{"id":150726,"date":"2010-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-29T20:22:55","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T14:52:55","slug":"s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/7\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.175 of 2010\n\nS.Kamaraj\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nState represented by\nThe Inspector of Police\nKeeranur P.S.\nCr.No.122\/2008\nPudukottai District\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\nCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, made in\nS.C.No.34 of 2009 dated 17.9.2009.\n\n!For Appellant   ...  Ms.S.Devasena\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.Isaac Manuel\n\t\t      Additional Public\n\t\t      Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division,<br \/>\nPudukottai, made in S.C.No.34 of 2009 whereby the sole accused\/appellant stood<br \/>\ncharged under Sections 294(b) and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the<br \/>\ncharges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and default<br \/>\nsentence under Sec.302 IPC and a fine of Rs.250\/- with default sentence under<br \/>\nSec.294(b) IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Natarajan.  P.W.4 is a close<br \/>\nrelative of the deceased.  P.Ws.1 and 4 and the deceased were the residents of<br \/>\nKummupatti. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the residents of Chettipatti.  P.Ws.1 and 4 and the<br \/>\ndeceased went to Chettipatti to eke their livelihood.  P.Ws.1 to 5 and the<br \/>\ndeceased went to Keeranur on 1.5.2008, to attend a festival.  At about 4.30<br \/>\nP.M., when they were standing nearby Keeranur Bus Stand, the appellant\/accused<br \/>\nwho came there in a drunken mood, dashed on the deceased.  When the deceased<br \/>\nquestioned the same, the appellant\/accused after uttering filthy words, got into<br \/>\nthe nearby shop and took a soori knife and stabbed the deceased on different<br \/>\nparts of the body.  P.Ws.1 to 5 who all witnessed the occurrence, chased him;<br \/>\nbut the accused who was having a knife in hand, intimidated them.   Then the<br \/>\nseverely injured Natarajan was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead<br \/>\nby the Doctor.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where P.W.14 was the<br \/>\nSub Inspector of Police  on duty.  On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, given<br \/>\nby P.W.1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.122 of 2008 under Sec.302 of<br \/>\nIPC.  The printed FIR, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of<br \/>\nthat Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection<br \/>\nand prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P11.<br \/>\nThen he conducted inquest on the dead body of Natarajan in the presence of<br \/>\nwitnesses and panchayatdars at the mortuary and prepared an inquest report,<br \/>\nEx.P12.  He also recovered from the place of occurrence bloodstained earth and<br \/>\nsample earth under a cover of mahazar. The dead body was photographed through<br \/>\nP.W.7, the Photographer.  M.O.7 series are the photos.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) Pursuant to the requisition made, P.W.8, the Civil Assistant Surgeon,<br \/>\nattached to the Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Pudukkottai, has<br \/>\nconducted autopsy on the dead body of Natarajan and has issued a postmortem<br \/>\ncertificate, Ex.P5, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have<br \/>\ndied of multiple injuries and injuries to vital organs and shock.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) Pending investigation, on 3.5.2008 at about 11.00 A.M., the accused<br \/>\nwas arrested when he was under treatment.  The confessional statement<br \/>\nvoluntarily given by him was recorded, and he was sent for judicial remand. All<br \/>\nthe material objects were sent for chemical analysis.  Accordingly, they were<br \/>\nsubjected to which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P8, the chemical<br \/>\nanalyst&#8217;s report, and Ex.P13, the serologist&#8217;s report.  On completion of<br \/>\ninvestigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were<br \/>\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15<br \/>\nwitnesses and also relied on 16 exhibits and 13 material objects.  On completion<br \/>\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under<br \/>\nSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence<br \/>\nof the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.  The trial Court<br \/>\nheard the arguments advanced on either side, made scrutiny of the materials,<br \/>\ntook the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt<br \/>\nand hence entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to imprisonment as<br \/>\nreferred to above.  Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nwould submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place<br \/>\nat about 4.30 P.M. on 1.5.2008, in a public bus stand at Keeranur; that P.Ws.1<br \/>\nto 5 who were shown as occurrence witnesses, have categorically deposed that<br \/>\nthey were all closely related to and friendly with the deceased, and thus they<br \/>\nwere all interested witnesses; that admittedly, there were number of independent<br \/>\nwitnesses at the place since it was a bus stand; but, no one of them was<br \/>\nexamined; that the Investigating Officer has candidly admitted that when the<br \/>\naccused was arrested, he was under treatment in the Government Hospital at<br \/>\nTanjore; that immediately after the occurrence, the accused was taken to the<br \/>\nGovernment Hospital, Pudukottai, and thereafter, he was admitted at Tanjore<br \/>\nHospital where he had continuous treatment; and that at the time when he was<br \/>\nquestioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., he filed a detailed written statement<br \/>\nwherein he narrated the incident; that he has clearly clearly narrated that at<br \/>\nthe time of occurrence, he was surrounded by all the persons, and his dhothi was<br \/>\nremoved and it became shameful, and one of the persons by name Arasan examined<br \/>\nas P.W.1, stabbed him, and thus he sustained injuries; that the prosecution<br \/>\nnever explained how he sustained injuries, and thus it would be quite clear that<br \/>\nthe prosecution has not placed the genesis of the occurrence or the true and<br \/>\nrelevant facts before the Court in order to take a correct decision, and under<br \/>\nthe circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Added further the learned Counsel that even if the Court comes to the<br \/>\nconclusion that it was the appellant\/accused who attacked the deceased and<br \/>\ncaused his death, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision<br \/>\nof murder since at the time of occurrence, there was a wordy altercation between<br \/>\nthe deceased and the accused which fact is admitted by all the witnesses; that<br \/>\nwhile the accused was in a drunken mood, all the witnesses surrounded him and<br \/>\nremoved his dhothi, and it became shameful; that being provoked by the same, he<br \/>\nhas attacked the deceased, and hence the act of the accused would not fall under<br \/>\nSec.302 of IPC, but it would be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and<br \/>\nthis has got to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the<br \/>\nabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.It is not in controversy that in an incident that had taken place at<br \/>\nabout 4.30 P.M. on that day at the Bus Stand, Keeranur, the deceased was done to<br \/>\ndeath.  Following the inquest made by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, and<br \/>\npreparation of the inquest report, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by<br \/>\nP.W.8, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, who has given a<br \/>\ncategorical opinion as a witness before the Court and through the contents of<br \/>\nthe postmortem certificate that the deceased died out of multiple injuries<br \/>\nsustained by him and injuries to vital organs and shock.  The fact that he died<br \/>\nout of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial<br \/>\nCourt, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked the<br \/>\ndeceased with the soori knife on different parts of the body, the prosecution<br \/>\nexamined P.Ws.1 to 5 as eyewitnesses.  It is true that all the witnesses were<br \/>\nclosely associated to the deceased.  But, on that ground, the evidence of these<br \/>\nwitnesses cannot be rejected.  A careful scrutiny of the evidence of these<br \/>\nwitnesses would clearly indicate that all of them at that time, were waiting<br \/>\nthere to board a bus, and the accused came in a drunken mood, and he dashed on<br \/>\nthe deceased, and the same was questioned by the deceased.  The evidence would<br \/>\nfurther go to show that at that time, using the filthy language, the<br \/>\nappellant\/accused took a soori knife and attacked him.  The evidence of these<br \/>\nwitnesses inspired the confidence of the Court, and the trial Judge has rightly<br \/>\naccepted the same.  That apart, this ocular testimony projected by the<br \/>\nprosecution through P.Ws.1 to 5, stood fully corroborated by the medical<br \/>\nevidence adduced by the prosecution through P.W.8 and the contents of the<br \/>\npostmortem certificate, Ex.P5.  Besides that, the material objects were sent for<br \/>\nchemical analysis, and the blood group was found to be tallying with that of the<br \/>\ndeceased as per the Serologist&#8217;s report.  Thus the scientific evidence also<br \/>\nstood in favour of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nthat the accused sustained injuries on different parts of the body cannot be<br \/>\naccepted for two reasons.  Firstly, even in Ex.P1, the report, it is<br \/>\ncategorically stated that immediately after the occurrence, the accused was<br \/>\nrunning from the place, and he was chased by the witnesses, and at that time, he<br \/>\nstabbed himself on different parts of the body. Apart from that, though the<br \/>\naccused has stated that one of the witnesses by name Arasan namely P.W.1,<br \/>\nstabbed him, he has not even mentioned the same to any one or given a police<br \/>\ncomplaint.  In fact, there is no material to accept the same.  It remains to be<br \/>\nstated that the accused has not produced any accident register copy or any<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence in that regard in order to prove the nature of the injuries<br \/>\nsustained by him.  On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses have clearly<br \/>\nstated that immediately after the occurrence, he inflicted injuries to himself.<br \/>\nIt is pertinent to point out that at the time of occurrence, he was in a drunken<br \/>\nmood.  Under the circumstances, the non-explanation of the injuries on the body<br \/>\nof the appellant cannot be a reason to suspect the prosecution case.  Thus the<br \/>\ncontentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do no merit<br \/>\nacceptance.  It can be well stated that the prosecution by the above evidence,<br \/>\nhas proved candidly that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased to death at<br \/>\nthe time and place as put forth by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.As far as the second line of argument is concerned, this Court is able<br \/>\nto see force in the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant.  P.Ws.1 to 5 have categorically admitted that at the time of<br \/>\noccurrence, the accused came in a drunken mood and dashed on the deceased. The<br \/>\nsame was questioned by the deceased. Even in the statement filed by the<br \/>\nappellant at the time of questioning under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., he has<br \/>\ncategorically stated that all the persons have surrounded him and removed his<br \/>\ndhothi when he was in a drunken mood, and it became shameful, and in such<br \/>\ncircumstances, he took the knife and stabbed him.  Thus it would be quite clear<br \/>\nthat the accused who was in a drunken mood, being provoked by the shameful act<br \/>\nof the witnesses, has stabbed the deceased, which is neither intentional nor<br \/>\npremeditated, but due to provocation.  Hence the act of the accused would not<br \/>\nattract the penal provision of murder, but it is only a culpable homicide not<br \/>\namounting to murder, and he has got to be found guilty under Sec.304 (Part I) of<br \/>\nIPC and awarding a punishment of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet<br \/>\nthe ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed<br \/>\nby the trial Court on the appellant\/accused under Sec.302 of IPC are set aside,<br \/>\nand instead, he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and is directed to<br \/>\nsuffer seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by him,<br \/>\nshall be given set off.  The fine imposed by the trial Court will hold good.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.In the result, this criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions Judge<br \/>\n  Pudukottai\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police<br \/>\n  Keeranur P.S.<br \/>\n  Cr.No.122\/2008<br \/>\n  Pudukottai District\t\t<\/p>\n<p>3.The Section Officer<br \/>\n  Criminal Section\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/7\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY CRL.A.(MD) No.175 of 2010 S.Kamaraj .. Appellant vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Keeranur P.S. Cr.No.122\/2008 Pudukottai District .. Respondent Criminal appeal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2055,\"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\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 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":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010"},"wordCount":2055,"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\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010","name":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T14:52:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamaraj-vs-pudukottai-district-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Kamaraj vs Pudukottai District on 29 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\/150726","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=150726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}