{"id":152440,"date":"2008-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008"},"modified":"2014-09-10T00:16:52","modified_gmt":"2014-09-09T18:46:52","slug":"malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.446 of 2002\n\nMalaichamy,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\/\nS\/o.Raman.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Sole Accused\n\nVs.\n\nState, rep. by Inspector of Police,\nDindigul Taluk  Police Station,\nDindigul District.\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\/\n(Crime No.646\/1999)\t\t\t\t\t\t   Complainant\n\n\t \tAppeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment, dated 28.02.2008, of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,\nDindigul, in S.C.No.80 of 2001.\n\n!For Appellant\t... Mr.M.Suri\n^For Respondent\t... Mr.P.N.Pandithurai,\n\t\t    Addl. Public Prosecutor.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI,J)<\/p>\n
\t\t\tChallenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him in the
\njudgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, in S.C.No.80\/2002,
\ndated 28.02.2002, the appellant, who is the sole accused in the case, has filed
\nthis appeal.  The appellant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo
\nimprisonment as detailed hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
Conviction \t\tSentence
\nUnder Section 302 IPC   Sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of
\n\t\t\tRs.1000\/-, in default to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
\nUnder Section 379 IPC\tSentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
\nUnder Section 201 IPC\tSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
\n\t\t\talso to pay a fine of Rs.500\/-, in default to undergo four months
\n\t\t\trigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAll the sentences to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t2.The allegation against the appellant\/accused is that he, a
\nmarried man, was having illicit intimacy with the deceased by name Thai @
\nMariammal.  After sometime, the deceased started to have intimacy with some
\nother person and on account of that, there was a wordy quarrel between the
\nappellant\/accused and the deceased.  Thereafter, the appellant\/accused took the
\ndeceased with him under the guise of compromise the caused her death by
\nthrottling the neck.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t3.During the course of trial, three charges  were framed
\nagainst the appellant\/accused.  As per the 1st charge, the appellant\/accused,
\nwho had illicit intimacy with the deceased, suspecting that she was having
\naffair with some other person, indulged in quarrel with her on 25.09.1999 at
\n6.00 p.m. and, on the same day, at 9.30 p.m., when the deceased came to his
\nplace incidentally, with an intention to finish her off, under the guise of
\ncompromising, persuaded the deceased and while she was lying him, murdered her
\nby throttling the neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
\n302 IPC.  The 2nd charge was that, after murdering the deceased, the
\nappellant\/accused took away the golden ear studs and silver anklets worn by her
\nand thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.  The 3rd
\ncharge was that, during the course of the same transaction, in order to screen
\nthe evidence, the appellant\/accused carried the body of the deceased in a gunny
\nbag  and threw it inside a bush near a pond and thereby, committed an offence
\npunishable under Section 201 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t4.On framing of charges, when the appellant\/accused was
\nquestioned initially, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.  Therefore,
\nthe trial of the case was taken up.  To prove the charges, the prosecution
\nexamined as many as 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and
\nalso produced M.Os.1 to 9.  The learned trial judge, on conclusion of the trial,
\nconvicted and sentenced the appellant\/accused as stated above.   Hence, this
\nappeal at the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t5.The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence
\nof the prosecution witnesses, could be stated thus.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(a)P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.  He, in his evidence,
\nhas stated that the accused is distantly related to him and was having illicit
\nintimacy with his sister, the deceased.  On 25.09.1999, the accused came to
\ntheir residence and quarreled with the deceased, suspecting that the deceased
\nwas having intimacy with some other persons.  P.W.1 and P.W.2, the father of the
\ndeceased, intervened and thereafter, the accused left the place.  The deceased
\nwas also found missing from that night onwards.  P.Ws.1 and 2 searched for the
\ndeceased and they could not find her.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(b)After seven or eight days, on the information given by
\nP.W.3, P.Ws.1 and 2 went and saw a skeleton inside a bush near a pond and, with
\nthe help of the cloths found on the skeleton, namely saree, blouse and
\npetticoat, they could identify the skeleton as that of the deceased.  Further,
\nin view of the quarrel which took place on 25.09.1999, they suspected the
\naccused behind the crime.  Therefore, on 04.10.1999 at 08.00 p.m., P.W.1 gave
\nEx.P-1, the complaint, to P.W.14, the Head Constable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c)Based on Ex.P-1,  P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.646
\nof 1999 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-14, the first information
\nreport, and forwarded the same to the Court and copies thereof to the higher
\npolice officials, through P.W.13, Grade-I Constable, who, in turn, handed over
\nthe same to the Court at 10.00 p.m. on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(d)The evidence of P.W.2, the father of the deceased, is also
\non the same line as that of P.W.1.  During chief examination, as P.Ws.1 and 2
\nomitted to state certain aspects of the prosecution case which were revealed by
\nthem during the course of investigation, they were treated as hostile and when
\ncross-examined by the prosecution, both the witnesses admitted the statement
\ngiven to the Investigating Officer during investigation and thereby stuck to
\ntheir earlier version.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(e)P.W.3, a distant relative of the deceased, though examined
\nto substantiate that she saw a skeleton in a bush near a pond and informed the
\nsame to P.Ws.1 and 2, during the course of trial, she did not support the case
\nof the prosecution.  P.Ws.4 to 6 were examined to substantiate that the accused
\nwas last seen together in the company of the deceased.  However, they did not
\nsupport the prosecution case and therefore they were treated as hostile
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(f)P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, on receiving copy of
\nEx.P-14, FIR, at 10.30 p.m. on 04.10.1999, proceeded to the scene of occurrence,
\nprepared Ex.P-4, the observation mahazar, in the presence of witnesses.  He also
\ndrew Ex.P-15, the rough sketch and Ex.P-15, the rough sketch, examined the
\nwitnesses present there and recorded their statements.  He conducted inquest
\nover the dead body found in the form of skeleton, and prepared    Ex.P-16, the
\ninquest report.  He gave a requisition (Ex.P-2) for conducting postmortem on the
\nskeleton at the place of occurrence itself.\n<\/p>\n
  \t\t\t(g)P.W.12, the Head Constable, handed over Ex.P-2,  the
\nrequisition, to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Dindigul and he was
\npresent at the time of postmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(h)P.W.7, the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital,
\nDindigul, on receipt of Ex.P-2, the requisition, conducted postmortem at the
\nscene of occurrence on 05.10.1999.  He found the dead body of the deceased in a
\nskeleton form and bones scattered.  He also found lying of a long hair, skull
\nand other bones. He preserved them for further opinion.  Ex.P-3 is the
\npostmortem certificate given by P.w.7, wherein, it is stated as follows:
\n\t“Spot Post-mortem: Surrounding:- Bank of a Pond with bushes around the
\nbushes had been cleaned to make path to reach the body.  A skeleton of a female
\nbody with only some amount of decomposed flesh with maggots around the hip
\nregion.  The skull without mandible was found separately by the side of the
\nbody.  No soft tissue on the skull seen.  No contents were seen through the
\nforamen magnum.  The mandible was found separately by the side of the body.  The
\nsternum and both scapulae, some ribs and limb bones were found scattered around
\nthe body.  The hyoid bone was not found in the spot.  A  Copper-T was found in
\nthe decomposed tissue in the supra pubic area.\n<\/p>\n
\tPelvis: Broad with smooth surface, the pelvis brim was circular, Public
\nsymphysis was lower with square shaped pubis.  Bunch of hair & length about one
\nfeet was found by the side of the body.\n<\/p>\n
\tGenerally, all the bones were light with smooth surface.  The bones of
\nfeet and hands were not found.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe entire skull with mandible and six cervical vertebrae were handed over
\nto he Investigation Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\tOpinion as to the cause of death:  No definite opinion can be given, since
\nthe body was highly decomposed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(i)After postmortem, P.W.12, the constable, recovered M.Os.7
\nto 9, the saree, the petticoat and the blouse, found on the skeleton, the
\nmandible bone, the skull and the spinal cord bones and handed over the same to
\nthe Investigation Officer.  As per the order of Judicial Magistrate No.2,
\nDindigul, he produced a full size photograph of the deceased and its negative.
\nHe also took the material objects in the case and handed over the same to the
\nForensic Department at Chennai for examination and on 27.03.2000, he obtained
\nchemical examination reports and produced the same before the Judicial
\nMagistrate Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(j)P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer, was present in
\nhis office on 05.10.1999 at about 9.00 p.m.  At that time, the accused appeared
\nbefore him and gave a confession, stating that he committed the murder of the
\ndeceased and thereafter threw the dead body in a bush near a pond.  The accused
\nalso confessed before P.W.9 to the effect that the ear studs and the anklets
\nworn by the deceased were taken away by him.  Ex.P-6 is the statement given by
\nthe accused to P.W.9 and Ex.P-7 is the certificate of P.W.9.  Thereafter, P.W.9
\ntook the accused to the Inspector of Police and on production before the police,
\nthe accused gave a voluntary confession statement, admissible portion of which
\nis marked as Ex.P-8, wherein, he stated that the place where the dead body was
\nthrown would be identified by him as well as he would produce the ear studs and
\nanklets.  In pursuance of such statement, the accused took the Investigating
\nOfficer and the Village Administrative Officer to the scene of occurrence at
\n10.30 p.m. and produced a gunny bag, marked as M.O.4.  From his house, he
\nproduced M.Os.2 and 3, the gold ear studs and Silver anklets, respectively.
\nThereafter, the accused was produced before the court and remanded to judicial
\ncustody.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(k)P.W.10, the Scientific Assistant, Forensic Department,
\nChennai, on receipt of the skull and the photographs of the deceased, conducted
\nsuperimposition test and gave her opinion in Ex.P-11, opining that the skull
\ncould have belonged to the female individual seen in the photograph.  M.O.5 is
\nthe photograph and M.O.6 is the skull.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(l)P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, gave Ex.P-12, the
\nrequisition, to the court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis
\nand they were forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory under Ex.P-13, the letter of
\nthe Court.  After examination of witnesses and receiving opinion from experts,
\nP.W.15 filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t6.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the
\nJudicial Magistrate for trial. On completion of the evidence on the side of the
\nprosecution, when the appellant\/accused was questioned procedurally under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating materials
\nfound against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied all of
\nthem as false.  On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no
\ndocument was marked.   After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel on
\neither side and perusal of the materials available, the trial court passed the
\norder of conviction and sentence as aforementoned.    Hence the present appeal
\nat the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t7.learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in assailing
\nthe judgment of the trial court, raised the following points:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i)Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken to about the relationship between
\nthe accused and the deceased, the quarrel between them on 25.09.1999 and the
\nmissing of the deceased from that date onwards, a complaint to that effect has
\nnot been given to the police immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(ii)In the normal course, a complaint should have been given
\nimmediately without any lapse of time but, Ex.P-1 has been given after nine
\ndays,  that too, after a dead body was traced in the form of skeleton near a
\npond on the information given by P.W.3 and, therefore, the delay in giving
\ncomplaint is fatal to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(iii)Though suspicion has been raised against the accused, there is
\nno material to connect him with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(iv)P.Ws.4 to 6 were examined by the prosecution to substantiate
\nthat the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused but, they
\ndid not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and, therefore,
\nthe link between the accused and deceased is snapped.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(v)Though skull was recovered, it has not been proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt that the skeleton was the body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(vi)Even as per the prosecution version, the deceased was having
\nillicit intimacy with some other persons also and further the deceased indulged
\nin a quarrel with her family members and, in such a circumstance, it is quite
\npossible that somebody else might have caused the death of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(vii)Though the learned trial judge has held that there are six
\nincriminating circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, those
\ncircumstances are not strong enough to prove the guilt of the accused and the
\nchain of circumstances are not complete and, therefore, benefit of doubt must be
\ngiven to the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t8.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits
\nthat though P.W.3, who gave information about the skeleton, has also turned
\nhostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is natural and they are none else than the
\nbrother and father, respectively, of the deceased.  It is his further submission
\nthat P.Ws.1 and 2 have not only spoken to about the relationship of the accused
\nwith the deceased, but also about the quarrel which ensued between them and the
\nmissing of the deceased from that night onwards and they also,  in the effective
\nsearch made by them to find out the deceased, enquired the accused.  He would
\nfurther submit that the skeleton was identified as that of the deceased by
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 with the help of the dress materials found on the skeleton and
\nsubsequently when the ear-studs and the silver anklets, which were recovered
\nfrom the accused, were shown to them, P.Ws.1 and 2 have correctly identified
\nthem as that of the deceased and this circumstance connects the accused with the
\ncrime.  Though the witnesses, who were examined to substantiate the last seen
\ntheory and the link of the accused with the deceased turned hostile, the
\nstatement of the accused before the Village Administrative Officer, his
\nvoluntary confession before the police officer and the recovery of ear studs and
\nanklets from the accused are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.
\nLearned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that though it was
\nstrongly contended by the defence that P.W.9 is not the jurisdictional Village
\nAdministrative Officer, the fact remains that P.W.9 recorded the confession of
\nthe accused when it was reported to him by the accused and the same was reduced
\ninto writing by  him, in the manner known to law and he has also given Ex.P-7
\ncertificate in that regard.  Thereafter, the accused was produced before the
\ninvestigating officer for further investigation.  He would point out that during
\nthe course of investigation, the place where the dead body was thrown was
\nidentified by the accused himself and the incriminating materials, which were
\nworn by the deceased and taken away by the accused, have been produced by him.
\nAccording to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the circumstances put-
\nforth by the prosecution are strong enough to bring home the guilt of the
\naccused and the chain of circumstances are continuous, leading to the only
\nconclusion that it was the accused who alone committed the offence and the
\ncircumstances relied on by the trial court are well founded and the prosecution
\nhad proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no valid ground to
\ninterfere with the well considered judgment of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t9.We have heard the counsels on either side and perused the
\nmaterials on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t10.It emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
\nthat the accused is closely related to the deceased.  Further, the accused is a
\nmarried man and the deceased was an unmarried woman.  However, they themselves
\nestablished a relationship between them for about one year and such relationship
\nwas continuing in spite of the objection   by P.Ws.1 and 2 and other family
\nmembers. The accused suspected  that, apart from him, the deceased had intimacy
\nwith other person.  The meeting of the accused and the deceased on 29.05.1999 is
\nspoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2.  On the said date, both the accused and the deceased
\nquarrelled with each other and thereafter, the deceased was found missing.  On
\nour assessment, we do not find anything to discredit the evidence of P.Ws.1 and
\n2 on the above aspect and it is not even suggested that the deceased was having
\naffair with any  particular person, except the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t11.Though there is a delay of nine days in giving the
\ncomplaint Ex.P-1 and such complaint has been given after seeing the skeleton and
\nconfirming that it was that of the  deceased, the fact remains that there was
\ncontinuous search by P.Ws.1 and 2 to locate the deceased and ultimately, when
\nthe skeleton was found near the pond, P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the same as that
\nof the deceased by seeing the cloths, namely M.Os.7 to 9, found on the skeleton.
\nFurther, the skeleton found at the scene of occurrence has also been proved to
\nbe the dead body of the deceased by examination of P.W.10, the Scientific
\nAssistant, who conducted the superimposition test.  Ex.P-11 is the opinion given
\nby P.W.10.  On coming to know about the recovery of the dead body and other
\nmaterial objects from the scene of occurrence, the accused surrendered himself
\nbefore P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer, on 05.10.1999.  Though P.W.9
\nis not the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer, the recording of the
\nextra-judicial confession given by the accused to him cannot be disputed.
\nP.W.9, after following the procedure prescribed, recorded the statement, and
\nafter assigning Ex.P-7 certificate produced the accused before P.W.15, the
\nInvestigating Officer.  The statement of the accused before the Village
\nAdministrative Officer will be considered as extra-judicial confession and such
\nconfession received sufficient corroboration through the other materials
\nproduced by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t12.In addition to the above, in pursuance of the voluntary
\nconfession statement, the accused identified the place where the dead body was
\nthrown and further, the gunny bag in which the dead body of the deceased was
\nshifted to the scene of occurrence and also the jewels worn by the deceased were
\nrecovered from the residence of the accused, thereby,  the link and the
\ninvolvement of the accused in the commission of the crime are well established.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.Therefore, we are of the considered view that the chain of
\ncircumstances are so complete and strong enough, leading to the irresistible
\nconclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime and the reasonings
\ngiven by the trial judge in convicting the accused are well founded and we do
\nnot find any reason whatsoever to disturb the findings of the trial court,
\nexcept to confirm the  conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t14.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed,
\nconfirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.  As
\nit is reported that the appellant\/accused is on bail, the trial court is
\ndirected to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant\/accused and
\ncommit him to jail to undergo the life imprisonment imposed.\n<\/p>\n
gb.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Dindigul District,
\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Dindigul Taluk  Police Station,
\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Criminal Appeal (MD) No.446 of 2002 Malaichamy, .. Appellant\/ S\/o.Raman. Sole Accused Vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul 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-152440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMalaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-09T18:46:52+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-09T18:46:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3266,\"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\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-09T18:46:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-09T18:46:52+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-09T18:46:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008"},"wordCount":3266,"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\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008","name":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-09T18:46:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malaichamy-vs-state-on-8-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Malaichamy vs State on 8 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152440","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=152440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}