{"id":16781,"date":"2010-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-12T02:35:35","modified_gmt":"2019-02-11T21:05:35","slug":"ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 31\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nCRL.A.(MD)No.422 of 2003\n\n\n1. Ravi\n2. Govindan\n3. Mayilvahanan\t\t      \t... Appellants\n\t\t\t  \t\nVs\n\n\nThe State\nRep. by the Inspector of Police,\nKarambakudi Police Station,\nPudukkottai District.\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) praying against the order of\nconviction made in S.C.No.53 of 2002 on the file of Fast Track Judge,\nPudukkottai, dated 29.01.2003 convicting the appellants under Sections 452 and\n307 of I.P.C.\n\n!For Appellants  ...  Mr.S.K.Kanagarajan\n^For Respondent  ...  Mr.P.Rajendran\n                      Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)\n\n* * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis criminal appeal arises against the conviction sentence made in
\ns.C.No.53 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Judge, Pudukkottai District,
\ndated 29.01.2003 convicting the appellants\/accused offence under Section 452 and
\n307 of I.P.C., to set aside the order of conviction and to acquit the
\nappellants\/accused 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1\/de-facto complainant lodged a complainant with the respondent police
\n\/ Sub Inspector of Police, Karumbakudi Police Station, who came to the
\nGovernment Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai, wherein the complainant was
\nadmitted as in patient.  He stated in his complaint as follow:-  He is living of
\nPattathikadu village and is occupied in agricultural operations and at the same
\ntime also occupying the position as village president.  On 01.11.1997 all the 3
\naccused came to his residence at about 09.00 p.m.  while he was sleeping and
\nattacked him with aruvals.  Due to previous enmity the accused 1 and 2 and the
\ncomplainant he was assaulted.  The same incident was witnessed by No.1Rangaswamy
\nS\/o Rajagopal, No.2 Chinnammal W\/o complainant, No.3 Mrs.Perianaghi W\/o
\nDoraiswamy, No.4 Ayyaivoo S\/o Govindaswamy, No.5 Balakrishnan S\/o Doraiswamy and
\nNo.6 Thadasamy S\/o Periya swamy.  The P.W.1\/de-facto complainant had further
\nnarrated that accused NO.1 Ravi, was seized by the above mentioned witnesses.
\nThe other two accused fled.  The said complaint was registered by police in
\nCrime No.529 of 1997 an alleged offence under Section 452, 324 and 307 of I.P.C.
\nThe same was registered on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m.<\/p>\n
\t3. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 11
\ndocuments were marked, 12 material objects were produced.  P.W.1 had adduced
\nevidence stating that he is occupied in a agricultural operations and also
\nholding the position of Village president, P.W.2 his wife, P.W.3 is sister-in-
\nlaw, P.W.4 hisbrother-in-law, P.W.5 one Sundaram neibour, P.W.6 resident of the
\nsame village, P.W.7 Dr.Ravi Kumar, P.w.8 also from the same village, P.W.9
\nInspector of Police, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11 Inspector of Police.
\nThe documents are as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
\tEx.P.1\t  ..\tComplaint
\n\tEx.P.2\t  ..\tMahazar
\n\tEx.P.3\t  ..\tMahazar
\n\tEx.P.4\t  ..\tMahazar
\n\tEx.P.5\t  ..\tMahazar
\n\tEx.P.6\t  ..\tWound Certificate
\n\tEx.P.7\t  ..\tMahazar
\n\tEx.P.8\t  ..\tStatement
\n\tEx.P.9\t  ..\tF.I.R
\n\tEx.P.10   ..\tRough Sketch
\n\tEx.P.11   ..\tF.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
\tEx.R.1\t  ..\tWound certificate of A-1<\/p>\n
The material objects are as follow:\n<\/p>\n
\tM.O.1\t\t..\tAruval
\n\tM.O.2\t\t..\tAruval
\n\tM.O.3\t\t..\tAruval
\n\tM.O.4\t\t..\tlight blue shawl
\n\tM.O.5\t\t..\tblood stained concrete
\n\tM.O.6\t\t..\tdhoti
\n\tM.O.7\t\t..\tblood stained lungi
\n\tM.O.8\t\t..\tblood stained towel
\n\tM.O.9\t\t..\tblood stained jutti
\n\tM.O.10\t\t..\tblood stained towel
\n\tM.O.11\t\t..\tblood stained dhoti
\n\tM.O.12\t\t..\tblood stained dhoti<\/p>\n
\t4. The P.W.1 \/ complainant had adduced evidence stating that he knows all
\nthree accused.  P.W.2,3 and 4 is the wife, sister-in-law and son-in-law
\nrespectively.   P.W.5, 6 and 8 are known persons belonging to the same village.
\nAt that point in time P.W.1 was holding the Village President post.  A-1 had
\nstolen a vessel from Balasubramaniam’s tea stall, for which a local panchayat
\ninquiry was conducted and a sum of Rs.500\/- was levied as fine to the accused,
\nfor which as a consequence an enmity developed between A1 and P.W.1.  A-2 was
\ndefeated in the election for the panchayat local poll and this created an enmity
\nbetween him and P.W.1.  A-3 is the friend of A-1.  All the 3 accused came to the
\nresidence of P.w.1 on 01.11.1997 at around 09.00 p.m. and put on the light and
\nbegan questioning A-1 immediately A-1 used his aruval and inflicted a wound on
\nP.W.1’s left ring finger.  A-2 Govindan used his aruval and inflicted a wound on
\nthe rear side of P.W.1.  A-3 also used his aruval and inflicted wound on the
\nright side shoulder of P.W.1 and the said cried out in alarm.  A-1 was actually
\ncaught hold by the others, A-2 and A-3 had fled.  P.W.1 was rushed to the
\nGovernment Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai.  The Sub-Inspector of Police
\nvisited the hospital on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m and the complaint
\ncollected by the police.  Other witnesses P.W.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 deposed this
\nnarrations in one voice.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. P.W.7 Dr.Ravikumar had adduced evidence stating that P.W.1 was taken to
\nthe hospital on 01.11.1997 at around 11.50 p.m by his relatives and admitted in
\nthe hospital.  At that time P.W.1 had sustained 3 cut injuries namely, (1) 6″ x
\n6″ wound on his left neck and profuse bleeding (2) 6″ x 4″ wound on his left
\nPalm and (3) 1″ x 1 1\/2″ cut injury on his right shoulder.  The doctor further
\nadduced evidence that the lacerated blood vessels were deep on the effected
\nareas.  All the three injuries or wound are minor injuries.  The P.W.1 was an in
\npatient in the hospital from 02.11.1997 to 01.12.1997 as an in patient.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The Doctor further adduced evidence in his cross examination that A-1
\nwas admitted in the hospital on 02.11.1997 and was discharged on 01.12.1997.  He
\nalso sustained 3 injuries (1) 3″ x 1\/2″ cut injury on his left leg sole (2) 1″ x
\n1″ cull injury on his head and (3) swelling on his left eye due to blood
\nclotting.  The doctor adduced evidence accordingly by marking wound certificates
\nas Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. P.W.9 one Dhakshnamurthy, Inspector of Police had adduced evidence
\nstating that Inspector Arumugham and Sub Inspector Srinivasan had registered a
\ncase and they placed the file before him further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. P.W.10 Sub Inspector had adduced evidence stating that he went to the
\nGovernment hospital at Pudukkottai and after seeing P.W.1 had registered the
\ncase against the three accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. All the accused were arrested and material evidence was collected.  The
\nsub Inspector had registered a counter case lodged by the 1st accused in crime
\nno.530 of 1997 against the de-facto complainant and others.  Subsequently the
\ncomplaint was closed as a mistake of fact.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. P.W.11 Inspector of police inspected the place of crime occurrence and
\nprepared a rough sketch and in the presence of witnesses A-1’s complainant was
\nregistered initially in crime No.530 of 1997 under Sections 147, 342 and 323.
\nAfter the investigation the case was closed as mistake of fact in the said
\nincident and he adduced evidence accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. R.W.1 had also adduced evidence and denied the prosecution case.  In
\nhis counter complaint he stated that he and the other two accused had been to
\nthe house of the P.W.1 and attacked  him, due to previous enmity.  He was caught
\nbyP.W.1’s brother, Rangaswamy and one Govindasamy, who tied his hands and legs
\nwith a rope, there after  (1) Thevamani (2) Rangam (3) Ganesan, (4) Iyyavoo  (5)
\nThangaswamy (6) Govindan and (7) Dharman, had kicked the A-1 beaten him with
\nsticks and fisting with hands, hence he sustained injury on his head, face, left
\nleg and other parts of his party.  At another time the head cousable Kanagaraj
\nhad released him to took him to the police station.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, and perusing the
\ndocumentary evidence, verifying the material objects, the learned Judge, Fast
\nTrack Court, Pudukkottai, had awarded the punishment as follow:-  for 2 years
\nRigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500\/- in default to undergo a further
\nperiod of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment sentencing him under Section 452 of
\nI.P.C.  3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500\/- in default to
\nundergo a further period of 1 month of Rigorous Imprisonment.  This sentences
\nawarded under Section 307 of I.P.C. to the A-1.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. A-2 was punished under Section 452 and was sentence 2 years Rigorous
\nImprisonment with a fine of Rs.500\/- in default to undergo further period of 3
\nmonths Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 452 of I.P.C.  Further he was
\nsentenced under Section 307 for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.500\/- in
\ndefault to undergo a further period of three months Rigorous Imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. A-3 was sentenced to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.500\/- fine,
\nin default to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment.  Which was awarded under
\nSection 452 of I.P.C.  further he was sentenced under Section 307 of I.P.C for
\none year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500\/- in default a further
\nperiod of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 506(2) I.P.C, all the
\n3 accused were acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The above 3 accused have challenged the conviction sentenced by filing
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of the
\nprosecution is inconsistent.  P.W.1 and 2 are not reliable and trust worthy.
\nThe witnesses of the prosecution stated that A-1 had fled from the place of
\noccurrence, which is not correct.  Actually the police personnel had saved him
\nfrom the clutches of P.W.1’s, associates and accompanies.  The learned counsel
\nfor the appellants further argued that the counter complaint was registered in
\nCrime No.530 of 1997 but is was closed by the investigation officer, assigning
\nthe reasons that the complaint is closed as a mistaken fact.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. A1 was also admitted in the hospital on the memorandum of the police
\nstation and stayed as in-patient at the Government hospital for about one week.
\nwound certificate was also issued by P.W.7 doctor, who also adduced evidence
\nregarding the injuries of A-1.  The learned counsel further argued that all the
\naccused persons are involved in agricultural operations as coolies, who are
\nfacing this criminal case for the past 13 years.  Their normal family lives are
\nbeing effected, they are living below the poverty line, its only due to
\nilliteracy the incident had happened, for they are indeed socially and
\neconomically a backward class and could be considered innocent, besides they
\nwere never involved in any previous criminal cases.  Hence the learned counsel
\nprays to allow this appeal and acquit the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) argued that the conviction
\nsentences have been awarded to the accused on the basis of the well considered
\nprosecution evidences.  The injured\/ complainant was an in patient in the
\nGovernment hospital for one month.  After examining 11 witnesses and marking 12
\ndocuments and 11 Material Objects were produced.  A1 and A2 had developed
\nprevious enmity with the de-facto complainant, as such the accused persons had
\njointly come together with the intention of killing P.W.1.  The occurrence had
\nalso taken place at the residence of P.W.1.  The weapons used by the accused
\nwere also seized by the police.  The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
\nfurther argued that the counter case of A1 was closed after due enquiry, stating
\nthat it was not proved.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
\nadvanced by the learned counsels from either side and on perusing the
\ndocumentary evidence, the judgment passed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003,
\npassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai,
\nthis Court is of the view that there are discrepancies which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  \t(1) A1’s counter complaint was registered in crime NO.530 of 1997 under
\nSections 342, 147 and 323 of I.P.C, the said complaint indicates that one
\nP.Kanakaraj, Head Constable had saved him from the clutches of P.W.1’s men, the
\nHead Constable was not examined.\n<\/p>\n
   (2) A1’s wound certificate issued by Dr.Ravikumar, P.W.7, stating that A1
\nsustained 3 distinct injuries.\n<\/p>\n
 \t(3) Against the police memo and the police man taking A1 to the Government
\nhospital for treatment.  As such  a more detailed investigation and trial is
\nimperative in this case in order to decide the issue and render justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Hence, this Court finds a discrepancy on the side of the prosecution
\nand a lacuna in the judgment passed by the learned Judge in S.C.No.53 of 2002
\ndated 29.01.2003.   Therefore, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence
\npassed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions
\nJudge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, and acquits all three accused, including
\nthe remission of the fine amounts to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. With the result the above criminal appeal No.422 of 2003 is allowed
\nand conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 is set
\naside.  Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
SKN<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Assistant Session Judge,
\n  Fast Track Court,
\n  Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CRL.A.(MD)No.422 of 2003 1. Ravi 2. Govindan 3. Mayilvahanan … Appellants Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karambakudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District. … Respondent PRAYER Criminal […]<\/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-16781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - 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\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-11T21:05:35+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=\"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\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T21:05:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2029,\"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\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T21:05:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - 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\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-11T21:05:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T21:05:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010"},"wordCount":2029,"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\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010","name":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T21:05:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-the-state-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi vs The State on 31 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16781","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=16781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}