{"id":15263,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-06T08:47:51","modified_gmt":"2016-09-06T03:17:51","slug":"murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 16\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO\n\nCRL.A.No.834 of 2001\nand\nCRL.A.No.992 of 2001\nand\nCRL.A.No.370 of 2003\n\n\n1.Murugan\n2.Uchi Mahali\n3.Sankaran\t\t          ... Appellants in Crl.A. \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t                      No.834 of 2001\/A1, A3 & A4\n\nSubbaiah\t\t\t  ... Appellant in Crl.A. \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t      No.992 of 2001\/A5\n\nMariappan\t\t          ... Appellant in Crl.A. \t\t\t\t\t\n\t                 \t      No.370 of 2001\/A2\n\nVs\n\nState represented by\nInspector of Police,\nPudhiyamputhur Police Station,\nThoothukudi District.\n(In Cr.No.148 of 1997)\t         ... Respondent in all \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t                             Appeals\/Complainant\n\n\nCriminal Appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment of\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions\nJudge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, dated 31.07.2001 made in\nS.C.No.374 of 1998.\n\n!For Appellants in Crl.A.     ... Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayudham\nNos.834\/2001 & 370\/2003           for Mr.M.Suri\n\n^For Appellant in Crl.A.      ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha\nNo.992\/2001\n\nFor Respondent                ... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai\n                                  Additional Public Prosecutor\n\t     \t\t\t\n              *****\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was passed by P.MURGESEN, J)<\/p>\n
\tThis Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence
\nimposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, Thoothukudi, dated 31.07.2001 made in S.C.No.374 of 1998, on the
\nappellants\/accused Nos.1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The case of the prosecution is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1-Paradesi Konar is the resident of Savari Mangalam and he is a coolie
\nworker.  Deceased Ramasamy is his son-in-law. P.W.4-Ulagammal is the wife of
\ndeceased Ramasamy. P.W.2-Periyadurai and P.W.3-Muthuputhiavan are the sons of
\nP.W.1. P.W.8-Karuppasamy is known to P.W.1. There was a dispute regarding a site
\nbetween the accused and P.W.1’s son-in-law. Further, the constrained
\nrelationship was aggravated due to the election dispute between P.W.1’s son-in-
\nlaw and the accused. 20 days prior to the occurrence, there arose a dispute when
\nthe deceased took the cattle to the first accused brother’s garden for grazing
\nand there was exchange of blows between the accused and P.W.1’s son-in-law.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.On 04.08.1997, P.Ws.1 and 2 and deceased Ramasamy, son-in-law of P.W.1
\nwent to Meelavittan for earth work and was returning at 5.45 P.M. towards
\nSavarimangalam.  At that time all the accused waylaid them and attacked them. In
\nthe attack, Ramasamy was killed and P.W.1 was injured.  P.W.2, who is the son of
\nP.W.1 went to the house and informed the same to his brother P.W.3. In the mean
\ntime, P.W.1 with injuries came to the house and he was taken to hospital by
\nP.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.P.W.1 was treated by P.W.9-Dr.Mariam Beevi and she found the following
\ninjuries on P.W.1:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.An incised wound 8 x 1 x.5cm at back.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.An incised wound 6 x 1 x .5cm at back.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.An incised wound over centre of forehead 6 x 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.An incised wound over left side of scalp 7 x 1. x 1.cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.An incised wound over left thumb, middle, index, ring fingers  about 3 x
\n1 x .5cm in thigh other fingers 1 x .5 x .5 cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Incised would left great toe 1 x .5 x .5cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Abrasion over right knee.”\n<\/p>\n
She gave Ex.P.5-Wound Certificate to P.W.1. She also gave Ex.P.6-Intimation to
\nthe police.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.On 05.08.1997 at 12.45 A.M., she examined A2-Mariappan and she found the
\nfollowing injuries on A2:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.Cut Injury over left knee 5cm x 3cm x 3cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Cut Injury over Right fore arm 2cm x .5cm x .5cm.”\n<\/p>\n
She gave Ex.P.7-Wound Certificate to A2.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.On 04.08.1997, P.W.10-Dr.Nesamanivannan, Radiologist has taken M.O.10-X-
\nRay on P.W.1 on the head and found that there is a fracture in the head.  On
\n05.08.1997, he took M.O.11-X-ray on the left shoulder of P.W.1 and found that
\nthere is a fracture in the left shoulder. Ex.P.8 is the X-Ray report of P.W.1.
\nOn 05.08.1997, he also took X-ray on the thigh of A2 and gave Ex.P.9-Report that
\nhe sustained fracture on the Femur.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On 04.08.1997, on receipt of message from the Government Hospital,
\nThoothukudi, P.W.15-Subbiah, Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital at
\n23.45 hours and recorded Ex.P.1-statement of P.W.1 and went to the police
\nstation on 05.08.1997 at 1.30 A.M. and registered a case Crime No.148 of 1997
\nunder Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.16 is the printed F.I.R. The
\nprinted F.I.R. was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate and the copy was sent
\nto the higher officials through P.W.12-Duraisamy, Police Constable.  Ex.P.12 is
\nthe passport given to P.W.12 to carry the F.I.R. to the Court. Since there was
\nno bus, he handed over the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate at 7.00 A.M. P.W.15
\nalso received a complaint from the second accused on 06.08.1997 and registered a
\ncase in Crime No.149 of 1997 under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Then the investigation was conducted by P.W.16-Nagoor, Inspector of
\nPolice. On 05.08.1997 at 3.00 A.M., he visited the scene of occurrence and
\nprepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17-Rough Sketch in the presence of
\nP.W.6-Veluchamy, Village Administrative Officer and P.W.7-Balasubramanian,
\nVillage Assistant.  Then he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and
\nprepared Ex.P.18-Inquest Report. Then, P.W.16 sent the body of the deceased for
\nconducting postmortem along with Ex.P.10-Requisition Letter through P.W.13-
\nPonniah, Police Constable.  Ex.P.13 is the passport given to P.W.13 to take the
\nbody of the deceased to hospital for conducting postmortem and after postmortem
\nto handover the body to the relatives of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Postmortem was conducted by P.W.11-Dr.Sethulakshmi. She examined the
\nbody of the deceased. On examination she found the following the following
\nexternal injuries:\n<\/p>\n
“1.Incised wound 6x3x3 on the back of left of shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
2.Incised wound over back of skull (occipital region) 8 x 2 x 2cm exposing bone.\n<\/p>\n
3.Incised wound over left frontal bone 6 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
4.Transverse incised wound over vertex 5 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
5.Incised wound vertically over the injury No.(4) 8 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
6.Incised wound over right wrist dorsum 5 x 2 x 2cm.\n<\/p>\n
7.Incised wound below right elbow 4 x 1 x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
8.Incised wound below left ear 3 x . x . cm.\n<\/p>\n
9.Stab injury above he sternal notch 5 x 3 x 5cm.\n<\/p>\n
10.Incised wound above injury No.9 3 x . x .cm.\n<\/p>\n
11.Stab injury below right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.\n<\/p>\n
12.Stab injury below medial side of right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.\n<\/p>\n
13.Incised wound above right knee in the middle of right thigh 3 x 1 x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
14.Incised wound above left knee 8 x 2 x 5cms.\n<\/p>\n
15.Incised wound above wound No.14 (6x1x1cms).”\n<\/p>\n
The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhaemorrhage due to injury to vital organs and multiple injuries sustained.
\nEx.P.11 is the postmortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.After postmortem, P.W.13 recovered M.O.12-Trouser and M.O.13-Banian
\nfrom the body of the deceased and handed over to P.W.16. P.W.16 recovered M.O.1-
\nDhoti with blue colour border and M.O.2-White colour half hand shirt from P.W.1
\nin the presence of Paneer and P.W.5-Kasi Nadar.  On 05.08.1997 at 8.30 A.M., he
\nrecovered M.O.3-Blood stained Full Hand White Shirt, M.O.4-Bloodstained
\nPolyester Dhoti, M.O.8-Bloodstained Earth and M.O.9-Ordinary Earth, in the
\npresence of P.Ws.6 and 7 in the scene of occurrence  under Ex.P.4-Mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.On 07.08.1997 at 4.00 P.M., P.W.16 arrested the 3rd and 4th accused in
\nthe presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and recorded the voluntary confession statement of
\n3rd accused in the presence of the said witnesses.  Ex.P.19 is the admissible
\nportion of the confession statement of third accused. On the basis of the
\nconfession statement, he recovered M.O.5-knive and M.O.6-Aruval and M.O.7-Aruval
\nunder Mahazar Ex.P.20. Then he handed over the accused and the Material Objects
\nto judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Since P.W.16 was retired on 31.05.1999, the further investigation was
\nconducted by P.W.17-Nagarajan. On 05.08.1997, P.W.14-Muthuraman, Head Constable
\nreceived the postmortem certificate from P.W.17 and handed over the same to
\nJudicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi at 4.30 P.M. Ex.P.14 is the passport given
\nto him to carry the postmortem certificate to Court.  On 22.08.1997 at 20.00
\nhours, P.W.16 arrested  A2 in the presence of Panneer and P.W.5 and recorded his
\nvoluntary confession statement. Then, he sent Ex.P.21-Requisition Letter to the
\nJudicial Magistrate to send the material objects to forensic lab.  Ex.P.22 is
\nthe office copy of the letter sent by the Magistrate to the Forensic Lab.
\nEx.P.23 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P.24 is the Serological Report
\nreceived by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.After enquiring the witnesses and after completing the investigation,
\non 22.10.1997, P.W.27 filed charge sheet against the accused. He also enquired
\nCrime No.149 of 1997 registered on the basis of the complaint given by A2 and
\nfiled referred charge sheet.  Ex.P.25 is the referred charged sheet filed by
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25
\nand M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. All the incriminating pieces of evidence let in by
\nthe prosecution witnesses were put to the accused under Section 313(1) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure questioning the accused, and the accused denied the
\nsame as false. There was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional
\nDistrict and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, found
\nthe appellants\/accused No.1 to 5 guilty under Sections 148 and 302 r\/w 149
\nI.P.C. and also found appellants \/accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty under Section 307
\nr\/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced A1 to A5 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
\nperiod of one year each for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced
\nA1 to A5 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- each in
\ndefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months each for
\nthe offence under Section 302 r\/w 149 and sentenced A1 to A4 to undergo 7 years
\nRigourous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- each in default to
\nundergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months each for the
\noffence under Section 307 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Challenging the judgment of the learned  Additional District and
\nSessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, the present Criminal
\nAppeal has been filed by the appellants\/accused Nos.1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Now the question that needs to be answered in this appeal is whether
\nthe accused No.1 to 5\/ appellants could be held guilty under Sections 148 and
\n302 r\/w 149 I.P.C. and accused Nos.1 to 4\/appellants could be held guilty under
\nSection 307 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Crl.A.No.834 of 2001 was filed by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4,
\nCrl.A.No.992\/2001 was filed by the 5th accused and Crl.A.No.370 of 2003 was
\nfiled by the 2nd accused.  Since all the appeals arises out of the same judgment
\nin Sessions Case No.374 of 1998, a common judgment is pronounced in these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.P.W.1-Paradesi Konar’s son-in-law is deceased Ramasamy. P.W.4-Ulagammal
\nis the wife of deceased Ramasamy.  P.W.2-Periyadurai and P.W.3-Muthuputhiyavan
\nare the sons of P.W.1. There was long enmity between the accused and the
\ncomplainant party. There was dispute between P.W.1’s son-in-law and accused in
\nrespect of a property. Manthira Konar contested the panchayat election. P.W.1’s
\nson-in-law’s relative also contested the election. There was dispute in the
\nelection. Further, aggravating the situation, there was a dispute between
\ndeceased Ramasamy and the accused regarding grazing of cattle in the garden of
\n1st accused’s brother, as a result of which there was exchange of blows. So the
\naccused have grudge over the deceased. Then at the request of P.W.1, P.W.4 and
\nher husband deceased Ramasamy came to the place of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The motive portrayed and projected by the prosecution is enmity between
\nthe accused and deceased Ramasamy.  Further Ex.P.16 would show that a complaint
\nwas given by Punga Konar against the deceased and another on 19.07.1997 and the
\nsame was registered in Crime No.136 of 1997. It also go to show that there is
\nenmity between the parties much prior to the occurrence. On the fateful day,
\ni.e., on 04.08.1997, P.W.1’s son-in-law was murdered. P.Ws.1 and 2 spoke about
\nthe occurrence because they accompanied the deceased. P.W.1 spoke specifically
\nabout the overt acts of each of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Learned counsel for the appellants raised a doubt about the presence of
\nP.W.2 in the place of occurrence because P.W.2 was not injured. The evidence on
\nrecord would show that on seeing the occurrence, P.W.2 ran away from the place
\nfor safety. Further, the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is
\nestablished by the complaint was given by Mariappan, the second accused herein
\nagainst the complainant party viz. P.Ws.1 and 2 and son-in-law of P.W.1. The
\nsaid complaint was registered in Crime No.149 of 1997 and the same was referred
\nas mistake of facts, which is evident from Ex.P.25. This would show the presence
\nof P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence and it also shows the fact that even the
\naccused admitted the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence. So, the doubt
\nraised about the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The enmity between the accused and the complainant party is
\nestablished. Eye-witnesses spoke correctly about the attack on the victim.  The
\nvictim sustained so many injuries which is evident from the postmortem report.
\nThe external injuries sustained by the victim is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“1.Incised wound 6x3x3 on the back of left of shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
2.Incised wound over back of skull (occipital region) 8 x 2 x 2cm exposing bone.\n<\/p>\n
3.Incised wound over left frontal bone 6 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
4.Transverse incised wound over vertex 5 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
5.Incised wound vertically over the injury No.(4) 8 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.\n<\/p>\n
6.Incised wound over right wrist dorsum 5 x 2 x 2cm.\n<\/p>\n
7.Incised wound below right elbow 4 x 1 x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
8.Incised wound below left ear 3 x . x . cm.\n<\/p>\n
9.Stab injury above he sternal notch 5 x 3 x 5cm.\n<\/p>\n
10.Incised wound above injury No.9 3 x . x .cm.\n<\/p>\n
11.Stab injury below right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.\n<\/p>\n
12.Stab injury below medial side of right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.\n<\/p>\n
13.Incised wound above right knee in the middle of right thigh 3 x 1 x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
14.Incised wound above left knee 8 x 2 x 5cms.\n<\/p>\n
15.Incised wound above wound No.14 (6x1x1cms).”\n<\/p>\n
\t23.At this juncture, learned Senior counsel argued that the second accused
\nsustained injury and it was not explained, so, the prosecution case is bound to
\nfail.  In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SUPREME
\nCOURT 2263 and the decision of this Court in Ebanesar & Anr., etc. v. State by
\nInspector of Police, Panagudi P.S., Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, etc.
\nreported in 2001(1) MWN (Cr.) 140 and argued that the non explanation of injury
\nis fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt, in this case P.Ws.1 and 2 were not
\nprepared to accept the injury on the second accused. On the other hand P.W.9-
\nDr.Mariyam Beevi, who treated the accused Mariappan on the same day in the early
\nmorning pointed out that the second accused sustained the following two
\ninjuries:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.Cut Injury over left knee 5cm x 3cm x 3cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Cut Injury over Right fore arm 2cm x .5cm x .5cm.”\n<\/p>\n
P.W.1 was treated by her on 04.08.1997 at 10.30 P.M. and the second accused was
\ntreated by her on 05.08.1997 at 00.45 A.M. Both P.W.1 and the second accused
\nsustained fracture in the occurrence.  Though the investigating officer referred
\nthe case registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second accused as
\nmistake of facts, the injuries sustained by the second accused would speak about
\nthe attack on the second accused. The investigating officer P.W.16 admitted in
\nhis evidence that he is aware of the injury sustained by the second accused in
\nthe right hand and left leg. Further, his evidence would show that A2 sustained
\ninjury in the same course of occurrence. So, the injury sustained by the second
\naccused cannot be brush aside easily. He suffered severe injuries and he was
\nadmitted in the hospital on 05.08.1997 and he was discharged only on 22.09.1997.
\nIt was admitted by P.W.17.  So, it is clear that there was fight between both
\nthe parties and both the accused and the complainant sustained injuries. So, we
\nare not inclined to accept Ex.P.25-referred charge sheet alleging that the
\naccused themselves attacked the second accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.The attack made by the accused on the victim is a sudden attack without
\npredetermination. But they have the knowledge that it will result in the death
\nof the victim. So, we are of the considered opinion that the accused are liable
\nto be punished under Section 304(i) I.P.C. Since the attempt made by accused
\nNos.1 to 4 to kill P.W.1 is proved beyond reasonable doubt, they are liable to
\nbe punished under Section 307 r\/w 34 I.P.C. and they may be imposed with
\nRigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in
\ndefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months.
\nSince the accused attacked the victim and P.W.1 due to sudden quarrel they are
\nnot liable to be punished under Section 148 I.P.C. and the conviction and
\nsentence imposed on them under Section 148 I.P.C. is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed and the
\nconviction of the appellants in these appeals\/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section
\n302 r\/w  149 I.P.C. by the Trial Court is modified to one under Section 304(i)
\nI.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in
\ndefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months
\nimposed by the trial Court stands modified to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with
\na fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further
\nperiod of three months  and the conviction of appellants in Crl.A.Nos.834 of
\n2001 and 370 of 2003\/accused Nos.1 to 4 by the Trial Court is confirmed and the
\nsentence of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default
\nto undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months imposed by
\nthe Trial Court stands modified to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of
\nRs.1,000\/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of
\nthree months.  The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the
\nappellants in these appeals\/Accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 148 I.P.C. is set
\naside. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants \/accused
\nshall be given set off. The sentences imposed on the appellants\/accused shall
\nrun concurrently. The respondent is directed to take steps to procure the
\nappellants\/accused for undergoing remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge
\n  cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n  Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Pudhiyamputhur Police Station,
\n  Thoothukudi 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 Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.A.No.834 of 2001 and CRL.A.No.992 of 2001 and CRL.A.No.370 of 2003 1.Murugan 2.Uchi Mahali 3.Sankaran … Appellants in Crl.A. No.834 […]<\/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-15263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-06T03:17:51+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T03:17:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3106,\"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\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-06T03:17:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 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":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-06T03:17:51+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T03:17:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":3106,"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\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010","name":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-06T03:17:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-represented-by-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugan vs State Represented By on 16 February, 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\/15263","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=15263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}