, registered a case in  Crime  No.648\/2000  under
\nS.304(B) of I.P.C.    Ex.P6  printed  F.I.R.   was despatched to the concerned
\nMagistrate’ s Court, while the copies were sent to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) P.W.9 Pankajkumar  Bansal,  Revenue  Divisional  Officer  (R.D.O.)
\nreceived  a copy of the same, went to the place of occurrence and enquired the
\nwitnesses.  He proceeded to the Government Hospital,  Tiruppur,  conducted  an
\ninquest  on  the  body  of  the deceased, examined P.Ws.1 and 4 to 6 and other
\nwitnesses and recorded their statements.  He prepared a  report  under  Ex.P5.
\nHe made a request to P.W.2 Dr.Selvanayaki and P.W.3 Dr.Ravichandran to conduct
\npostmortem.   Accordingly,  the  autopsy  was  conducted  by P.W.2 assisted by
\nP.W.3.  The doctors found the following injuries.\n<\/p>\n
1.  A diffuse Rope Mark seen running obliquely from the left side to the right
\nside with knot mark seen 2″ below the right ear.\n<\/p>\n
On c\/s.  the underlying tissues are contused.\n<\/p>\n
P.Ws.2 and 3 gave Ex.P2 postmortem certificate opining that  the  death  could
\nhave occurred due to asphyxia due to hanging.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)  P.W.11  K.Rangarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Avinasi on
\nreceipt of the copy of the F.I.R.  on 14.7.2000, took  up  the  investigation,
\nproceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P3 observation mahazar in
\nthe presence  of  P.W.8  Haniffa and one Sirajudin and Ex.P7 rough sketch.  He
\nalso made recoveries from the  occurrence  place  M.Os.1  and  2  under  Ex.P4
\nmahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.  He examined P.Ws.4, 5, 7 and 7
\nand other  witnesses  and  recorded their statements.  P.W.11 arrested all the
\naccused on 15.7.2000 and sent them to the Judicial Magistrate No.II,  Tiruppur
\nfor judicial  custody.    M.Os.1  and  2  were  produced  before the concerned
\nMagistrate’s Court under Form 95.  P.W.12 K.Joshi Nirmal Kumar  who  succeeded
\nto  the Office of P.W.11, took up further investigation, examined P.Ws.2 and 3
\nDoctors and recorded their statements.  On completion of the investigation, he
\nfiled a charge sheet against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In order to prove the charges levelled against  the  accused,  the
\nprosecution  examined  12  witnesses  and  marked  7  exhibits  and 2 material
\nobjects.  After the evidence on the side of  the  prosecution  was  over,  the
\naccused were  questioned  under  S.313  of  Cr.P.C.    as to the incriminating
\nmaterials found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.  On the side  of
\nthe accused,  3  witnesses  were  examined  and 5 exhibits were marked.  After
\nconsidering the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, the
\ntrial Court found the appellant\/A-1 guilty under Ss 498-A and 304-B of  I.P.C.
\nand  sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment as referred to above, while A-2
\nand A-3 were acquitted of the charges against them.    Hence,  the  appeal  is
\nbrought forth by the appellant\/A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  learned  Counsel, arguing for the appellant\/A-1, with vigour
\nand vehemence made the following submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        The prosecution has miserably  failed  to  prove  the  ingredients  of
\neither  the  offence  of  dowry  harassment  or the offence of dowry death, as
\nrequired under the provisions of Penal Code.  No evidence was put forth by the
\nprosecution to prove that either there was any dowry demand  or  any  incident
\nhas taken  place  soon  before  the  alleged  death  of Rajumma.  There was no
\nevidence as to the cruelty as found in the charge against the appellant.   All
\nthe  witnesses examined by the prosecution were close relations of the victim.
\nThe independent witnesses, though examined by the police official under  S.161
\nof Cr.P.C.      and  statements  were  recorded,  were  not  examined  by  the
\nprosecution.  According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place  in
\nthe night  hours,  but  the  complaint  was given by 11.15 P.M.  No acceptable
\nexplanation was tendered by the prosecution.  Thus, the delay was fatal to the
\nprosecution case.  According to  the  prosecution,  there  was  a  demand  for
\npurchase of a gas stove.  But, by documentary evidence, the defence has proved
\nthat  even  prior  to 1997 before the marriage, the gas stove was purchased by
\nthe accused.  The Sub Collector, who conducted the enquiry the very  next  day
\nhas signed the report only on 6.9.2000, and thus, there was a huge delay.  The
\nsaid delay  was not explained.  There were alterations and over-writings found
\nin the postmortem report.  The prosecution made its  attempt  to  introduce  a
\ndocument  calling  as  a suicidal note which was rightly rejected by the lower
\nCourt.  The place of occurrence, as stated by the prosecution,  has  not  been
\nclearly proved.   There could not have been any demand for dowry since all the
\njewels worn by the victim were returned  to  them,  after  her  death  to  the
\nprosecution witnesses, which fact is well admitted by them.  There is evidence
\nto  show  that they were leading a happy matrimonial life before the incident,
\nand they were living separately also.  There could not have been any  occasion
\nfor demand  of dowry or harassment, which led her to commit suicide.  Thus, in
\nthe absence  of  any  evidence  and  in  view  of  all  the  above  facts  and
\ncircumstances of the case, the lower Court should have outrightly rejected the
\ncase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Added  further the learned Counsel that on the same evidence, the
\nlower Court has acquitted A-2 and A-3, but has surprisingly convicted A-1, and
\nhence, if view of the application of  the  same  evidence,  the  appellant\/A-1
\nshould have been acquitted, and therefore, it is a fit case for acquittal, and
\nthe appeal has got to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Strongly  opposing  the  contentions of the appellant’s side, the
\nlearned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the dowry demand
\nmade on the victim has been clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1,  4,  5  and  6;  that
\nadmittedly,  at the time of marriage, jewels were given; that the dowry demand
\nby A-1 began immediately after the birth of the first child; that they had the
\nseparate living, and the second  child  was  also  born;  that  there  was  an
\noccasion  when  the  demand of A-1 was met by payment of Rs.4,500\/-; that this
\nfact has been clearly spoken  to  by  P.Ws.1  and  4;  that  the  R.D.O.,  who
\nconducted enquiry, has given a clear report after examination of the witnesses
\nnecessary and panchayatars also stating that it was a dowry death, and she was
\nharassed; that the first accused examined himself as D.W.3, but nowhere has he
\ndenied  the  prosecution  case  stating  that there was no dowry harassment or
\ncruelty or dowry death; that it is true that there was some delay  in  lodging
\nthe  complaint, but the said delay has occasioned during the natural course of
\nevents; that the parents of the  deceased  coming  to  know  about  the  same,
\nproceeded  to  the  place  of  her  house,  found  her hanging and took her to
\nVeeramani Hospital, where she was declared dead, and thereafter the dead  body
\nof Rajumma was taken to the Government Hospital, and only therefrom, they went
\nto  lodge  a complaint, and the said delay, in view of the available evidence,
\ncannot in any way affect the  prosecution  case;  that  it  is  true  that  no
\nindependent  witness was examined by the prosecution; that in the instant case
\nof dowry harassment and dowry death,  the  material  witnesses,  to  whom  the
\ndemands  were  made, have been examined and they have spoken in clear terms of
\nthe prosecution case, and thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all
\nreasonable doubts, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has  got  to  be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   This  Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions made
\nand made a close scrutiny of  all  the  available  materials,  which  led  the
\nirresistible conclusion that the appeal carries no merits.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Admittedly,  Rajumma  @  Rajunnisha  aged  23  years was given in
\nmarriage to the appellant\/A-1  on  13.2.1998  according  to  Muslim  customary
\npractices.   It  is  also  admitted by the appellant as D.W.3 that jewels were
\ngiven at the time of the marriage.  They had two children one born in 1999 and
\nthe other in 2000, and they had set up a separate living, after the  birth  of
\nthe first child.  P.W.1, the father and P.W.4, the mother along with two other
\nwitnesses in their family have categorically spoken to the fact that there was
\ndemand of  dowry then and there by A-1.  There was an occasion, when P.W.1 has
\nmade a payment of Rs.4,500\/- pursuant to the demand made by A-1 and in turn by
\nthe deceased on P.W.1 father.  According to P.W.1,  after  the  birth  of  the
\nsecond  child,  A-1  was  demanding for jewels, which in turn the deceased was
\nmaking over him, and he was assuring that he would be meeting the  same  after
\nsometime.   The  evidence  of P.W.1, despite full cross examination, as to the
\ndowry demand is in tact and not affected in any way.  The Court is  unable  to
\nsee  any  circumstance  or  reason why their evidence should be disbelieved or
\nseen with suspicion.  At this juncture, it remains to be stated that  A-1  who
\nwas  facing  a  trial for dowry harassment and dowry death of his wife, though
\nexamined himself as D.  W.3, has not uttered a single word that he did not  do
\nanything of  that  sort.   As a responsible husband, A-1 is expected to give a
\nstatement under what circumstances and reasons his wife committed suicide.  It
\nis not his case that she was  insane  or  unsound.    But,  they  were  living
\nhappily.   It  is  true  that  committing  of  suicide may be due to number of
\nreasons.  But, what led her to commit suicide, under the stated circumstances,
\nhas got to be necessarily explained by him.  The Court is  of  the  considered
\nview that the explanation tendered by the appellant has to be looked into from
\nthe available  evidence  as  narrated  above.  The explanation tendered by the
\naccused that after the birth of the second  child,  at  the  instance  of  his
\nwife’s  mother,  she was fixed with copper tea, which developed some pain, and
\ndue to that, she could not tolerate, and thus, she committed  suicide  is  too
\nflimsy a reason to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In  the  instant  case,  the  R.D.O.  who received the copy of the
\nF.I.R.  as to the death of the victim, has proceeded  to  the  spot,  made  an
\nenquiry  procedurally,  recorded  the statements of the panchayatars and other
\nwitnesses and gave a detailed report, wherein he has stated that it  was  only
\ndue to  the  dowry  harassment, she has committed suicide.  It is true that no
\nindependent witness has been examined.  In a case like this, where  there  was
\ndowry  demand  and  cruelty  to  a spouse, and consequently, she has committed
\nsuicide, and the necessary material facts could be spoken well by her parents,
\nwho have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 4, any number of  independent  witnesses,
\nif  examined,  cannot  speak  effectively  to the facts that took place in the
\nfamily life of the spouses.  Even if they are examined, their evidence  cannot
\nbe  given  much weight as to that of the witnesses like parents of the victim.
\nThe Court is able to notice some delay in lodging  the  complaint,  since  the
\noccurrence has  taken  place at 1.00 A.M.  and the complaint has been given by
\n11.15 P.M., and after that, a case was registered by P.W.10 Sub  Inspector  of
\nPolice.  But, the Court has to point out that after receiving the information,
\nP.Ws.1  and  4  proceeded  to  the  house of the victim, took her to Veeramani
\nHospital, where she was declared dead, and from there, they took the dead body
\nof Rajumma to the Government Hospital, which consumed considerable  time,  and
\nhence, the explanation given by the prosecution that the delay has taken place
\nin the  ordinary  course  of  events has got to be accepted.  That apart, even
\nassuming that there is a delay, that delay is neither inordinate, nor  it  has
\ngiven way to any embellishment in the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   It  is  a fact not disputed that the victim died due to hanging,
\nand the same is spoken to by the postmortem Doctor along with the certificate.
\nIt is pertinent to note that she has committed suicide within 7 years from the
\ndate of her marriage, and hence, the lower  Court  was  perfectly  correct  in
\nfinding  on the evidence available that the appellant\/A-1 subjected the victim
\nto cruelty; that soon before her death,  she  was  subjected  to  cruelty  and
\nharassment  by  her  husband,  the  appellant;  and that the appellant\/A-1 was
\nresponsible for the victim committing suicide.  The lower Court convicted  the
\nappellant\/A-1  under Ss 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
\nhim to undergo R.I.  for 2 years along with  a  fine  of  Rs.10,000\/-  and  in
\ndefault of  payment  of  fine,  he shall undergo 1 year S.I.  under S.498-A of
\nI.P.C.  and awarded minimum punishment of 7  years  R.I.    under  S.304-B  of
\nI.P.C.  The Court is of the considered view that there is nothing to interfere
\neither in the conviction or the sentence passed by the Court below.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   For what has been stated above, this Court finds no merit in the
\nappeal.  Accordingly, it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index; Yes
\nInternet: Yes<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1) The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
\nCourt No.5), Tiruppur, Coimbatore District.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
4) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
5) The D.I.G.  of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n
6) Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Government Advocate
\n(Crl.  Side), High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
7) The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur Police Station
\nTiruppur.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.1384 of 2002 Rahamathulla .. Appellant -Vs- State by Inspector of Police Tiruppur South Police Station Tiruppur, Coimbatore Dt. (Cr.No. 648 of 2000) .. Respondent This […]<\/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-146935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - 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\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-26T23:54:42+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T23:54:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2729,\"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\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T23:54:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - 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\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-26T23:54:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T23:54:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003"},"wordCount":2729,"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\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003","name":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T23:54:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahamathulla-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-10-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rahamathulla vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/146935","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=146935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}