{"id":167249,"date":"2008-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-04T14:10:33","modified_gmt":"2018-10-04T08:40:33","slug":"mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mangan … Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mangan … Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDATED: 12\/11\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nCrl.A(MD)No.1127 of 2001\n\nMangan\t\t\t\t\t  ...  Accused\/Appellant\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\nThe Inspector of Police,\nSamarasampettai Police Station,\nTrichy District.\t\t\t  ... Complainant\/Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the order of\nconviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli,\nin Sessions Case No.219 of 2000 on 06.09.2001.\n\n!For Appellant     ...  Mr.A.Padmanaban\n^For Respondent    ...  Mr.D.Issac Mohanlal\n                        Additional Public Prosecutor\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant, sole accused in the case, is the elder brother of the
\ndeceased and P.W.1. There was a property dispute between the accused on the one
\nhand and the deceased and P.W.1 on the other hand. After partition of the
\nproperty, the deceased and P.W.1 sought the consent of the accused for laying
\npipe-line to take water to their lands. Since the accused declined therefor, the
\ndeceased and P.W.1 laid pipe-line on 05.11.1999. On the same day, at 03.00 p.m,
\nthe accused damaged the pipeline, whereupon, the deceased and P.W.1 went to the
\nresidence of the accused and questioned his action, resulting in a wordy
\nquarrel, in which the accused armed with knife, stabbed the deceased on the
\nright side of the back and when P.W.1 made an attempt to prevent the same, he
\nstabbed P.W.1 on the left side of the stomach, resulting in registration of the
\ncase. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, framed charges against the
\naccused under Section 302 and 324 IPC and trial was taken up against them in
\nS.C.No.219 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1
\nto 13, marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and produced M.Os.1 to 6. By order dated 06.09.2001,
\nthe learned trial Judge found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to
\nundergo life imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year respectively
\nfor the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and the substantive sentences
\nwere ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction
\nand sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The prosecution case, as put forth by its witnesses, is concisely
\nnarrated below:-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that there was  property dispute
\nbetween the accused on the one hand and the deceased and P.W.1 on the other
\nhand.  After the property was partitioned, the accused was quarreling with the
\ndeceased and P.W.1 on the grievance that excess lands were taken by them. Under
\nsuch circumstances, the deceased and P.W.1 wanted to lay a pipe-line for taking
\nwater to their lands and the accused refused to co-operate with them and
\ntherefore, the deceased and P.W.1 jointly laid the pipe-line on 05.11.1999. On
\nthe same day, at 03.00 p.m, the accused damaged the pipe-line and, at 05.00
\np.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went to the residence of the accused to question
\nhim as to why he damaged the pipe-line laid by them.  At that time, a wordy
\nquarrel ensued between them and the accused, in which, the accused took out a
\nknife and on seeing the same, the deceased started running from the scene of
\noccurrence however the accused chased him and delivered a stab on the back and
\nwhen P.W.1 attempted to prevent the same, he stabbed P.W.1 on the stomach.
\nP.W.4, wife of the deceased and other witnesses came to the scene of occurrence
\nand on seeing them, the accused ran away from there.  M.O.1 is the weapon of
\noffence.  P.W.1 was conscious and P.W.6 the father-in-law of the deceased  took
\nhim in a car to the Government Hospital, Trichy. On reaching the hospital, the
\ndeceased was declared dead. P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital.
\n\tP.W.2, the Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Tiruchi, on
\nexamining the deceased at 6.45 p.m. declared him dead and issued the Accident
\nRegister, Ex.P.4. P.W.2, on the same day at 6.55 p.m. examined P.W.1 and found
\nsimple injury on the stomach and issued Accident Register and Wound Certificate,
\nExs.P.2 and P.3 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
 \tP.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the death intimation
\nunder Ex.P.7 at 7.30 p.m. reached the Government Hospital, Tiruchi, received the
\ncomplaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1, returned back to the police station and
\nregistered a case in Crime No.543 of 1999 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. He
\ndespatched copies of the First Information Report\/Ex.P.17 to the Judicial
\nMagistrate and higher officials in the Department.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.4 wife of the deceased corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. She speaks
\nabout the motive part of the  prosecution as well as the occurrence.  P.W.5,
\nthough cited as an eye-witness in the case, turned hostile.  P.W.6 is the
\nfather-in-law of the deceased and it was he who brought the deceased and P.W.1
\nto the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.12, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the copy of the First
\nInformation Report at 8.45 p.m. on 05.11.1999 reached the occurrence place,
\nprepared Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar Exs.P.18 and 8 respectively and
\nrecovered bloodstained earth, sample earth and bloodstained dhoti, M.Os.2 to 4
\nrespectively under Ex.P.9 in the presence of P.W.7. On 6.11.1999, at 6.00 a.m;
\nhe conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the hospital. Ex.P.19
\nis the Inquest Report.  The dead body of the deceased was despatched through
\nP.W.9 Head Constable for conducting Post Mortem.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.3, the Medical Officer, on receipt of requisition from the
\nInvestigating Officer, conducted Post Mortem on 6.11.1999 at 10.30 a.m., and
\nissued Ex.P.6 Post Mortem Certificate, wherein, he noticed the following:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“External Injuries: An oblique cut injury 2.5 cm in length 2.5cm from the
\nmidline at the level of L1 & L2 vertebra on the right side Broke passed upto 10
\ncm in length.\n<\/p>\n
\tInternal Examination:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1) Heart:300gm contains blood. 2)Lungs: 550 gm each pale. 3) Hyoid Bone:
\nIntact 4) Stomach: Empty. Pale. 5) Liver:1500gm Pale 6) Spleen:100gm pale 7)
\nRight Kidney: Full thickness cut extending from upper pole ventricular down for
\na length of 3 cm of Kidney: Normal pale 8) Intestine: distended with gas and
\nfaccal mater about 1500ml dark coloured fresh blood retro peritoneal cavity 9)
\nSkull: Normal Brain and Membrane Normal 10) Spinal Column intact”.
\nThe doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhaemorrhage on account of injury to vital organ right kidney 16-14 hours prior
\nto autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 6.11.1999 at 5.00 p.m, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused
\nin the presence of P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer and in pursuance of the
\nconfession statement given by the accused under Ex.P.10, recovered M.O.1 knife
\nas per Ex.P.11 Mahazar. Thereafter, noticing injuries on the accused, the
\nInvestigating Officer forwarded him to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli,
\nfor treatment. P.W.13, Medical Officer examined the accused on 6.11.1999 at
\n09.15 p.m., and issued Ex.P.20 Accident Register wherein he found the following
\ninjury:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Lacerated injury an day old which right frontal region 4×1\/4×1\/4cm”.
\n\tThereafter, the accused was produced before the  Magistrate for judicial
\ncustody.  The bloodstained material objects recovered through P.W.10, Head
\nConstable were forwarded along with a requisition Ex.P.13 to the Court for
\nreceiving opinion from chemical analysist. Exs.P.15 and 16 are chemical analysis
\nand serological reports respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Investigating Officer, after examining the witnesses and receiving
\nmedical and forensic opinions, concluded the investigation and laid final report
\nagainst the accused on 16.11.1999 for offences punishable under Sections 302
\nand 324 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned trial Judge, with reference to the incriminating materials
\nadduced by the prosecution, questioned the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
\nand for which, he pleaded not guilty. A written statement was filed in which it
\nis stated that on 05.11.1999 at about 05.00 p.m., the deceased and P.W.1 came
\nrunning towards the accused with a stick and questioned him as to how he could
\ndamage the pipe-line. Though the accused denied the same, the deceased indulged
\nin quarrel and assaulted him on the head. Under such circumstances, only to save
\nhis life endangered at the hands of the deceased and P.W.1, he took out the
\nknife and stabbed them.  According to him, the occurrence had been taken place
\nonly because of the abusive language and assault by the deceased and P.W.1.
\nFurther, at the hospital, he did not inform the medical officer about the person
\nwho caused injuries since the police officer advised him not to divulge the same
\nto the Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned trial Judge on perusal of the materials placed and considering
\nthe arguments advanced on both sides, convicted and sentenced the
\nappellant\/accused as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the presence of the
\naccused at the scene of occurrence and the attack by the accused on the deceased
\nand P.W.1 are doubtful. From Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, it
\ncould be seen that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the
\naccused preceded by a wordy quarrel between the accused on the one hand and the
\ndeceased and P.W.1 on the other hand and ultimately, the accused also sustained
\ninjury on the forehead. It is projected by the  prosecution as if that such
\ninjury was sustained due to fall and such story, as put forth by the
\nprosecution, is unbelievable. The accused, during cross examination as well as
\nby submitting written statement explained the manner in which he sustained
\ninjury and as to why he attacked the deceased and P.W.1. According to him, if
\nthe circumstances in which the accused sustained the injury and attacked the
\ndeceased and P.W.1 are considered in the light of the explanation offered by the
\ndefence, one may conclude that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
\noccurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 4, who have vividly narrated about the
\nmotive part of the prosecution case as well as the occurrence. The occurrence
\ntook place at 5 P.M. and without much lapse of time,  complaint was given at the
\npolice station at 8.55 p.m. which is situated 12 kms away from the place of
\noccurrence At 11.00 p.m., the First Information Report reached the Court
\nsituated 11 kms away from there. On the same day at 03.00 p.m., it was the
\naccused who damaged the pipe-line laid by the deceased and the occurrence took
\nplace at the time when the deceased and P.W.1 went to the place of the accused
\nto question his conduct. At that time, it was the accused, who took out a knife
\nand stabbed the deceased as well as P.W.1. The case of the prosecution has been
\nwell substantiated through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 6 and such evidence is
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence. The injury on the accused has also been
\nexplained i.e., it was sustained due to fall. The reasons given by the trial
\nCourt is well founded.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.We have perused the materials available on record and considered the
\nsubmissions made on either side.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The deceased and P.W.1 are the younger brothers of the accused. There
\nwas a land dispute due to which there used to be frequent quarrels between them.
\nThe accused did not co-operate with the deceased and P.W.1 for laying  pipe-line
\nin the land. It is the case of the prosecution that, on the same day i.e.,
\n05.11.1999 at 03.00 p.m, the pipe line was damaged by the accused whereas it was
\nclaimed by the accused that the deceased and P.W.1 came to his residence
\nsuspecting that the accused had damaged the pipe-line. During cross examination
\nas well as in the written statement filed by the accused, the defence taken by
\nthe accused was that the deceased, armed with stick, assaulted him on the
\nforehead. Though it has been claimed by the prosecution that such injury was
\nsustained due to fall, on a perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, Medical Officer
\nwho examined the accused, we find that such injury could have been caused by
\nassault with a stick.  Therefore, we are of the view that the occurrence would
\nhave taken place in the manner as spoken to by the accused. During the wordy
\nquarrel, it is all probable that the accused might have  taken the knife while
\nhe was keeping in the waist and attacked the deceased as well as P.W.1. The
\noccurrence had taken place in a spur of moment and it took place in front of the
\nresidence of the accused, hence, it could be inferred that there was no
\nintention or premeditation on the part of the accused to cause the death of the
\ndeceased. Further, looking at the injury inflicted, we find that it was not
\ncaused on the vital part of the body of the deceased and when P.W.1 intervened,
\nhe also received simple injury on the stomach. The accused in his written
\nstatement has given explanation as to why and how he caused the injury on the
\ndeceased and P.W.1. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that
\nthe offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. However, he has caused injury
\nwith knife on the back of the deceased thereby committed the death of the
\ndeceased and there is no dispute regarding the injury caused to P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.In a case law reported in 1983 SCC (Cri) 459 (Jagtar Singh Vs. State of
\nPunjab), it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The question is whether in the circumstances in which the appellant gave
\na blow with a knife on the chest, he could be said to have intended to cause
\ndeath or he could be imputed the intention to cause that particular injury which
\nhas proved fatal? The circumstances in which the incident occurred would clearly
\nnegative any suggestion of premeditation. It was in a sudden quarrel to some
\nextent provoked by the deceased, that the appellant gave one blow with a knife.
\nCould it be said that para 3 of Section 300 is attracted.  We have considerable
\ndoubt about the conclusion reached by the High Court. We cannot confidently say
\nthat the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which is shown to
\nhave caused death. There was no premeditation. There was no malice. The meeting
\nwas a chance meeting. The cause of quarrel though trivial was just sudden and in
\nthis background the appellant, a very young man gave one blow. He could not be
\nimputed with the intention to cause death or the intention to cause that
\nparticular injury which has proved fatal. Neither para 1 nor para 3 of Section
\n300 would be attracted”.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In another case law reported in 1984 SCC (Cri) 759 (Tholan Vs. State of
\nTamil Nadu), it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“….we are satisfied that even if exception 1 is not attracted, the
\nrequisite intention cannot be attributed to the appellant.  But in the
\ncircumstances herein discussed he wielded a weapon like a knife and therefore he
\ncan be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which
\nwas likely to cause death. In such a situation, he would be guilty of committing
\nan offence under S.304 Part II of the Penal Code”.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In yet another decision reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 123 (State of M.P Vs.
\nDeshraj and others), it has been ruled thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“9.Applying the factual scenario noticed by the trial court and the High
\nCourt, more particularly the fact that there was a fight between the accused and
\nthe deceased and the injured witnesses, and the injuries came to be inflicted in
\nthe course of sudden quarrel, it would be appropriate to convict Respondents 2
\nto 10 under Section 304 Part II IPC. Custodial sentence of eight years would
\nmeet the ends of justice”.\n<\/p>\n
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, applying the principles
\nlaid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case laws, the order of the
\ntrial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under
\nSection 302 is set aside, instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304
\nPart II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
\nIn the circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence under Section 324
\nIPC passed by the Trial Court stand confirmed. The period of punishment, if any,
\nalready undergone by the appellant\/accused shall be given set off.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is
\nreported that the accused is on bail. The learned trial Judge concerned is
\ndirected to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit him to
\nPrison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
The Inspector of Police,
\nSamarasampettai Police Station,
\nTrichy District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mangan … Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/11\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.A(MD)No.1127 of 2001 Mangan … Accused\/Appellant Vs. The Inspector of Police, Samarasampettai Police Station, Trichy District. … Complainant\/Respondent Prayer Appeal […]<\/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-167249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangan ... Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - 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\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangan ... Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-04T08:40:33+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangan … Accused\\\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T08:40:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2735,\"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\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Mangan ... Accused\\\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T08:40:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangan … Accused\\\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangan ... Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - 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\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangan ... Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-04T08:40:33+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangan … Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T08:40:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008"},"wordCount":2735,"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\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008","name":"Mangan ... Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T08:40:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-accused-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangan … Accused\/ vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/167249","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=167249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}