{"id":152139,"date":"2011-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011"},"modified":"2015-03-21T00:36:16","modified_gmt":"2015-03-20T19:06:16","slug":"ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/02\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nPonnu Sankan alias Kumar\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n   \t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   Rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n   Energy Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Rep. by its Chairman,\n   Anna Salai,\n   Chennai.\n\n3.The Superintending Engineer,\n   Trichirapalli Electricity Distribution Circle,\n   Mannarpuram,\n   Trichirapalli.\t\n\n4.The Assistant Engineer,\n   Thuvarankuruchi Electricity Distribution Circle,\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Thuvarankuruchi.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay a\nsumo f Rs.10,00,000\/- by way of compensation for the death of the petitioner's\nmother C.Nallammal due to electrocution.\n\n!For Petitioner\t \t... Mr.A.Rahul\n^For Respondent No.1\t... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh\n\t\t\t    Government Advocate\nFor Respondent 2to4\t... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar\n\t\t\n********\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>******<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents<br \/>\nto pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- as compensation on account of the death of his<br \/>\nmother due to electrocution.\n<\/p>\n<p>THE BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The petitioner and his mother, by name Nallammal were proceeding<br \/>\nto Thuvarankuruchi from their Village on 9 March 2009 and their purpose was to<br \/>\npurchase household materials and clothes. After alighting from the bus, they<br \/>\nwere coming out of Thuvarankuruchi bus stand by walk. At that point of time, the<br \/>\noverhead electric wire running across the road got snapped and fell on the neck<br \/>\nof his mother. Suddenly, she got electrocuted and fell down. Since the electric<br \/>\nsteel wires circled around the neck of his mother, she sustained grievous injury<br \/>\non her neck. The petitioner tried to rescue by pulling her. However, he was not<br \/>\nin a position to proceed further, as he would also be electrocuted. The mother<br \/>\nof the petitioner, after screaming and crying in front of his own eyes, died.<br \/>\nThe electricity was thereafter switched off and the body of his mother was<br \/>\nremoved for post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station and a case in Crime No.85 of 2009 was<br \/>\nregistered against the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. According to the petitioner, his mother was electrocuted only due<br \/>\nto the negligence and carelessness of the officials of the fourth respondent.<br \/>\nThe fourth respondent was not managing the electric line properly and that was<br \/>\nthe sole reason for snapping the electric line.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The mother of the petitioner was aged 47 years. She was employed<br \/>\nas a construction worker earning a sum of Rs.200\/- per day. She was survived by<br \/>\nthree sons including the petitioner. The death of his mother caused immense pain<br \/>\nto the petitioner, besides perennial loss to the family. Therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition praying for an order to pay<br \/>\ncompensation estimated at Rs.10,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>THE DEFENCE:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, disputed the<br \/>\nallegations regarding negligence. According to the fourth respondent, the Board<br \/>\nhas been maintaining the electric line very regularly. The fourth respondent<br \/>\ncontended that a political party has erected a flex board in the bus stand area<br \/>\nand due to heavy wind, the said advertisement board\/flex board suddenly fell on<br \/>\nthe electricity board lines passing through the said street. Accordingly, the<br \/>\nelectrical wires snapped and the mother of the petitioner died due to<br \/>\nelectrocution. The fourth respondent further contended that the negligence<br \/>\ncannot be attributed to them and the incident has happened, only because of<br \/>\nerection of flex board by a political party.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. I have head the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>ANALYSIS:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The facts that the mother of the petitioner died on 09.03.2009 on<br \/>\naccount of electrocution and the instantaneous nature of death were all admitted<br \/>\nby the fourth respondent. The first information recorded by the Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice, Thuvarankuruchi Police Station also shows that it was only on account of<br \/>\nthe negligence of the fourth respondent that the incident has happened.<br \/>\nTherefore, the incident is admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. The next question is as to whether the Tamil Nadu Electricity<br \/>\nBoard was responsible for the incident in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that<br \/>\nthe incident has happened only on account of erection of a flex board by a<br \/>\npolitical party.  The said flex board fell on the electric lines passing through<br \/>\nthe bus stand area and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner was<br \/>\nelectrocuted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. The fourth respondent very clearly admitted the erection of a<br \/>\nflex board near the electric line. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit  to<br \/>\nindicate as to when the flex board was erected.  The first respondent has not<br \/>\nfiled any counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in<br \/>\nsupport of the Writ Petition. The Electricity Board has got a duty to see that<br \/>\nno kind of erections are made near the supply line. The Board has got Field<br \/>\nOfficers responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the electric line. The<br \/>\nElectricity Board has employed Supervisors and Line Helpers only to see that the<br \/>\nelectric lines are kept in proper condition. The incident in question has<br \/>\nhappened in a Town. The fourth respondent has got a divisional circle office at<br \/>\nThuvarankuruchi. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance that they were not aware<br \/>\nof the erection of flex board near the line.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. The Board cannot shirk their responsibility by accusing the<br \/>\npolitical party for having erected the flex board near the electric line. The<br \/>\nprovisions of the Electricity Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder<br \/>\ncontains detailed provisions about the erection of structures and the situation<br \/>\nof dangerous materials near the electric line. The Electricity Board is not<br \/>\npowerless in such situations. In case a political party or any other public<br \/>\nerects flex board and other materials near the electric line, it is the duty of<br \/>\nthe Board to see that such structures are removed at the earliest point of time.<br \/>\nThe line should be erected in such a way that it will not snap on account of any<br \/>\nexternal objects touch the line.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contains provisions<br \/>\nrelating to overhead lines. The said provision reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;68. Overhead lines.- (1) An overhead line shall, with prior<br \/>\napproval of the Appropriate Government, be installed or kept installed above<br \/>\nground in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not<br \/>\nexceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or intended to be used for supplying to a<br \/>\nsingle consumer;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within<br \/>\npremises in the occupation or control of the person responsible for its<br \/>\ninstallation; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub-<br \/>\nsection (1), impose such conditions (including conditions as to the ownership<br \/>\nand operation of the line) as appear to it to be necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time<br \/>\nafter the end of such period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it.<br \/>\n\t(5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any<br \/>\nstructure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead<br \/>\nline subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or<br \/>\nis likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of<br \/>\nelectricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or<br \/>\nauthority specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the<br \/>\nlicensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt<br \/>\nwith as he or it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate or authority specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of<br \/>\nany tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line, award to the<br \/>\nperson interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable, and<br \/>\nsuch person may recover the same from the licensee.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. Rule 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 also provides for<br \/>\nsafety and protective devices. The said provision reads thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;91.Safety and protective devices.- (1) Every overhead line; (not being<br \/>\nsuspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material<br \/>\nand not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public<br \/>\nplace or in any factory or mine or on any consumers&#8217; premises shall be protected<br \/>\nwith a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically<br \/>\nharmless in case it breaks.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such<br \/>\noverhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified<br \/>\nin sub-rule (1).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. Section 68 gives authority to a District Magistrate to remove<br \/>\nthe trees, structures or objects placed near an overhead line. The Board should<br \/>\nbe vigilant in the matter of maintenance of electric lines and they cannot be<br \/>\nheard to say that without their permission, political parties have erected flex<br \/>\nboard and the incident has happened only because of the contact of such flex<br \/>\nboards with the electric line.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16. The negligence of the Electricity Board is writ large. Though<br \/>\nthey have admitted that a political party has erected a flex board very near to<br \/>\nthe line, they have not taken any action to remove the flex board. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe Electricity Board cannot avoid the liability. The mother of the petitioner<br \/>\ndied only on account of electrocution. It is not the responsibility of the<br \/>\npetitioner to prove as to how the electric line was snapped. The petitioner or<br \/>\nhis mother had no control over the electrical system as well as the transmission<br \/>\nline. Therefore, in such circumstances, onus is heavy on the Electricity Board<br \/>\nto demonstrate that they were not responsible for the incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17. The materials available on record gives a clear indication that<br \/>\nthe incident was purely on account of the negligence of the Electricity Board.<br \/>\nTherefore, the petitioner has made out a case for award of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t18. The next issue pertains to the assessment of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t19. There are no fixed guidelines to assess compensation in a case<br \/>\nlike this. However, the Courts are not helpless in such situations, in view of<br \/>\nsister enactments operating in the field of assessment of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t20. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains detailed provisions<br \/>\nregarding payment of compensation. Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act<br \/>\ncontains structured formula for arriving at compensation involving motor<br \/>\nvehicles.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t21. The mother of the petitioner was employed as a coolie. She was<br \/>\naged about 47 years as on the date of her death.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t22. The Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<br \/>\ncontains details about the compensation payable in respect of those who had no<br \/>\nincome prior to the accident. Even the income of non-earning person was<br \/>\nindicated at Rs.1,500\/- per month.  Since the deceased was a coolie, her income<br \/>\nhas to be taken at Rs.36,000\/- per year. The said amount has to be deducted by<br \/>\n1\/3rd for her personal expenses. Therefore, the annual income, after deduction,<br \/>\nwould be a sum of Rs.24,000\/- per year. If we take the multiplier at 12, the<br \/>\ncompensation would be a sum of Rs.2,88,000\/-. The petitioner is also entitled to<br \/>\na sum of Rs.2,000\/- being the funeral expenses.  Therefore, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,90,000\/- as compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t23. In the result, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of<br \/>\nRs.2,90,000\/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Nallammal. Such<br \/>\npayment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt<br \/>\nof a copy of this order with interest at 8% per annum from the date of<br \/>\ninitiation of proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t24. In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition with cost quantified at<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only).  Consequently, the connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Energy Department,<br \/>\n   Fort St. George,<br \/>\n   Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Chairman,<br \/>\n   The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\n   Anna Salai,<br \/>\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Superintending Engineer,<br \/>\n   Trichirapalli Electricity Distribution Circle,<br \/>\n   Mannarpuram,<br \/>\n   Trichirapalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Assistant Engineer,<br \/>\n   Thuvarankuruchi Electricity Distribution Circle,<br \/>\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\n   Thuvarankuruchi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/02\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Ponnu Sankan alias Kumar &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary [&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-152139","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>Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - 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\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-20T19:06:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-20T19:06:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1895,\"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\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-20T19:06:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - 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\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-20T19:06:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-20T19:06:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011"},"wordCount":1895,"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\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011","name":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-20T19:06:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnu-sankan-alias-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnu Sankan Alias Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/152139","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=152139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}