{"id":159056,"date":"2010-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-14T14:22:36","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T08:52:36","slug":"boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.47 of 2009\n\n\nBoopathi                     ..    Appellant\n\nvs\n\nState by Inspector of Police,\nRajapalayam South Police Station,\nRajapalayam,\nVirudhunagar District.\n(Crime No.517\/2006)          ..   Respondent\n\n\nCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 13.2.2008 made in S.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of\nthe Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District.\n\n!For appellant   ... Mr.K.Jeganathan\n\n^For respondent  ... Mr.Isaac Manuel\n                     Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made<br \/>\n by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division,<br \/>\nVirudhunagar District dated 13.2.2008 made in S.C.No.19 of 2007 wherein the sole<br \/>\naccused\/appellant stood charged for the  offences under Sections 302 and 506 (2)<br \/>\nIPC and on trial, he was found guilty of charge of murder and sentenced to<br \/>\nundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in default to<br \/>\nundergo  one year simple imprisonment, and the appellant was acquitted of the<br \/>\ncharge under Section 506(2) IPC.,.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can<br \/>\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) PW.1 is the father and PW.2 is the brother of the deceased.  PW.1 was<br \/>\nliving with all his family members.   The house of one Periyasamy was situated<br \/>\nbehind the house of PW.1.  Drainage water from the house of PW.1 shall be taken<br \/>\nthrough the vacant site of the said Periyasamy, in respect of which, there was a<br \/>\nlong standing quarrel between the family of PW.1 and Periyasamy.  One Guruvammal<br \/>\nwas the tenant of PW.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) On 23.8.2006 in the morning hours, Guruvammal was removing drainage<br \/>\nwater, which was passing through the site of Periyasamy.  There arose a quarrel<br \/>\nbetween the deceased and accused\/appellant and the deceased gave an assurance<br \/>\nthat he would lay a pipe in order to remove the drainage water.  However, the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant made a vow that he would finish  off the deceased.  On the<br \/>\nvery day at about 8.00 p.m., the accused\/appellant came with an aruval and<br \/>\nattempted on the life of the deceased.  PW.2 and others pacified him.  On the<br \/>\nnext morning at about 7.00 a.m., on 24.8.2006, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 went to<br \/>\nattend nature&#8217;s call.  At that time, the deceased also came.  There the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant appeared with MO.5 and attacked the deceased on his buttock.<br \/>\nThe deceased who fell down, woke up and tried to escape but the accused chased<br \/>\nhim and attacked him on different parts of the body.  PW.1 and PW.2 attempted to<br \/>\nrescue but the accused threatened them.  As a result of the injuries sustained,<br \/>\nthe deceased died on the spot.  The accused run away from the place of<br \/>\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)  PW.1 accompanied with PW.2 went to the respondent police station.<br \/>\nThe Sub-Inspector of Police, PW.17 was on duty at about 8.30 a.m., when PW.1<br \/>\ngave Ex.P.1 complaint and on the basis of which, a case came to be registered in<br \/>\nCrime No.517\/2006 under Section 302 IPC.  Ex.P.16 F.I.R was despatched to the<br \/>\nCourt and to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv)  On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., on 24.8.2006 at about 9.00 a.m.,<br \/>\nPW.19, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, took<br \/>\nup investigation and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection and prepared<br \/>\nan Observation Mahazar Ex.P.9 and a Rough Sketch Ex.P.18. He conducted inquest<br \/>\non the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared<br \/>\nan inquest report Ex.P.19 in their presence.  Then, the dead body was sent for<br \/>\nthe purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) PW.12 Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam,<br \/>\nconducted autopsy on the  body of the deceased and issued post-mortem<br \/>\nCertificate Ex.P.4 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have<br \/>\ndied of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) Pending investigation, the investigating officer arrested the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant on 28.8.2006 at about 7.45 hours when he voluntarily came<br \/>\nforward to give a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses and the<br \/>\nadmissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.11.  Pursuant to the confession,<br \/>\nthe accused produced MO.5 Aruval, which was recovered under the cover of mahazar<br \/>\nEx.P.12.  MO.3 shirt and MO.4 Lungi were recovered from the accused\/appellant.<br \/>\nThen, the accused was sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii) All the material objects recovered from the accused  and also weapon<br \/>\nof the crime were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports<br \/>\nviz.,  Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.6 and Serological Report Ex.P.7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed<br \/>\na final report.  The case  was committed to the Court of Sessions.  Necessary<br \/>\ncharges were framed against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 21 Exhibits and 12 MOs.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found in<br \/>\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of the<br \/>\naccused.  No defence witness was examined.  The trial Court after hearing the<br \/>\narguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available on<br \/>\nrecord, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable<br \/>\ndoubts in respect of the charge of murder and found the accused guilty of the<br \/>\ncharge of murder.  However, the trial Judge acquitted the accused under Section<br \/>\n506 (2)IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused\/appellant, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, the<br \/>\nprosecution came with a story that the accused\/appellant attacked the deceased<br \/>\non 24.8.2006 in the morning hours and PW.1 and PW.2 were examined as eye-<br \/>\nwitnesses, who are close relatives of the deceased, and there was a long pending<br \/>\nquarrel in the removal of drainage water and in the said circumstances, they had<br \/>\na grudge and hence, they came forward to give false evidence  against the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant and the learned counsel pointing to the evidence would submit<br \/>\nthat there was a lot of discrepancies on the material particulars and therefore,<br \/>\ncoupled with the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased, the evidence<br \/>\nshould have been rejected by the trial Court but the trial Court has miserably<br \/>\nfailed to do so.  Apart from that the evidence of these witnesses was never<br \/>\ncorroborated by the medical evidence.  The alleged recovery of MO.5 was nothing<br \/>\nbut an introduction for the purpose of strengthening the prosecution case but in<br \/>\nvain.  The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably<br \/>\nfailed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned counsel for the appellant would add that even as per the<br \/>\nnarration of the prosecution case on the previous night, there was a quarrel in<br \/>\nwhich the deceased had used filthy language not only against the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant but also his family members, in particular his sister.  Even<br \/>\nafter his sister was pacified, she was weeping on the utterance and the same was<br \/>\nactually lingering in his mind and being provoked by the same, he had committed<br \/>\nthe act of murder in the dawn of the next day.  In the circumstances, it would<br \/>\nbe clearly indicative of the fact that there was no intention to commit the<br \/>\ncrime of murder.  In the circumstances, the act of the accused\/appellant would<br \/>\nonly amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  This legal aspect has<br \/>\ngot to be considered by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on<br \/>\nthe above contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also<br \/>\nscrutinised the materials available.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. It is not in controversy that one Rajesh Kannan was done to death in<br \/>\nthe incident at about 7.30 a.m., on 24.8.2006 at the place as put-forth by the<br \/>\nprosecution.  The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by PW.12.  He gave<br \/>\nPost-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.4 wherein he has opined that the deceased would<br \/>\nappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.  The fact<br \/>\nof the death as put-forth by the prosecution was never disputed before the trial<br \/>\nCourt or before this Court and hence, there is no impediment for the Court in<br \/>\nrecording so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked the<br \/>\ndeceased with MO.5 Aruval and caused instantaneous death, the prosecution<br \/>\nexamined PW.1 and PW.2 as eye-witnesses and they are closely related to the<br \/>\ndeceased.  It is  well settled that merely because of the relationship of the<br \/>\nwitnesses to the deceased, the evidence cannot be rejected but before acceptance<br \/>\nof such evidence, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny.   Even<\/p>\n<p>after the application of the test, the Court is satisfied that their evidence<br \/>\nhas got to be accepted as their evidence inspires the confidence of the Court.<br \/>\nHence, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in accepting their evidence.  The<br \/>\nevidence of these witnesses was to the effect that there was quarrel on the<br \/>\nprevious day in which the deceased uttered filthy language not only against the<br \/>\naccused but against his family members and there was exchange of words and they<br \/>\nwere pacified.  In the next morning, PW.1 and PW.2 went to attend nature&#8217;s call.<br \/>\nThe accused came with the aruval and attacked the deceased and caused his death.<br \/>\nDespite the cross examination in full, the evidence of these witnesses remain<br \/>\nunshaken.  That apart, the ocular testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 stood fully<br \/>\ncorroborated by the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Yet another circumstance which is strong against the accused\/appellant<br \/>\nwas the recovery of MO.5, Aruval.  When he was arrested, the same was recovered<br \/>\nby the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses and the recovery<br \/>\nof the weapon Mo.5 Aruval pursuant to the confessional statement given by the<br \/>\naccused would be pointing to the nexus of the crime of the accused.  In short,<br \/>\nit can be stated that the prosecution evidence is pointing to the guilt of the<br \/>\naccused. Now the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nin the face of such evidence in the Court cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Insofar as the second line of argument is concerned, the Court is able<br \/>\nto see force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.  It is<br \/>\nnot in controversy that drainage water of PW.1 was to pass through the house of<br \/>\nPeriyasamy and that there was a long standing quarrel between him and the<br \/>\ndeceased and on the previous day to the occurrence when the tenant of PW.1 was<br \/>\nremoving and passing drainage water through the sites of Periyasamy, there arose<br \/>\na quarrel and there was exchange of words between the deceased and the<br \/>\nappellant.  The occurrence had taken place at about 8.00 p.m.,.  At that<br \/>\njuncture, the deceased had not only spoken ill of the accused appellant but also<br \/>\nhis family members and also touched the morality of the accused\/appellant.<br \/>\nTherefore, all these were actually disturbing and perpetrating the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant and in the next morning, the incident had taken place.  Thus,<br \/>\nit is quite clear that it was due to provocation, which was made by the deceased<br \/>\nand that too the words which was spoken in filthy language against the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant and against his family members and also in particular, his<br \/>\nsister, which was actually lingering in his mind.  Under the circumstances, the<br \/>\nact of the accused cannot be termed as murder but culpable homicide not<br \/>\namounting to murder.  Hence, the act of the accused would fall under Section 304<br \/>\n(Part &#8211; I) IPC and awarding seven years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the<br \/>\nends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is modified and the<br \/>\nconviction of the accused\/appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified into one<br \/>\nunder Section 304 (Part I) IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment is<br \/>\nsubstituted by seven years rigorous imprisonment.  The imprisonment already<br \/>\nundergone by the accused\/appellant is ordered to be given set off. The Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Rajapalayam South Police Station,<br \/>\n  Rajapalayam,<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n<p> (Crime No.517\/2006)<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Criminal Appeal (MD) No.47 of 2009 Boopathi .. Appellant vs State by Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1988,\"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\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010"},"wordCount":1988,"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\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010","name":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T08:52:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/boopathi-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Boopathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/159056","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=159056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}