{"id":162406,"date":"2004-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-04-21T23:13:46","modified_gmt":"2015-04-21T17:43:46","slug":"perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 19\/10\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. BANUMATHI\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 934 of 2002\n\n\nPerumal,\nS\/o. Palani. .. Appellant\/Accused.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState represented by The Inspector of Police,\nPoolampatti Police Station,\nEdapadi, Salem.\n(Crime No. 717\/2000). ..Respondent\/Complainant.\n\n\n        Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against conviction and sentence made in S.  C.No.  340\/2  001  dated\n28-02-2002  on  the  file  of  I  Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial\nMagistrate, Salem.\n\nFor Appellant:- Mr.  J.  Shiva Ganesh.\n\n\nFor Respondent:- Mr.V.M.R.  Rajendran, Addl.  Public\n                Prosecutor.\n\n:JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P.  Sathasivam,J.)<\/p>\n
        Perumal, accused in Sessions Case No.  340 of  2001  on  the  file  of
\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge-cum-Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Salem, questioning
\nthe  conviction  for  offence  under  Section  302  I.P.C.,  and  sentence  of
\nimprisonment for  life  and  also  fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default R.I.  for six
\nmonths, has filed th e above appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        a) Deceased Muthan alias Muthu and his wife Kandhayi were residents of
\nErvadi Colony, Kuttapatti village.    Their  house  situate  in  Arunthathiyar
\nStreet, Kallapalayam.   On 25-7-2000 Rajammal(P.W.1), daughter of the deceased
\nalong with her husban d went to the house of her father, namely, the  deceased
\njust to  enquire  them.    When  they reached the house of the deceased Muthan
\naround 11 A.M.  her father was sitting in a cot in front of  his  house.    On
\nseeing his daughters, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased told them that a week
\nago when he tied a buffalo calf in a public place, near his house, the accused
\nunleashed the calf by raising objection.  At that time the accused, who is the
\nneighbour  of the deceased, was standing in front of his house, on hearing the
\nabove narration of the deceased, replied that “if you are a male, try  to  tie
\nyour calf  again.  For which, the deceased told him that he was explaining the
\nincident to his daughters and did not come to him for quarrel.  Not  liked  by
\nthe  remarks  of  the  deceased,  the accused went inside his house, brought a
\nknife from there and attempted to stab the deceased.  On  seeing  this,  P.W.1
\ntried to stop  the accused.  But the accused pushed her.  Then P.W.1 raised an
\nalarm.  At that time, the accused stabbed with knife on the left chest of  the
\ndeceased and pushed  him  on  the  cot.    The  deceased died on the spot.  On
\nhearing the cry of P.W.1, one Seerangan, husband of P.W.1, who was inside  the<\/p>\n
house  of  the  deceased,  came  out  from the house and other neighbours also
\nrushed to the scene of occurrence.  On seeing them, the accused sped away from
\nthe scene of occurrence with the knife.\n<\/p>\n
        b) P.W.1 went to Poolampatti Police Station at 2 P.M.  on  25-7-20  00
\nand  made  a  oral statement about the occurrence to P.W.1 0, Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, who recorded the same, and got the thumb impression of  P.W.1  in  it.
\nEx.  P-1  is  the complaint given by P.W.1 to Police.  On the basis of Ex.P-1,
\nhe registered a case in Crime No.  717\/2000 under Section 302 I.P.C.   against
\nthe accused.    He  prepared  Express First Information Report-Ex.P-8 and sent
\ncopies of the same to Judicial Magistrate’s Court and other higher authorities
\nfor taking necessary action.  P.W.10 supplied a copy of the first  information
\nreport to P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
        c)  P.W.12-the  then  Inspector  of Police, Edapadi Police Station, on
\nreceipt of the printed first information report, took up investigation in this
\ncase, proceeded to  the  scene  of  occurrence  at  3-30  P.M.,  and  prepared
\nobservation  mahazar-Ex.P-4  in the presence of Velayudham and Thamaraiselvan.
\nHe drew a rough sketch- Ex.P-16.  At about 4-30 P.M.  he seized  blood-stained
\nearth-M.O.4;  sample earth-M.O.5; blood-stained cot-M.O.6 under Ex.P-5 mahazar
\nin the presence of witnesses.  At 5 P.M.  he conducted inquest on the body  of
\nthe  deceased in the presence of panchatdars and enquired Rajammal, Madhammal,
\nSeerangan and Kaaveri and obtained their statements.  Ex.P-17 is  the  inquest
\nreport.   He sent the body to the Government Hospital, Edapadi for post-mortem
\nthrough Head Constable- Ammasi with his requisition.  He also  enquired  Ravi,
\nKandhayi, Pappa, Madhan, Kandasamy, Velayudham and Thamaraiselvan and obtained
\ntheir statements.   On  the  same  date at 10 P.M.  he arrested the accused at
\nEdapadi bus-stand.  The accused gave a  voluntary  statement,  the  admissible
\nportion  of  which  is Ex.P-6, which was recorded by P.W.12 in the presence of
\nwitnesses-Velayudham and  Thamaraiselvan.    Pursuant  to   the   confessional
\nstatement-Ex.P-6,  the accused took P.W.12 and produced a knife-M.O.1 from the
\nroof of his house and white colour “langodu”, which were recovered  by  P.W.12
\nunder Ex.P-7  mahazar  in  the presence of witnesses.  He arranged for sending
\nthe seized articles to Court and also for chemical examination.  On  26-7-2000
\nhe enquired  one  Ammasi  and  obtained  his  statement.  He also enquired Dr.
\nThiagarajan.  After completing investigation and after  getting  opinion  from
\nthe  Assistant  Public  Prosecutor,  he  filed  charge  sheet on 8-9 -2000 for
\noffences under Sections 441, 341 and 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as  P.Ws.1  and  12  and
\nmarked 17 documents  as  Exs.   P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 9.  When the accused
\nwas  questioned  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.,   as   to   the   incriminating
\ncircumstances  available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied
\nthe offences and pleaded not guilty.  He did not examine any  witness  on  his
\nside.   The  learned  trial  Judge  by  accepting the case of the prosecution,
\nconvicted him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced  him  to
\nundergo  imprisonment  for  life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- i.d., to
\nundergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Heard Mr.    J.    Shiva   Ganesh,   learned   counsel   for   the\nappellant\/accused and Mr.    V.M.R.    Rajendran,  learned  Additional  Public\nProsecutor for respondent.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        5.  The only point for consideration in this appeal  is,  whether  the
\nprosecution  has  established  its  case against the accused\/ appellant beyond
\ndoubt; and whether the trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the
\noffence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentencing him to  undergo  imprisonment
\nfor life with fine of Rs.1 ,000\/-?\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  motive  for the occurrence is a wordy quarrel that had taken
\nplace a week prior to the date of occurrence  between  the  deceased  and  the
\naccused regarding tying of buffalo calf in the public land.  This was narrated
\nby the  deceased to his daughters-P.  Ws.1 and 2 who were very well present at
\nthe scene of occurrence.  P.W.5, a resident of Kallapalayam also explained the
\nabove incident of wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused which had
\ntaken place a week ago prior to the date of occurrence relating  to  tying  of
\nbuffalo calf.    Similar  allegation was made in the complaint-Ex.P-1 given by
\nP.W.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.10  of  Poolampatti  Police  Station.
\nThere is no reason to disbelieve their version.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  scene  of  occurrence  and  the  manner in which the accused
\nmurdered the deceased is explained by P.Ws.1 and 2, daughters of the deceased.
\nIt is not in dispute that the accused is a neighbour and he is none-else  than
\nthe cousin brouther of the deceased.  The occurrence took place at 11 A.M.  on
\n25-7-2000.   It  is  seen  from  the  evidence of P.W.1 that when his deceased
\nfather was explaining the conduct of the accused  in  unleashing  the  buffalo
\ncalf which was tied in a public place, the accused heard the same and remarked
\nhim ( deceased) as to why he had discussed the incident that had taken place a
\nweek ago.    For  the said remark, the deceased replied that he was discussing
\nthe same only with his daughters.  On getting  infuriated,  the  accused  went
\ninside  his  house, took a knife and stabbed him on the left side of his chest
\nand pushed him on the wooden cot.  The  deceased  died.    Immediately,  P.W.1
\nraised an   alarm.      This  was  witnessed  by  her  sister-P.W.2,  and  her
\nhusband-P.W.3.  It is also her case that immediately after the occurrence, the
\naccused sped away from the spot with the knife.   It  was  P.W.1  who  made  a
\ncomplaint under Ex.P-1 to the police.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   P.W.2, another daughter of the deceased, sister of P.W.1 has made
\na statement similar to that of P.W.1 regarding the manner of  the  occurrence.
\nP.W.3,  husband  of P.W.1 who was inside the house, on hearing the noise, came
\nout and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with M.O.1.  According  to  him,
\nwhen he  attempted to catchhold of the accused, he ran away from the spot.  He
\nalso noticed the deceased succumbing to the injuries.    He  also  accompanied
\nP.W.1 to the Police Station for giving complaint regarding the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   P.W.4-Kaveri  who  was standing at a distance of 50 feet from the
\nscene of occurrence, has also stated that on hearing the noise of  P.Ws.1  and
\n2, she  saw  the  accused  stabbing  the  deceased with M.O.1-knife.  She also
\nverified that the deceased died lying on the cot.  Though she tried  to  catch
\nhold  of  the accused, since the latter threatened him, she was not successful
\nin her attempt.  She was also enquired by the police.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  P.W.7-Dr.  Thiagarajan, who conducted post-mortem on the body  of
\nMuthan, opined  that  the  death was due to stab injury on the left chest.  In
\nhis opinion, he has stated that…\n<\/p>\n
                (TAMIL PORTION DELETED)<\/p>\n
        11.  We have already referred  to  the  fact  that  the  Inspector  of
\nPolice-P.W.12  after recovery of earth(M.O.4), coir cot(M.O.6), knife (M.O.1),
\ncloth pieces (M.Os.7 and 8), shirt (M.O.9), arranged for sending the  same  to
\nchemical examination.    The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory-Ex.P-13
\nshows that those M.Os.  contain human blood.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  coir
\ncot-M.O.6, towel (M.O.8) and shirt (M.O.9) contain B Group.\n<\/p>\n
        12.    The   evidence  of  P.Ws.1  to  4,  P.W.7-Doctor,who  conducted
\npost-mortem;  Post-mortem  certificate-Ex.P-3;   observation   mahazar-Ex.P-4;
\nserological  report-  Ex.P-13  would clearly prove the case of the prosecution
\nthat the accused stabbed on the chest of the deceased with knife-M.O.1.  After
\nconsidering all the material aspects, the learned trial Judge rightly accepted
\nthe case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for  the  offence  under
\nSection 302 I.P.C.  and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of
\nRs.1,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Learned  counsel appearing for the appellant by pointing out the
\nfact that there was only one stab injury on the deceased, and the deceased and
\nthe accused at the time of  the  occurrence  were  running  70  and  60  years
\nrespectively  old,  submitted  that  the  sentence of life imprisonment may be
\nreduced.  We are unable to appreciate the said contention  for  the  following
\nreasons.   We  have already concluded that the prosecution has established its
\ncase beyond all reasonable doubts and it is  the  accused,  who  murdered  the
\ndeceased.   In this regard, it is relevant to refer a judgement of the Supreme
\nCourt in the case of Hukam Chand v.    State  of  Haryana,<\/a>  reported  in  2003
\nSupreme  Court  Cases  (Cri)  69,  wherein  Their  Lordships  have  held  that
\ninfliction of single blow  on  vital  part  of  the  body  is  sufficient  for
\nconviction under Section 302 I.P.C.  and Their Lordships rejected the plea for
\nconversion of the conviction to that under Section 304 Part I.  In the case on
\nhand  also,  there is a single blow, however, the same is on the vital part of
\nthe body, namely, left chest of the deceased.  P.W.7Assistant Medical Officer,
\nGovernme nt Hospital, Edappadi, who conducted the postmortem, has specifically
\nstated that the death was due to the said  injury  on  the  chest.    He  also
\nrecorded the   same   in  his  post-mortem  certificate-Ex.P-3.    In  such  a
\ncircumstance, though the accused had caused only a single  injury,  since  the
\nsame  is  on  the  vital  part  of the body which resulted in the death of the
\ndeceased, as observed by the  Supreme  Court,  the  plea  for  conviction  for
\noffence under  Section 304 Part I cannot be accepted.  Equally, merely because
\nthe deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of  the  occurrence  and  the
\naccused  was  60  years,  in  view  of  the  fact  that there is clinching and
\nacceptable evidence that it was the  accused  who  caused  the  death  of  the
\ndeceased by cutting with M.O.1-knife, there cannot be any lesser sentence than
\nthat awarded  by  the  trial Judge.  Further, it is not in dispute that due to
\neconomic development and other facilities, the longevity of life  span  of  an
\nIndian  citizen has considerably been raised; hence, it cannot be claimed that
\nthe deceased has gone to the final stage of his life.  Life is a precious gift
\ngiven by the God and no one has the right to take away the same  even  at  the
\nold  age;  accordingly,  we  reject the request of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant for modification of the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or
\ninfirmity or valid ground for interference; accordingly, the appeal fails  and
\nthe same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Index   :- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1) The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
   Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
4) The Inspector of Police, Poolampatti P.S.,
\n   Edapadi,Salem.\n<\/p>\n
5) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
6) The District Collector, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
7) The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19\/10\/2004 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. BANUMATHI Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2002 Perumal, S\/o. Palani. .. Appellant\/Accused. -Vs- State represented by The Inspector […]<\/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-162406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPerumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - 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\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Perumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-21T17:43:46+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-21T17:43:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2166,\"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\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Perumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-21T17:43:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Perumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - 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\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Perumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-21T17:43:46+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-21T17:43:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004"},"wordCount":2166,"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\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004","name":"Perumal vs State Represented By The ... on 19 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-21T17:43:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/perumal-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-19-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Perumal vs State Represented By The … on 19 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/162406","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=162406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}