{"id":159760,"date":"1999-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999"},"modified":"2015-07-16T05:58:35","modified_gmt":"2015-07-16T00:28:35","slug":"vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","title":{"rendered":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, S.Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVIJAYAN RAJAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/02\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Pattanaik, S.Rajendra Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>PATTANAIK.  J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese two appeals are directed against the  judgment<br \/>\nand  order of Kerala High Court dated 21.10.1991 in Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal No.  370 of 1986.    Vijayan  @\tRajan  appellant  in<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal\t  No.\t 43  of\t 1992  alongwith  Sadanandan<br \/>\nappellant in Criminal Appeal No.  753 of 1991 were tried  in<br \/>\nthe Court of Session Judge Hmakulam for having committed the<br \/>\noffence under Sections 120B, 109, 447, 302 and 201 read with<br \/>\nSection\t 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections<br \/>\n35 and\t25  of\tthe  Indian  Arms  Act\tfor  the  murder  of<br \/>\nMajeendran by  means  of  a  revolver.\tThe learned Sessions<br \/>\njudge acquitted both the accused  persons.    On  an  appeal<br \/>\nbeing  carried\tby the State, the High Court by the impugned<br \/>\njudgment has set aside the order of acquittal passed by\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge and convicted Vijayan of the charge<br \/>\nunder Section 302 read with 120B(1) of the Indian Penal Code<br \/>\nand sentenced each of them  to\timprisonment  for  life\t and<br \/>\nhence these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  prosecution  case\tis  that  the two appellants<br \/>\nentered\t into  a  criminal  conspiracy\tto  cause  death  of<br \/>\nMajeendran  who\t was residing in the city of Cochin Pursuant<br \/>\nto the\tsaid  conspiracy  and  being  instigated  by  caused<br \/>\nSadanandan,  Vijayan went to the house of Majeendran at 6.00<br \/>\na.m.  On 9.10.1981  and\t fired\ttwo  shots  at\thim  from  a<br \/>\nrevolver.   One of the side shot hit the chest of Majeendran<br \/>\nand  immediately  after\t firing\t Vijayan  left\tthe   place.<br \/>\nMajeendran  was\t then first taken to the hospital by some of<br \/>\nthe neighbors and then to the Medical Trust  Hospital  where<br \/>\nhe succumbed  to the injuries at about 7.10 a.m.  The motive<br \/>\nalleged by the prosecution was that Sadanandan was a  rising<br \/>\nabkari\tcontractor and PW 50 who was uncle of Sadanandan was<br \/>\ngiving financial help to him.  Deceased\t Majeendran  was  in<br \/>\nbusiness   and\thad  received  finances\t from  said  PW\t 50.<br \/>\nSadanandan was perturbed on account of this,  thinking\tthat<br \/>\nhis  uncle  would no more render the same financial help for<br \/>\nhis business and as such he conspired with Vijayan and\tgave<br \/>\nhim a revolver and instigated him to punish Majeendran which<br \/>\nhe   did   on  the  fateful  day  during  the  early  hours.<br \/>\nSadanandan was arrested on 27.10.1981.\tVijayan\t surrendered<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Emakulam on 4.7.84.<br \/>\nThough the prosecution examined as many as 70 witnesses\t and<br \/>\nexhibited 110 documents to bring home the charge against the<br \/>\naccused\t persons  but  there  is  no eye witness to the said<br \/>\noccurrence.   The  prosecution,\t however,  relied  upon\t the<br \/>\ncircumstantial evidence.      The   learned  Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nexamined each of  the  circumstance  which  the\t prosecution<br \/>\nrelied\tupon  and ultimately came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\ncircumstances those established do not\tcomplete  the  chain<br \/>\nfor  bringing  home  the charges against the accused persons<br \/>\nand accordingly acquitted both the appellant of all  charges<br \/>\nlevelled against  them.\t   The\tHigh  Court  by the impugned<br \/>\njudgment,   however,   re-appreciated\tthe   circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence  and being of the conclusion that the circumstances<br \/>\nthose established complete the chain pointing the  guilt  of<br \/>\nthe accused recorded the conviction of the two appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.  Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant Vijayan submitted that the  High  Court  committed<br \/>\nserious error in relying upon the evidence of PW3 to come to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion\t that  she  saw accused Vijayan on the early<br \/>\nhours of the date  of  occurrence  and\treliance  upon\tsuch<br \/>\ncircumstance   is   wholly  unsustainable.  Mr.\t Lalit\talso<br \/>\nsubmitted that a bare reading of the judgment  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt would indicate that the Court was persuaded to come to<br \/>\na conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its<br \/>\ncase  beyond  reasonable  doubt\t because of the sensation it<br \/>\ncreated in the locality rather than on a proper appreciation<br \/>\nof the evidence on record. Mr. Lalit also submitted that the<br \/>\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge  having  discussed  each   of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstance sought to be established by the prosecution and<br \/>\nhaving\t given\t good\treasons\t  for  not  accepting  those<br \/>\ncircumstances the High Court  was  duty\t bound\tto  consider<br \/>\nthose  reasons\tand  non-consideration\tof those reasons has<br \/>\nvitiated the impugned judgment of the High Court by  way  of<br \/>\ninterference with the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.   Gopal   Subramaniam,  learned  senior  counsel<br \/>\nappearing for accused Sadanandan submitted that there is not<br \/>\nan iota of material in support of establishing a  charge  of<br \/>\nconspiracy under Section 120B and the High Court, therefore,<br \/>\ncommitted serious error by convicting Sadanandan on a charge<br \/>\nof  conspiracy\tby  mere  conjectures  and  not by any legal<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.    Raju  Ramachandran,  learned  senior  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for\tthe  State,  however,  submitted  that\t the<br \/>\nevidence   of\tPW3  could  be\trelied\tupon  even  if\tlest<br \/>\nIdentification Parade is discarded and if  her\tevidence  is<br \/>\naccepted  then\tthe  prosecution  case is proved that it was<br \/>\naccused Vijayan who came on the date  of  occurrence  during<br \/>\nearly hours  and  shot\tat  the\t deceased.  According to Mr.<br \/>\nramachandran the evidence of Pws 3,4 and 9 Mr.\tRamachandran<br \/>\nthe evidence of PWs 3,4, and 9 infect constitute a  complete<br \/>\nchain  of  events pointing out the guilt of the accused, and<br \/>\ntherefore, the High Court was fully  justified\tin  recorded<br \/>\nthe conviction of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTo  test the correctness of the rival submissions it<br \/>\nwould be necessary  for\t us  to\t examine  the  circumstances<br \/>\nrelied upon by the High Court and to find out whether on the<br \/>\nmaterials   on\t record\t  it   is   possible  to  hold\tsuch<br \/>\ncircumstances have been established and\t then  to  find\t out<br \/>\nwhether all such circumstances taken together can be said to<br \/>\nbe  complete  which point to the guilt of the accused rather<br \/>\nthan their innocence.\t It  is\t not  in  dispute  that\t the<br \/>\ndeceased Majeendran was shot an by somebody in his own house<br \/>\nduring early  hours of 9th Oct.\t 1981 and on account of such<br \/>\ngun shot injury he succumbed.  PW3 was the maid\t servant  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased and according to her evidence during the early<br \/>\nhours when somebody gave a call bell she went out and  found<br \/>\na man standing and wanted her master to come but she replied<br \/>\nthat master get up late.  Even thereafter when the man again<br \/>\ngave the bell she got up and opened the door and then called<br \/>\nthe  master  and  shortly thereafter she heard the sound and<br \/>\nwhen she went back she did not find the man who dad  earlier<br \/>\ngiven  the  bell  and  during  her  evidence  in  Court\t she<br \/>\nidentified the man to be accused Vijayan.   Accused  Vijayan<br \/>\non  being  surrendered\twas  arrested on 4.7.84 and the Test<br \/>\nIdentification Parade  was  held  on  7.8.84.\t This\tTest<br \/>\nIdentification\tParade was discarded by the learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge as it was apparent from the evidence of PW3  that\t the<br \/>\nphotograph  of\taccused\t Vijayan was shown to her before the<br \/>\nTest Identification Parade and further just before  she\t was<br \/>\nentering  the  Sub-jail to identity the accused somebody had<br \/>\ntold her to identify the tallest man shown  in\tthe  parade.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court  also\tagreed\twith  the  conclusion of the<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge and did not rely upon  the  same\t but<br \/>\nqueerly\t enough\t the  High Court relied upon the evidence of<br \/>\nPW3 as she identified the accused in  Court  after  so\tmany<br \/>\nyears cannot be\t relied\t upon.\t  Though  Mr.  Ramachandran,<br \/>\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the State initially had<br \/>\nurged that the evidence of PW3\tso  far\t as  she  identified<br \/>\naccused Vijayan in the Court can be accepted even discarding<br \/>\nthe  Test  Identification  Parade  but\tultimately could not<br \/>\nsupport the said contention with any authority.\t As a matter<br \/>\nof prudence it is highly unsafe to accept the identification<br \/>\nof accused in Court many years after the occurrence when the<br \/>\nTest Identification Parade made shortly after the occurrence<br \/>\nhas not been accepted.\tThere are also several other reasons<br \/>\nfor discarding the evidence of PW3 since  according  to\t PW3<br \/>\nthe  person  who  gave\tthe  bell  was not a tall man though<br \/>\nheight of Vijayan is more than 6 feet.\tFor a person to just<br \/>\nsee his face while opening the door and\t then  remember\t the<br \/>\nsame  for  the purpose of identification after five years of<br \/>\noccurrence, in our considered opinion  is  just\t impossible.<br \/>\nThe  evidence  of  PW3\tand  the  circumstances sought to be<br \/>\nproved through her evidence by\tthe  prosecution  cannot  be<br \/>\nrelied\tupon  and  the\tHigh  Court committed gross error in<br \/>\nrelying upon the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  next  circumstance\t sought to be relied upon by<br \/>\nthe prosecution and accepted by the High  Court\t is  through<br \/>\nthe  evidence  of  PW  9  who  on the date of occurrence was<br \/>\nreturning after supplying  milk\t and  then  he\tsaw  accused<br \/>\nVijayan\t running  away\twithout any chappal and in a worried<br \/>\nmanner.\t The High Court relied upon his evidence essentially<br \/>\non the ground that he saw accused being\t clad  with  a\tblue<br \/>\npant and  shirt\t and  was  running without any footwear.  We<br \/>\nhave gone through  the\tevidence  of  PW9.    It  is  indeed<br \/>\ndifficult  for us to rely upon his evidence and it is highly<br \/>\nimprobable for a man to remember any person running  on\t the<br \/>\nstreet without\t chappal.      That   apart  his  so  called<br \/>\nidentification in the Test Identification Parade was rightly<br \/>\ndis-believed by the Sessions Judge in as much as by the date<br \/>\nthe Test Identification Parade was conducted  not  only\t the<br \/>\nphotograph  of\tthe accused had been shown to PW3 and in all<br \/>\nprobability must have been shown to Pw9 but also in all\t the<br \/>\nlocal  newspapers  the\tphotograph had already been printed.<br \/>\nIn such\t circumstances\tthe  Sessions  Judge  in  our  view,<br \/>\nrightly\t came to the conclusion that the Test Identification<br \/>\nParade is nothing but a farce and  cannot  be  relied  upon.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court  on  the  other  hand\tappears to have been<br \/>\npersuaded by the fact that since  a  man  was  found  to  be<br \/>\nrunning\t during\t an  early hours without chappal on his foot<br \/>\nand with blue pant and blue shirt it was possible for PW9 to<br \/>\nidentify him.  With respect we would say the  reasonings  of<br \/>\nthe   learned\tJudges\t of   the  High\t Court\tare  totally<br \/>\nunsustainable and having gone through the evidence of PW9 we<br \/>\nhave no hesitation to come to a conclusion that his evidence<br \/>\ncannot be relied upon by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAnother\t circumstance  sought  to   be\t established<br \/>\nthrough\t the  evidence\tof  PW\t4, a young girl living a few<br \/>\nyards away from the house of deceased.\tAccording to her she<br \/>\nheard the sound of somebody running and when she turned\t she<br \/>\nsaw  accused  Vijayan  running\taway  after crossing a water<br \/>\nchannel and was wearing a blue pant and blue shirt.   It  is<br \/>\nno  doubt  true\t that  she identified accused Vijayan in the<br \/>\nTest Identification  Parade  but  for  the  reasons  already<br \/>\nadvanced  while\t discussing  the  evidence  of\tPWs  3\t&amp;  9<br \/>\nidentification of  accused  in\tTest  Identification  Parade<br \/>\ncannot be relied upon.\tThe High Court unfortunately appears<br \/>\nto  have  taken a view that the identification of accused by<br \/>\nPW4 in the Test Identification Parade should be relied upon.<br \/>\nWe are unable to agree\twith  this  conclusion\tparticularly<br \/>\nwhen  it is apparent from the prosecution material that much<br \/>\nbefore the holding of Test Identification Parade  photograph<br \/>\nof  the\t accused Vijayan had been published in the newspaper<br \/>\nand because of certain sensation in the locality it had\t lot<br \/>\nof  publicity  and  there was sufficient opportunity for the<br \/>\nwitnesses being shown the accused person.  In this  view  of<br \/>\nthe   matter  in  our  considered  opinion  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nerroneously interfered with the conclusion  of\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSession\t Judge\tin  this  regard  and  came to hold that the<br \/>\nidentification of Vijayan by PW4 in great detail and we\t are<br \/>\nunable to subscribe the view the High Court has taken on the<br \/>\nevidence of  the  aforesaid witness.  We also really fail to<br \/>\nunderstand how a witness seeing an unknown man running\taway<br \/>\ncould be  able to identify him at a later point of time.  No<br \/>\nspecial feature was also indicated by the witness.   In\t our<br \/>\nview  the  evidence of PW4 is totally unworthy of credit and<br \/>\nas such, cannot be relied upon for bringing home the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPW 7 was the person who\t saw  the  accused  boarding<br \/>\nauto rickshaw  which was driven by PW2.\t Though PW7 also had<br \/>\nidentified accused in the Test Identification  Parade  which<br \/>\nhad  been  conducted by the Magistrate PW61 but in the Court<br \/>\nhe could not identify the accused  and,\t therefore,  the  so<br \/>\ncalled\tidentification\tin  Test Identification Parade loses<br \/>\nits importance.\t That apart the reasons\t for  vitiating\t the<br \/>\nTest  Identification parade already indicated would apply so<br \/>\nfar as the identification by PW7 in  the  T.I.\t  Parade  is<br \/>\nconcerned.   In\t this  view  of\t the  matter  we  are of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that the High  Court\t erroneously  relied<br \/>\nupon  the  so called identification of Vijayan by PW7 in the<br \/>\nTI Parade even though in Court he did not identify  Vijayan.<br \/>\nThe  auto rickshaw driver PW2 stated in his evidence that he<br \/>\ntook  the  accused  in\tautorikshaw  from  Ideal  Lodge\t  to<br \/>\nVeekshanam office.    According\t to him he had taken accused<br \/>\nVijayan during that morning and second\taccused\t came  there<br \/>\nthrough\t the  cross  road  and\the  also  travelled  in\t his<br \/>\nauthorikshaw and  then\talighted  from\tthe  vehicle.\t His<br \/>\nevidence  has  been  relied  upon by the High Court to bring<br \/>\nhome the charge of conspiracy under Section 120 B IPC.\t  It<br \/>\nmay  be seen that he was examined by the police on 8.10.1982<br \/>\nroughly one year after the occurrence.\tIt has been elicited<br \/>\nfrom him that he was compelled to say that both the  accused<br \/>\ntravelled in   his  vehicle  by\t the  police.\t Prosecution<br \/>\nre-examined him and brought out from him  on  re-examination<br \/>\nthat one Joseph had approached him and paid him Rs.500\/- for<br \/>\nmaking such  statement\tin  the Court.\tWe have examined the<br \/>\nevidence of PW2 and in our opinion he must be held to be  an<br \/>\nunreliable  witness  and  no  part  of his evidence could be<br \/>\nrelied upon.  The High Court in\t our  view  committed  gross<br \/>\nerror in  relying upon his evidence.  Though the prosecution<br \/>\nrelied\tupon  the  letter  Exhibit  P6\tthereby\t trying\t  to<br \/>\nestablish  the offence of conspiracy between the two accused<br \/>\npersons\t but  the  High\t Court\texcluded   the\t same\tfrom<br \/>\nconsideration  as  is  apparent\t from  paragraph  30  of the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, and in our view rightly.  But the further<br \/>\nconclusion that\t it  was  the  first  accused  who  shot  at<br \/>\nMajeendran is wholly unsustainable in view of our discussion<br \/>\nof  evidence  already made and the said conclusion has to be<br \/>\nset aside.    Though  the  accused  alleged  to\t have  given<br \/>\nrecovery of some bullets and two bullets were also recovered<br \/>\nfrom the house of accused no.  2 but there is no evidence to<br \/>\nconnect\t the  bullets  which were recovered from the body of<br \/>\nthe deceased are the same as those bullets alleged  to\thave<br \/>\nbeen recovered on the basis of statement made by the accused<br \/>\nwhile in  custody.    In  that\tview of the matter it is not<br \/>\nnecessary to delve further into the said circumstance.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo  called dying declaration made by the deceased to<br \/>\nPW5 merely indicates that the deceased\thad  made  statement<br \/>\nthat  Anandan people have killed him but there is nothing to<br \/>\nindicate that the deceased knew Vijayan earlier or that\t the<br \/>\nsaid  statement,  even\tif  accepted  can  be said to be the<br \/>\nclinching material to hold that it refer to accused Vijayan.<br \/>\nAnother item of evidence on  which  the\t prosecution  relied<br \/>\nupon  is  the handwriting of accused Vijayan in the Register<br \/>\nof Ideal Lodge which may indicate that Vijayan\twas  staying<br \/>\nin Ideal  Lodge\t on  the  relevant  date of occurrence.\t The<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge severely commented upon the  evidence<br \/>\nof  the\t handwriting  expert who stated in evidence that the<br \/>\nwritings of the Inland Letter and the Register are  possibly<br \/>\nof  the same person who has knowingly written in a different<br \/>\nway.  It may be stated that no admitted handwriting  of\t the<br \/>\naccused had  been taken for comparison.\t That apart from the<br \/>\nevidence of the expert it is not established that it was the<br \/>\nhandwriting of accused Vijayan which was  available  in\t the<br \/>\nRegister of  Ideal  Lodge.   Even otherwise even if the said<br \/>\ncircumstance is held to be established,\t it  indicates\tthat<br \/>\nVijayan was staying in Ideal Lodge on the date of occurrence<br \/>\nand  that  by  itself  cannot  be  held\t to  be\t a clinching<br \/>\ncircumstance to bring home  the\t charge\t of  murder  against<br \/>\naccused Vijayan.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo  far\t as  the circumstances for bringing home the<br \/>\ncharge of conspiracy  under  Section  120B  against  accused<br \/>\nSadanandan  is concerned less said the better. To bring home<br \/>\nthe charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code it  is  necessary\t to  establish\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was  an\tagreement  between  the parties for doing an<br \/>\nunlawful act. It is no doubt true that it  is  difficult  to<br \/>\nestablish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from<br \/>\nestablished facts inference could be drawn but there must be<br \/>\nsome material from which it would be reasonable to establish<br \/>\na connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done<br \/>\npursuant  to  the said conspiracy. In the case in hand we do<br \/>\nnot  find  any\tmaterials  produced  even  for\tinferring  a<br \/>\nconspiracy  between  the two accused persons to do away with<br \/>\nthe deceased Majeendran.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn  the\t aforesaid  circumstances  we unhesitatingly<br \/>\nhold that the High Court committed serious error in  setting<br \/>\naside  an  order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge and in convicting the appellants.\t In our view and for<br \/>\nthe reasons already indicated the  prosecution\thas  utterly<br \/>\nfailed to bring home the charges against the accused persons<br \/>\nand  the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the<br \/>\ncharges.   We,\ttherefore,  set\t aside\tthe  conviction\t and<br \/>\nsentence  passed  by  the High Court and affirm the order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed by the learned Sessions  Judge.    Criminal<br \/>\nAppeals are allowed and the bail bonds stand discharged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 Author: Pattanaik. Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, S.Rajendra Babu PETITIONER: VIJAYAN RAJAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/02\/1999 BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, S.Rajendra Babu JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK. J. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of Kerala High Court dated 21.10.1991 [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - 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\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-16T00:28:35+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T00:28:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2935,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\",\"name\":\"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T00:28:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - 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\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-16T00:28:35+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999","datePublished":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T00:28:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999"},"wordCount":2935,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999","name":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T00:28:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayan-rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijayan Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 1999"}]},{"@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\/159760","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=159760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}