{"id":15641,"date":"2006-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-29T13:57:47","modified_gmt":"2016-08-29T08:27:47","slug":"mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 17\/02\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM             \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM          \n\nCrl.A.No.1010 of 2002\n\n1. Mohanasundaram   \n2. Alamelu                                                      ...  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Inspector of Police,\nF.2 Avadi Tank Factory Police\nStation, Avadi.                                         ...  Respondent\n\n                Appeal  against  the  judgment  dated   26.06.2002   made   in\nS.C.No.405  of 2000 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court\nNo.  III), Chengleput District.\n\n!For appellants :  Mr.  A.Thiyagarajan\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.  E.Raja,\n                   Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J)      <\/p>\n
                Appellants are accused in S.C.No.405 of 2000 on  the  file  of
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge,  (Fast  Track  Court  No.3),  Chengleput.   By the
\nJudgment dated 26.06.2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted
\nthe Appellants \/ A.1 and A.2 under Section 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.    and  sentenced
\nthem to  undergo  life  imprisonment.    Challenging  the  said conviction and
\nsentence, this appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                (a)  Appellants  \/  A.1-Mohanasundaram  and  A.2-Alamelu   are
\nhusband and  wife.    The  deceased  Devi  is the wife of P.W.2  Paramasivam.
\nP.W.1  James is the son of the deceased Devi and P.W.2.  The house  of  P.W.2
\nand the deceased is situated at the Northern side of the house of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
                (b)  There  is a long pending dispute between the two families
\nwith reference to a pathway.  With regard to the same, complaint  and  counter
\ncomplaint were given by both the deceased and accused to the Police.  P.W.12
\nSingaraja, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaints and compromised the
\nmatter  and asked both the accused and the deceased to settle the matter among
\nthemselves with  the  help  of  Panchayatdars.    There  was  a  Panchayat  on
\n08.07.1999.  D.W.1   Mohan is one of the Panchayatdars.  After the Panchayat,
\nboth of them came back home.\n<\/p>\n
                (c) However, next day, i.e.    on  09.07.1999,  again  quarrel
\nstarted.  Both the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused her.
\nThe deceased  also abused them.  In retaliation, both the accused attempted to
\nbeat her.  On getting frightened,  the  deceased  rushed  towards  her  house.
\nHowever, both  the  accused followed her and trespassed into her house.  A.2
\nAlamelu, wife of A.1    Mohanasundaram  took  the  kerosene  can  and  poured
\nkerosene  over the deceased and A.1 lighted a match stick and threw it on her,
\nas a result of which, the deceased was engulfed in fire.  She ran out  of  the<\/p>\n
house.   Then,  neighbours  P.W.3    Murugammal  and  P.W.4  Kumar and other
\nneighbours put out the fire and immediately, she was taken to  hospital.    In
\nthe meantime, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                (d) The deceased was brought to Kilpauk Government Hospital by
\none Pattammal.    P.W.14   Dr.Usha admitted the deceased and issued Ex.P.17 –
\nAccident Register at about 8.50 a.m.  Intimation had been sent to the police.\n<\/p>\n
                (e) P.W.13   Appaswamy,  Inspector  of  Police  came  to  the
\nhospital and recorded the statement  Ex.P.10 from the deceased.  On the basis
\nof  the  statement, a case was registered in Avadi Tank Factory Police Station
\nCrime No.243 of 1999 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                (f) P.W.13 took up further investigation.    He  went  to  the
\nscene of occurrence and recovered burnt materials.  He prepared rough sketch
\nEx.P.12 and observation mahazar  Ex.P.13.\n<\/p>\n
                (g)  The  injured  Devi  died next day, i.e., on 10.07.1999 at
\n9.30 a.m.  On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.13 altered the offence into
\none under Section 302 I.P.C.  He went to the hospital  and  conducted  inquest
\nand examined the witnesses.  Then, the body was sent for post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n
                (h)  The  Doctor  attached  to  Kilpauk  Government  Hospital,
\nconducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem certificate  Ex.P.19.\n<\/p>\n
                (i) In the meantime, P.W.13 arrested A.1 and A.2  and  on  the
\nconfession of A.1, kerosene can was recovered.  Material objects were sent for
\nchemical examination.\n<\/p>\n
                (j)  After  receipt  of  the  chemical  Examiner’s  report and
\ncompletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by P.W.15   Inspector
\nof Police for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   During  the  course of trial, on the side of prosecution,
\nP.Ws.1 to 16 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.22 were filed and M.Os.1  to  4  were
\nmarked.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   When  the  accused  were  questioned  under  Section  313
\nCr.P.C., both the accused simply denied their complicity in  the  crime.    On
\nbehalf of defence, one Mohan was examined as D.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   The trial Court, after considering the evidence available
\non record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section  302
\nr\/w 34 I.P.C.  and sentenced them as stated above.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellants \/ A.1 and A.2 took us through the entire evidence and  pointed  out
\nvarious discrepancies found in the materials available on record and contended
\nthat the accused are liable to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  We  have  heard  Mr.    E.Raja,  learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  We have carefully considered the submissions made by  both
\nthe counsel and gone through the materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   According  to  prosecution,  there  used  to  be frequent
\nquarrels  between  the  deceased  family  and  accused  family,  resulting  in
\ncomplaint and counter complaint by one against the other in the police station
\nand ultimately,  that  matter  ended  in  compromise.  However, on the date of
\noccurrence, i.e.  on 09.07.1999 at 7.00  a.m.,  both  the  accused  picked  up
\nquarrel with  the  deceased  and began to beat her in front of her house.  The
\ndeceased on getting frightened that she would be beaten, came running  towards
\nher house.  Both the accused followed her and entered into her house and A.2
\nAlamelu  took  the  kerosene  can,  which  was  available  in the house of the
\ndeceased and poured kerosene over her body.  A.1  Mohanasundaram took a match
\nstick and lighted the same and threw it on the deceased.  The deceased  caught
\nfire and came out running to the road.  All the other witnesses gathered there
\nand put  out  the fire and took her to hospital.  The deceased was admitted in
\nthe hospital and ultimately, she died the next day, i.e., on 10 .07.1990.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The prosecution relies upon two sets of evidence; (i) the
\noral dying declaration given by the deceased to P.W.3  Murugammal and P.W.4
\nKumar and (ii) the dying declaration given by the deceased  to  Doctor  P.W.14
\nand  Ex.P.17   Accident Register and the dying declaration Ex.P.10  given to
\nP.W.13  Inspector of Police at about 11.45 a.    m.    and  Ex.P.22    dying
\ndeclaration given to P.W.16 – Judicial Magistrate at about 7.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
                11.   As  far  as  the  first set of evidence relating to oral
\ndying declaration is concerned, P.Ws.3 and 4, who are examined to speak  about
\nthe oral dying declaration, have unfortunately turned hostile.  Therefore, the
\nevidence  relating to the oral dying declaration proposed to be relied upon by
\nthe prosecution is not available to prove its case.  On the other hand, P.Ws.3
\nand 4 would state that such a statement was not made by the deceased  to  them
\nand  they  did not give any such statement to the police with reference to the
\noral dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  Yet another peculiar feature that we notice is that  both
\nP.W.1    James,  son  of the deceased and P.W.2  Paramasivam, husband of the
\ndeceased would not support the case of the prosecution.  On  the  other  hand,
\nP.W.1, who is none else than the son of the deceased, would state in his chief
\nexamination that the deceased herself poured kerosene and set fire.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Let us now come to the other set of evidence dealing with
\nthe dying  declarations given by the deceased to the various authorities.  The
\nfirst dying declaration was made by the deceased to P.W.14  Dr.   Usha.    In
\nEx.P.17 – the accident r ued by P.W.14, it is clearly stated that ” alleged to
\nhave  sustained burn when two known persons poured kerosene over her and fired
\nher at above address around 7.00 A.M.” As  per  Ex.P.17,  two  persons  poured
\nkerosene on  her  and  set  her  on  fire.   But, these details would not give
\nidentity of the  persons.    However,  the  fact  remains,  according  to  the
\ndeceased, that two persons poured kerosene over her body.  The said document
\nEx.P.17  would  indicate  that one Pattammal took the deceased to hospital and
\nadmitted her.  So, this document would indicate that when such a statement was
\nmade  by  the  deceased  to  the  Doctor,  the  said  Pattammal  was  present.
\nUnfortunately, the  said  Pattammal  had  not  been  examined.    If  the said
\nPattammal had been examined, then naturally, the prosecution would be able  to
\nelicit  as  to what was the actual words uttered by the deceased to the Doctor
\nand what she said to Pattammal about the occurrence.    Therefore,  we  cannot
\nrely  upon  Ex.P.17   Accident Register to hold that the accused alone poured
\nkerosene over the body of the deceased and set her on fire.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  The other dying declarations  are  Ex.P.10  and  Ex.P.22.
\nEx.P.1  0  was recorded by P.W.13  Investigating Officer from the deceased in
\nthe presence of the Doctor at about 11.45 a.m.  The second dying declaration
\nEx.P.22 was recorded by P.W.16  Judicial Magistrate at 7.00 p.m.  on the same
\nday.  As such, there are two dying declarations.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  It is settled law that the conviction can be based on the
\ndying declaration alone, provided it inspires confidence and as  a  matter  of
\nfact, further  corroboration  is  not required.  But, when there are two dying
\ndeclarations, it has to be seen whether the contents of the dying declarations
\nare consistent  and  the  same  can  be  accepted.    When  there   are   some
\ndiscrepancies,  the  Court can look into corroboration and on the basis of the
\nmaterials relating to corroboration, the dying declarations can  be  accepted.
\nBefore  looking  into  the  contents  of  the  dying  declarations Ex.P.10 and
\nEx.P.22, let us now refer to the various observations made by  this  Court  as
\nwell  as  the Supreme Court giving the guidelines for appreciation of evidence
\nover the dying declarations, when there are more than one.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In Kamala Vs.  State of Punjab (1993 SCC Criminal 1), the
\nSupreme Court would state as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable  and  made  in  fit
\nmental condition,  it  can  be  relied  upon  without  any corroboration.  The
\nstatement  should  be  consistent  throughout  if  the  deceased  had  several
\nopportunities  of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are
\nmore than one dying declaration they should be consistent.   However  if  some
\ninconsistencies  are  noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the
\nCourt has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies namely whether they are
\nmaterial or not.  In scrutinising the contents of various dying  declarations,
\nin  such  a  situation,  the Court has to examine the same in the light of the
\nvarious surrounding facts and circumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  In Basith & 2 others Vs.  State, etc.  (1997-2 L.W.(Crl.)\n<\/p>\n
465), the Division Bench of this Court would make the following observations:-\n<\/p>\n
” The reliability of such statement\/declaration should be subjected to a close
\nscrutiny, considering that it was made in the absence of the accused\/appellant
\nwho has no opportunity to test its veracity by cross examination.  ”\n<\/p>\n
                18.  In Jai Karan Vs.  State of (N.C.T.  Delhi)  (2000-1  L.W.
\n(Crl.)  1  92),  referring to various decisions, the Supreme Court has held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        ” Once the Court is  satisfied  that  the  declaration  was  true  and
\nvoluntary,  undoubtedly,  it  can  base  its  conviction  without  any further
\ncorroboration.  It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule  of  law  that  the
\ndying  declaration  cannot  form  the  sole  basis  of conviction unless it is
\ncorroborated.  The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.”\n<\/p>\n
                19.  In Nallam Veera Satyanandam v.   The  Public  Prosecutor,
\nHigh  Court  of  A.P.,<\/a>  (2004  (2) Crime 279 (SC)), the Supreme Court has held
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
        ” It is the duty  of  the  Court  to  consider  each  in  its  correct
\nperspective  and  satisfy  itself which one of them reflects the true state of
\naffairs.”\n<\/p>\n
                20.  In Lella Srinivasa Rao  Vs.    State  of  Andhra  Pradesh
\n(2005-1 L.W.  (Crl.) 212), the Supreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Having  noticed  the  evidence  on  record  and  having  noticed  the
\ninconsistency between the two dying declarations, we do not find  it  safe  to
\nbase  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  on  the  basis  of the second dying
\ndeclaration.”\n<\/p>\n
                21.  In State of Punjab Vs.  Parveen Kumar (2006)  1  (Supreme
\nCourt Cases (Cri) 146), the Supreme Court has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “While  appreciating  the  credibility of the evidence produced before
\nthe Court, the Court must  view  the  evidence  as  a  whole  and  come  to  a
\nconclusion as  to  its  genuineness  and truthfulness.  The mere fact that two
\ndifferent versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot  be
\na ground  for  convicting  the  named person.  It may be that if there was any
\nother reliable evidence on record,  this  Court  could  have  considered  such
\ncorroborative  evidence  to  test  the truthfulness of the dying declarations.
\nThe two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand  by  themselves
\nand  there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their
\ntruthfulness can be tested.  It is well settled that one piece  of  unreliable
\nevidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
                22.   In  the  light of the above principles laid down by this
\nCourt as well as the Supreme Court, let us now discuss the credibility of  the
\ntwo  dying  declarations recorded by P.W.13  Inspector of Police and P.W.16
\nJudicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  The first dying declaration was recorded by P.W.13   the
\nInspector of Police  at  about  11.45  a.m.  in the presence of a Doctor.  The
\nDoctor has  not  been  examined.    However,  the  Doctor  has  given  Ex.P.10
\nCertificate  to  the effect that when the statement was given by the deceased,
\nshe was in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  The second dying declaration was  recorded  by  P.W.16
\nJudicial Magistrate  at  7.45 p.m.  on the same day in the presence of another
\nDoctor, who has also given a certificate that the deceased was in a fit  state
\nof mind  to  give  the  dying  declaration.   So, both the documents have been
\nattested by Doctors and both the documents have  been  recorded  by  different
\nauthorities.  There is no reason to reject their evidence relating to the fact
\nof  having  recorded  dying  declarations  from the deceased when she was in a
\nconscious and fit state of mind.  However, we have to find out  whether  there
\nis any consistency with reference to the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  According to the deceased in Ex.P.10, there was a quarrel
\nensued between  the  deceased  family  and the accused family.  On the date of
\noccurrence, i.e.  on 09.07.1999 at about 7.00 a.m., quarrel took place outside
\nthe house of the deceased.  During the course of  quarrel,  both  the  accused
\ncame running  towards the deceased for the purpose of beating her.  The moment
\nshe felt that she would be beaten by those accused persons, she turned  around
\nand rushed to her house by running.  Both the accused followed her and entered
\ninto the  house  of  the  deceased.    A.2  took  the  kerosene can, which was
\navailable in the house and poured kerosene on her  and  A.1  lighted  a  match
\nstick and threw it on her body.\n<\/p>\n
                26.    According   to  the  deceased  in  Ex.P.22,  the  dying
\ndeclaration recorded by P.W.16  Judicial  Magistrate,  there  was  a  quarrel
\nbetween the deceased and the relatives of the accused.  In that process of the
\nquarrel,  the  two  sisters  of A.1 and his cousin sister began to beat her by
\ncatching hold of her hair and kicked her.  When she was kicked on the stomach,
\nshe felt pain and got up immediately and in order to escape from their  hands,
\nshe came  running  towards  her house.  At that time, A.1 and A.2 followed her
\nand committed this act.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  How the  occurrence  started  has  been  given  in  clear
\ndetails in  Ex.P.22; but those details have not been given in Ex.P.10.  On the
\nother hand, as per Ex.P.10, there was a wordy quarrel between the  accused  on
\nthe  one  hand  and the deceased on the other hand and at the end of the wordy
\nquarrel, both the accused tried to beat her and the deceased came  running  to
\nher house.    As per Ex.P.22, there was a wordy quarrel between the sisters of
\nA.1 and the deceased and at the end of the quarrel, all the three  sisters  of
\nA.1  beat  her  black  and blue and one of the sisters thrashed her by kicking
\nwith her legs on her stomach and thereafter, the deceased came  to  the  house
\nand both the accused followed her.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  Ex.P.10  statement was recorded by P.W.13  Inspector of
\nPolice at  about  11.45  a.m.  Ex.P.22  dying declaration by the deceased was
\nrecorded by P.W.16  Judicial Magistrate at about 7.45 p.m.  on the same  day.
\nSo,  a  perusal of both the documents would indicate that the deceased has not
\nonly given different versions with reference to the genesis of the occurrence,
\nbut also wanted to implicate the family members  of  A.1  also.    In  such  a
\nsituation,  it  cannot  be stated that the dying declaration with reference to
\nthe occurrence made by the deceased are consistent.  On the other hand, it  is
\nnoticed  that the deceased had anxiety to implicate as many persons as she can
\nin  the  latest  statement,  which  was  recorded  by  P.W.16,  the   Judicial
\nMagistrate.   Thus,  it  is clear that there are not only inconsistencies, but
\nalso different versions given by the deceased by making improvements  as  well
\nas implicating some more persons.\n<\/p>\n
                29.   As  held by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the
\nevidence relating to the dying declarations cannot  be  tested  in  the  cross
\nexamination  because  the  dying  declaration  given  by  the  deceased is not
\navailable for the same.  Even if there are some discrepancies, when there  are
\nother  materials  to  corroborate  the  crux  of  the  contents  of  the dying
\ndeclarations, then we can place reliance upon them and  convict  the  accused.
\nBut in  this  case,  there is total lack of corroboration.  On the other hand,
\nExs.P.8 and P.9, which have been produced by the  prosecution  would  indicate
\nthat  both  the parties gave complaints against each other and ultimately, one
\nMohan intervened and the matter was compromised and both of them were asked to
\nsign in Ex.P.9 with reference to compromise.  Though the said  Mohan  has  not
\nbeen  examined  by  the  prosecution,  he  has been examined by the defence as
\nD.W.1, who speaks about the details of the earlier occurrence  and  complaints
\nand also the Panchayat, which took place on 08.07.1999.  D.W.1  Mohan, in his
\nchief  examination  would  categorically state that he saw the deceased coming
\nout with fire from her house and she did not  tell  anything  implicating  the
\naccused persons.  There is no reason to reject the evidence of D.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   Yet  another  doubt that may arise in this case is as to
\nwhether A.1 and A.2, who compromised the matter earlier, would pick up quarrel
\nagain with the deceased and would choose to chase her, that too in a day time,
\nto her house and poured kerosene and set  fire  on  her  body.    It  is  also
\npreposterous to see that if such a step was taken by the accused to commit her
\nmurder  or  to  kill her by pouring kerosene, it is quite artificial that they
\nallowed the deceased to escape from the house and ran away to  enable  her  to
\ntell others   implicating   the   appellants.      In   view  of  the  various
\nartificialities and inconsistencies, we are unable to place any reliance  upon
\nthe  dying declarations Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.22 and ultimately, we are constrained
\nto give the benefit of doubt to both the accused.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  For the reasons stated above, the Judgment of  the  trial
\nCourt in  S.C.No.405  of 2000 (dated:  26.06.2002) convicting the Appellants \/
\nA.1 and A.2 under Section 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.  is set aside and this  appeal  is
\nallowed.   The  Appellants  \/  A.1  and  A.2 are acquitted of the charge under
\nSection 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.  The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\nsbi<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Additional Sessions Judge,
\nFast Track Court No.3,
\nPoonamalloee, Chengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal Sessions Judge,
\nChengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
\nPoonamallee.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nChengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Inspector of Police,
\nF.2 Avadi Tank Factory Police Station,
\nAvadi, Chennai-54.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The District Collector,
\nChengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The Director General of Police,
\nChennai-4.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM Crl.A.No.1010 of 2002 1. Mohanasundaram 2. Alamelu … Appellants -Vs- The Inspector of Police, F.2 Avadi Tank Factory Police Station, […]<\/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-15641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - 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\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-29T08:27:47+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\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T08:27:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3363,\"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\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T08:27:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - 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\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-29T08:27:47+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\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T08:27:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006"},"wordCount":3363,"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\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006","name":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T08:27:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohanasundaram-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohanasundaram vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/15641","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=15641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}