{"id":147376,"date":"2010-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-17T14:26:35","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T08:56:35","slug":"kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.15 of 2010\n\nKasirajan\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nVs\n\nState rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nSathur Taluk Police Station,\nVirudhunagar District.\n(Crime No.264 of 2007) \t\t\t    ... Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of\nthe Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.\nNo.39 of 2008 dated 29.01.2009.\n\n!For Appellant \t ...\tMr.A.P.Muthupandian -\n\t\t\tAmicus Curiae\n^For Respondent\t ... \tMr.M.Daniel Manoharan,\n\t\t\tAddl. Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tChallenge is made to a judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
\nVirudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur passed in S.C.No.39 of 2008 on
\n29.01.2009, whereby the sole accused \/ appellant stood charged, tried and found
\nguilty under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and awarded punishment of life
\nimprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and default sentence under Section 302
\nIPC, and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can
\nbe stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) The deceased-Dhanabackiyam was the wife of the accused \/ appellant.
\nP.W.1-Kamatchi is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. The accused was
\nan addict to drugs and also he had all illegal activities. He was torturing his
\nwife from the time of marriage and she was forced to live with P.W.1-her
\ndaughter, and her son Solaiswamy, at her parental home. Though the accused \/
\nappellant made many attempts to take the deceased back, she was not willing to
\ngo with him. The accused entered into an agreement for sale of a piece of land
\nowned by the family and got advance for it. When the deceased came to know about
\nit, she convened a panchayat and also informed him that she would go for civil
\nproceedings before the Court. The accused, aggrieved over the same, on the date
\nof occurrence, that was on 30.09.2007 at about 7.30 a.m., when the deceased was
\nproceeding along with P.W.1 from Melaputhur to Naranapuram Bus Stop to go to a
\nmatch factory where she was working, the accused \/ appellant came in a cycle,
\ngot down from the same and pointing to her, uttered the words “How can you
\nrefuse to come with me to live jointly? How dare you to file a case when I sell
\nmy property according to my wish?”.  So saying, he cut her with M.O.1-Aruval on
\ndifferent parts of the body and when she fell down, he continued to cut her and
\nsevered the head.  Thereafter, he ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1
\nimmediately rushed to P.W.6-Visvasam and narrated the entire incident, pursuant
\nto which Ex.P1-Complaint was prepared. Then, P.W.1 along with her uncle Arulraj,
\nproceeded to the respondent-Police Station, where P.W.17-Sub-Inspector of
\nPolice, was on duty. He received Ex.P1 from P.W.1. On the strength of Ex.P1, a
\ncase came to be registered in Crime No.264 of 2007 under Sections 341 and 302
\nIPC. Ex.P16-Express F.I.R. was despatched to the Court and the copies were sent
\nto the higher-ups.\n<\/p>\n
\tb) P.W.18-Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation. On
\nreceipt of the copy of F.I.R., he went to the place of occurrence, made an
\ninspection and prepared Ex.P3-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P17-Rough Sketch. Then
\nhe conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of
\nwitnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P18-Inquest Report.  Thereafter, he
\nrecovered M.Os.8, 9 and 10-One pair of chappal, Blood-stained earth and ordinary
\nearth respectively, under a cover of Ex.P4-Seizure Mahazar and sent the dead
\nbody to the Government Hospital, Sathur for conducting autopsy, under a
\nrequisition marked as Ex.P10.\n<\/p>\n
\tc) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.13-
\nDoctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Sathur and she issued Ex.P11-Post
\nMortem Certificate, wherein she gave an opinion that the deceased died 6 to 12
\nhours prior to autopsy due to severance of head and also the injuries sustained
\nby her. Thereafter, material objects were recovered from the dead body of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
\td) Pending the investigation, the Investigator arrested the accused on
\n23.10.2007. The accused came forward to give a confessional statement
\nvoluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of P.W.10-Village
\nAdministrative Officer. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the confessional
\nstatement of the accused. On the basis of the confessional statement, the
\naccused produced M.O.1-Aruval, M.O.11-Shirt and M.O.12-Kaili and the same were
\nrecovered under a cover of Ex.P6-Seizure Mahazar. Thereafter, the investigator
\nsent the accused for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\te) The investigator sent all the material objects to the Forensic Lab for
\nconducting chemical examination under a requisition marked as Ex.P12, followed
\nby another requisition sent by the Judicial Magistrate Court under Ex.P13. Two
\nreports were received. One is Ex.P14-Chemical Analyst’s Report and the other is
\nEx.P15-Serologist’s Report.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) P.W.18-Inspector of Police, on completion of the investigation, filed
\nthe final report on 07.01.2008 under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC against the
\naccused  before the concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the
\nCourt of sessions and necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n
\tg) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 18 witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 14 material
\nobjects. On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution,
\nthe accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating
\ncircumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as
\nfalse. No defence witness was examined. On the side of the defence, Ex.D1 was
\nmarked. After hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the
\navailable materials, the Trial Court took the view that the prosecution has
\nproved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found the accused guilty and awarded
\nthe punishments as referred to above. Hence, this Criminal Appeal at the
\ninstance of the accused \/ appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused \/ appellant, the learned
\ncounsel would submit that, in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably
\nfailed to prove the case. Though the prosecution marched 3 witnesses, i.e.
\nP.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.2 turned hostile and P.W.3 was not believed by the Trial Judge,
\nand thus, the prosecution had only one evidence before the Trial Court. Insofar
\nas P.W.1 is concerned, the Trial Judge should have rejected the testimony of
\nP.W.1, since she could not have been present in the occurrence place, when the
\noccurrence took place. According to Ex.P1, when they were proceeding to a match
\nfactory where they were working, the occurrence took place, but P.W.1, in her
\nevidence, has candidly admitted that the match factory was on leave on Sundays.
\nTherefore, according to the counsel for the accused \/ appellant, since the date
\nof occurrence happened to be a Sunday, it would be quite clear that P.W.1 and
\nher mother could not have gone to the match factory on that day.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Added further the learned counsel for the accused \/ appellant that
\nP.W.1 has categorically stated in the cross-examination that the complaint
\ncontained only two pages where she signed, but Ex.P1 actually contains three
\npages. Apart from that, the occurrence has taken place at 8’O clock in the
\nmorning, but the complaint reached the Police Station only at 11.00 a.m., and
\nthus there was a delay and the delay remained unexplained by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Learned counsel for the accused \/ appellant would further add that it
\nwas claimed by the Investigator that the accused was arrested on 23.10.2007
\npursuant to which, he gave a confessional statement voluntarily and on the basis
\nof the confessional statement, 3 material objects were recovered, namely,
\nM.Os.1, 11 and 12-Aruval, Shirt and Kaili respectively, under a cover of Ex.P6-
\nSeizure Mahazar, and all these material objects were recovered from a public
\nplace on 23.10.2007. Therefore, according to the counsel, when the occurrence
\nhas taken place on 30.09.2007, it is highly artificial that all these material
\nobjects were kept in a public place for about 23 days and therefore, the alleged
\nrecovery of M.Os.1, 11 and 12, as put forth by the prosecution, cannot be
\nbelieved.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Added further the learned counsel for the accused \/ appellant that in
\nthe instant case, though all the material objects were sent to the forensic lab
\nfor conducting chemical analysis, the blood group was found to be disintegrated
\nand hence, it could not be relied upon. He further submitted that though P.W.1
\nclaimed that all her clothes were drenched with blood, the investigator did not
\nrecover any one of the clothes from P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1
\ncannot be believed. If it be so, according to the counsel, the prosecution must
\nlose its case since it relied only on the sole testimony of P.W.1. Therefore,
\nthe accused \/ appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also
\nscrutinised the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is not in controversy that the deceased-Dhanabackiyam, who was the
\nwife of the accused \/ appellant was done to death in an incident that had taken
\nplace on 30.09.2007 at about 7.30 a.m. Following the inquest made by P.W.18-
\nInspector of Police, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem
\nby P.W.13-Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Sathur, who has given a
\ncategorical opinion in Ex.P11-Post Mortem Certificate, that the deceased died 6
\nto 12 hours prior to autopsy due to severance of head and also the injuries
\nsustained by her. These facts were not disputed by the accused \/ appellant
\nbefore the Trial Court and hence the Trial Court had no legal impediment in
\nrecording so.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In order to substantiate that it was the accused \/ appellant who
\nsevered the head of his wife Dhanabackiyam and caused her death instantaneously,
\nthe prosecution marched 3 witnesses before the Trial Court,  out of whom P.W.2
\nturned hostile and P.W.3 was not believed by the Trial Judge. Thus, the
\nprosecution was left with the evidence of P.W.1 only. At the outset, it has to
\nbe pointed out that Indian Criminal Jurisprudence does not require quantity of
\nevidence, but it requires only quality of evidence. True it is that P.W.1 is the
\ndaughter of the deceased. At the same time, it must be stated that she is also
\nthe daughter of the accused \/ appellant. The accused \/ appellant has no reason
\nto attribute against his own daughter, examined as P.W.1 and hence, she cannot
\nbe termed as an interested witness. According to P.W.1, during the relevant
\ntime, she was living with her mother separately, eking their livelihood by
\nworking in a match factory and on the date of occurrence, when they were
\nproceeding nearby the place of occurrence at about 8.00 a.m., the accused
\n\/appellant who came there in a cycle, uttered the words  “How can you refuse to
\ncome with me to live jointly? How dare you to file a case when I sell my
\nproperty according to my wish?”, and cut her, and when she fell down, he
\ncontinued to cut her and severed her head. The evidence of P.W.1 is natural and
\nit is also cogent. Therefore, the Court is unable to find any reason to look at
\nthe evidence of P.W.1 with suspicion or doubt her testimony. Apart from that,
\nthe evidence of P.W.1 is fully corroborated by the medical opinion canvassed
\nthrough Ex.P11-Post Mortem Certificate issued by P.W.13-Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused \/ appellant that
\nthere was a delay in lodging the complaint cannot be countenanced. According to
\nthe prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 8.00 a.m. and the complaint
\nwas lodged at the Police Station at 11.00 a.m. P.W.1 has categorically stated
\nthat immediately after the occurrence, P.W.6 came to the place of occurrence
\nafter half an hour, and with the help of P.W.6 the complaint was prepared and
\nthereafter, they took the complaint to the Police Station and lodged the same,
\nand thus, the Court is unable to find any delay in the process.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant \/
\naccused that the occurrence has taken place on Sunday, and according to P.W.1 it
\nwas a holiday in the match factory and if to be so, there was no occasion for
\nP.W.1 to accompany her mother, cannot be countenanced, because when such a
\nquestion was put to P.W.1, she gave an explanation therefor. It is true that it
\nwas a Sunday, but the explanation given was that they went to the match factory
\nto do some other work. Once a reason has been brought forth and it has been
\ncorrectly spoken to by P.W.1, no further explanation is required.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Insofar as how many pages Ex.P1-complaint contained, even though the
\nCourt finds some discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1, in the considered opinion
\nof this Court, it will not affect the truth of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Insofar as the recovery of M.Os.1, 11 and 12 is  concerned, the
\ninvestigator would claim that they were recovered on 23.10.2007, but as rightly
\ncontended by the learned counsel for the accused \/ appellant, it was a public
\nplace, and therefore this Court cannot accept that those material objects were
\nkept in a public place for nearly 23 days.  Therefore, that part of the evidence
\ncannot be accepted. True it is that some irregularities on the part of the
\nInvestigator have been brought to the notice of this Court, but in view of the
\nclear evidence available through P.W.1, these irregularities cannot be given
\nmuch weight.  Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
\nthat the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused \/ appellant that
\nit was he who severed the head of his wife, the deceased, and caused her death.
\nIn the instant case, the Court is unable to notice any reason or circumstance to
\nshow that the act of the accused does not amount to murder. The Trial Court has
\nrightly found the accused guilty under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC and awarded
\nthe punishments as referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is unable to find any
\nreason either factually or legally to disturb the findings of the Trial Court.
\nTherefore, the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court on the
\naccused \/ appellant are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed, and
\nthe Criminal Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Court places its appreciation on record for the assistance
\nrendered by the learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae in putting forth the
\ncase in a detailed manner, after going through the materials available on
\nrecord. The Amicus Curiae is entitled to get remuneration from the Legal Aid,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Sathur Taluk Police Station,
\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Criminal Appeal (MD) No.15 of 2010 Kasirajan … Appellant Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sathur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District. […]<\/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-147376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - 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\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-17T08:56:35+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T08:56:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2482,\"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\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T08:56:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - 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\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-17T08:56:35+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T08:56:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010"},"wordCount":2482,"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\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010","name":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T08:56:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kasirajan-vs-state-rep-by-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kasirajan vs State Rep. By on 27 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/147376","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=147376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}