{"id":168427,"date":"2003-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003"},"modified":"2014-03-02T23:25:15","modified_gmt":"2014-03-02T17:55:15","slug":"mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: M Karpagavinayagam<\/div>\n
Bench: M Karpagavinayagam, A Rajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  M. Karpagavinayagam, J. <\/p>\n
 1.  Mani, the Appellant \/Accused 1 and his son Pandi  – Accused 2, were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (on two counts)  and 201  I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The facts leading to conviction, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   (a)   The deceased  No.  I Karuppasamy married one Kaliammal, who did not have any issue.  Therefore, he divorced her  and  gave a piece of land to her as compensation as per the decision of the Panchayat.  Thereafter, deceased  No.  I married one Lakshmi, deceased  No. II.  Out of the wedlock, a son Karuppasamy, P.W.1 and a daughter Lakshmi were born.  Since deceased  No.  1 had issue, he insisted his divorced wife to return the piece of land which he had given to her at the time of divorce.  But the said Kaliammal was not inclined to  hand over the land to him and told deceased  No. I  that she would give the land to her  sister’s son Pandi \/ accused 2.  Due to this,  there was  misunderstanding between them and deceased  No.  1 Karuppasamy and his wife Lakshmi – deceased  No.  2,  said to have murdered  Kaliammal.  In respect of this incident, a case was registered against both the deceased.  Even though they were tried for the offence of murder,  ultimately they were acquitted.  After  their release,  deceased  No. I took over possession of the land on the strength of a forged document alleged to  have been  executed  by the said Kaliammal before her death.  In this respect, a civil suit was pending between deceased  No.  1  and the accused.   Since the disputed land was taken away by deceased  No.  1, accused -1 Mani, father of A-2 Pandi  developed strong enmity  against the deceased.  There were frequent  quarrel between  the  parties.\n<\/p>\n
   (b)   The fateful occurrence took place on 22.1.1995 .  Deceased  No.  1,  after   finishing  his  field  work,  was  sitting  near the  cattle shed  situate at the  disputed  land  and was taking food.   Deceased  No. II  Lakshmi was watering the field.  P.W.1 Karuppasamy, son of the deceased,  was grazing the cattle.  Suddenly,  A-1 Mani  and  A-2  Pandi,  armed with aruval,  came to the scene of occurrence and noticing the accused  coming with weapons, deceased  No.  1  got up  and  ran towards north,  apprehending that he would be murdered  by  them.  However,  both  the accused  chased him;  caught  him and cut him with aruval repeatedly.\n<\/p>\n
   (c)  On  seeing  the incident,  deceased  No.  2 ran  towards  the deceased I with a  kalaikottu.   Both  the  accused pushed deceased  No.  2  on the floor and  gave indiscriminate cut  on  her  neck with  aruval.  Both  of  them  died on the spot.   Then the  accused  severed the neck of deceased   No.  1  and  took  away  the  head  and went  towards  the  southern  side.    After  throwing  the  head  on  the  way  to  Alavanthankulam Village,   they ran away from the scene with the aruvals.  \n \n\n   (d)   This  occurrence was  witnessed by P.W.1 Karuppasamy, son of  the  deceased  and  also  by  one  Kattamari,  P. W. 3,   who  is  the  neighboring  land  owner  and  one Pechimuthu, the   brother  of  the  deceased   No.   2  Lakshmi.    P.W.1 rushed to the house of his grandfather Shanmugavel  Thevar  and  informed  him  about the incident.   Pechimuthu also came there and informed the same to P.W.2.  After sending Pechimuthu to the Police Station to give  a  complaint,  P.W.2  along  with  P.W. 1 and  other  villagers,  came to  the  scene of  occurrence.  Pechimuthu  went  to  Manoor  Police Station  and  gave  a  report  to  P.W. 11.    Ex.P.16 is the complaint and  Ex.P.17  is the F.I.R.   P.W. 11 Sub  Inspector of  Police  registered  the same under Section 302  I.P.C.  against both  the accused.  Exhibit P-17 is the F.I.R.    (e)   P.W. 12 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, went to the scene of occurrence   at  12.00 hours  on  22\/23.1.1995.  He prepared  Ex.P.1 observation mahazar  and  drew   Ex.P-18  rough  sketch.   He  conducted  an  inquest  on the dead body of deceased   No.   1  from 02.00 a.m. to  04.00 a.m.    Ex.P-19 is the he  inquest  report.    He  also  conducted an  inquest on the dead  body  of  the  deceased 2  from 4.00 to 5.30 a.m.   Ex.P-20 is t he  inquest report . During the course of inquest, he examined  P.Ws.1, 3 and  Pechimuthu, the author of the F.I.R.    He recovered the blood stained earth  and blood stained cloths of the deceased. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
   (f)  Next day early morning, P.W.12 Inspector of Police  went in search of the head, which was severed from the body of the  deceased and  ultimately,  found  the head  near Keelaipillayarkulam – Alavanthankulam cart track.  He  prepared another  observation mahazar  Ex.P-3  and drew  Ex.P-21 rough sketch.    At  the place where the head was found lying, a separate inquest report was prepared under Ex.P-22.   Thereafter  the head was taken back to the place where the body was found.  Ex. P-23  inquest report has also  been prepared.  Then he made arrangements to send the bodies for postmortem.\n<\/p>\n
   (g)   P.W. 6, Doctor    on 23.1. 1995 conducted post-mortem and found on alignment  of  the  head  to the  trunk, that  it  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  person.  He  found  several injuries on the body of deceased  No. 1.  Then he  issued  Ex.P-9  post-mortem  certificate   giving an  opinion that  deceased would appear to have died of heavy cut  injuries  to  the  region of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
   (h)  At about 12.50 p.m., P.W.6 Dr. Paramasivam  conducted post-mortem  on the body of deceased  No. 2  and found cut injuries on the neck and issued  Ex.P-7  postmortem certificate  giving  an opinion that  deceased  No.  2  would appear to have died of heavy cut injuries  to the region of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  During the  course of investigation,   P.W.12  Inspector of Police  came to know that the accused surrendered  before the Court at Srivaikundam,  the very next day,  i.e. on 24.1.1995.   Even though P.W.12 filed an application for getting police custody before the Court, the same was dismissed.  Then  he  continued the investigation and  arranged to send the    material objects   for  chemical  examination.  Ultimately,  after completion of  investigation,  he filed the  charge sheet under Section 302 read  with 34   I.P.C. against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     (j) The trial Court, however, framed charges against both the accused for the offences under Sections 302(on two counts ) and 201 I.P.C.  During the course of trial,  P.Ws.1  to 12 were examined,   Exhibits P1 to P-23 were filed and   M.Os.  1 to  5  were marked.\n<\/p>\n
    (k)  The defence of the accused,  while  they were  questioned under Section 313  of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  is  one of  total  denial.  As  a matter of fact, they have stated  that   they have no enmity  at  all with the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     (l)  On  a  consideration  of  the  materials  available  on  record,  the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt  and  thereby convicted both the accused for the offences  under  Sections 302 ( on two counts) and  201  I.P.C.  and each of the accused were sentenced   to undergo life imprisonment  and to pay fine of Rs.5000\/-  on each counts  and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on each counts for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and each of them were also  sentenced  to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment  for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.  The Sessions Court ordered  the sentences imposed on the accused to run concurrently.  Aggrieved by the same , the first  accused alone  has   filed the present  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
   3. Though  this  appeal has been  filed  originally  by  Mr.  Edmund  on  behalf of  accused I,  it was represented at the time of final disposal  by Mr. Edmund,  that the party had  taken  the bundle from him long back and as such,  he had no instruction to appear on behalf of accused I.  When it is verified with the Registry, it is noticed that nobody has entered appearance on behalf of accused I.  Therefore, this Court  thought it fit to appoint  Mr. C. R.  Malarvannan  as   Amicu Curiae  to appear on behalf of accused I, the appellant herein.   Admittedly,  there is no  appeal filed on behalf  of Accused  2.\n<\/p>\n
   4.  Now, Mr. C. R.  Malarvannan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant \/accused 1,  while assailing the judgment of conviction, would make the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
   “(i) Though the complaint has been given by one of the eye- witnesses, namely  Pechimuthu, the  brother of the second deceased, the prosecution failed to examine him before the Court.  Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon the complaint as well as the F.I.R.,   namely Exhibits P 16 and 17.\n<\/p>\n
   (ii) The only eye-witness  produced  by the prosecution to prove this  case  is  P.W.1,  who   is a child witness.  He  is  the  son of  both the deceased.  The evidence of P.W.1, being  a child  witness, cannot be said to be reliable, as his deposition would indicate that the same was not in consonance with  the  statement  made to the Police Officer.   There are vital contradictions with reference  to the material particulars  relating to the occurrence and as such his evidence cannot be relied upon.      (iii)  According to P.W.1,  he informed P.W.2 the grandfather,  about the incident, who in turn came to the scene of  occurrence  immediately.  This is supported by P.W.2 by stating that he came to the scene immediately after getting information from P.W.1 during night hours.    But he told the police that he did not go to the spot immediately since he was afraid to go during late night hours.  Therefore, he went to the spot next morning.  If that be true, the evidence of P.W.1 that he informed P.W.2 in the night itself and therefore P.W.2 came to the spot cannot be true.    (iv)  Furthermore,  the evidence of P.W.11  Sub  Inspector of Police,  would clearly show that the F.I.R. would not have been prepared  at the  relevant time, which is mentioned in the complaint and in the F.I.R.  Furthermore, the trial Court summoned  the pocket diary of  P.W.11  and  the general diary of the concerned Police Station and despite that they have not produced the same before the Court.  As such, adverse inference had to be drawn in favour of the accused.  Besides that, evidence of P.W. 1 would show that the details of the overt acts given in the  evidence, were not  given  in the statement made  by him to  P.W.11  the Police Officer.  Therefore, it is not safe  for the Court to convict the accused, that too in a double murder, merely on the basis of the  child witness, aged about 12 years, at the time of occurrence.”\n<\/p>\n
   5. In reply to the above submissions,  learned Additional Public Prosecutor would  contend  that the reasons given  by the trial  Court for placing reliance on P.W.1 and  convicting  the  accused  for the offences referred  to  above,  are  correct  and  the same need not  be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
   6.  We have given our careful consideration to the respective contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties.  We have also gone through the records.\n<\/p>\n
   7.  As correctly   pointed out by Mr. Malarvannan,  Amicus Curiae, the only evidence available in this case is the deposition of P.W.1.  Unfortunately,  Pechimuthu – the author  of the F.I.R., one of the eye witnesses  and Kattamari, another eye-witness,  have not been examined.   Resultantly, the court would not be able to act upon Ex. P-16 complaint and  Ex. P-17 F.I.R.  Similarly, the court is unable to use  the evidence of P.W.3 Kattamari,  one of the eye-witnesses, as he did not support  the prosecution case and consequently he was treated hostile.  Therefore, the only eye-witness  who is available before the Court is P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
   8.   There is no dispute in the fact that P.W.1 was a child witness.  At the time of examination before the Court, he was aged 15 years.  At  the time of occurrence, he was aged about 13 years.  Before he deposed evidence, the Court put relevant questions to the child witness in order to test his understanding  capacity.  The Court, after considering the answers given by him, came to the conclusion that he was a fit person to give evidence, as he was able to understand  the questions put by the Court.   A perusal of the  deposition  given by P.W.1  both  in  chief and cross,  in our view,  would  make  it  obvious  that  P.W.1 is  a  truthful  witness giving a clear ocular account of the occurrence.  It is  noticed that he was cross examined at length.  The answers given by him in the cross examination would clearly indicate  that he withstood the cross-examination and confirmed the statement given to the police as well as  in the chief examination.\n<\/p>\n
   9. According to P.W.1  on 22.1.1995 at about  6.00  O’  Clock, when  he was grazing  cattle near the  disputed land,  deceased   No.  2,  mother Lakshmi came to the field with food and the first deceased, after finishing his work,  opened  the tiffin box (J}f;Fr; rl;o)  and began to take his food.  Deceased  No.  2  was  also  standing  in  the field  by watering   it.  At  that  point  of  time, P.W.1 saw both the accused  coming from the western direction with aruval in their hands.  Deceased  No.  I , on noticing  both  the accused coming towards him with the aruval, got frightened, stopped taking food and  began to run  from  the scene of occurrence .  Both the accused chased him  and then caught him.     At that spot itself,  both of them gave indiscriminate cut  all over the  body.  Deceased  No. 2,  on seeing this frightful incident, came near her husband,  carrying Kalaikottu   in her hand.  Both the accused pushed her down and  gave cut on the neck.  Both of them died on the spot.  Having not satisfied with this, both the accused came near the  deceased  No. 1,  severed his head, took away the same  and proceeded  towards south.  This was witnessed by P.W.1, who was standing 50 feet away from the place of occurrence while grazing the cattle.  Pechimuthu, the brother of  deceased   No. II  also was standing nearby.\n<\/p>\n
   10. P.W.1  rushed to Kurinchi Nagar, Keelapillaiyarkulam village and informed the incident to his grandfather P.W.2  Shanmugavel Thevar.  Within few minutes Pechimuthu  also came  and informed  P.W.2.  Then P.W.2 sent Pechimuthu to the Police Station to give complaint.  Thereafter, he informed the villagers  and  came to the spot along with P.W.1 and the villagers.   They were all waiting till the police came to the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
    11. After registration of the complaint at about 12.30 mid-night,  P.W. 12  Inspector of Police came to the scene at 1.00 O’ clock in the midnight  along with police party.  P.W.12  conducted  inquest on the  bodies  of the deceased and also conducted inquest on the head which was recovered next day morning.  During the course of inquest, P.Ws.1.,  3 and  one Pechimuthu, the author of the complaint  were examined.  Thus, it is clear that P.W.1 was present  at  the  scene  place from the beginning.\n<\/p>\n
   12. Though, as correctly pointed out by  Amicus Curiae counsel for   appellant, we cannot act upon  the complaint in the absence of examination of the  author of   the  complaint, namely  Pechimuthu,  it is  noticed  from  the evidence of P.W.11 and  P.W. 12 that the name of P.W.1 has been mentioned in Exhibits P-16  and P-17,  the  complaint  and  the  F.I.R.,  as  one of the eye-witnesses.  It is surprising to see that a suggestion has been put to P.W.1 by the accused  that  accused  1 and 2, along with two or three persons, came to  the place of occurrence and attacked the deceased 1 and 2 and not by the accused 1 and 2 alone and  P.W.1 emphatically denied the same.  The evidence of P.W.1,   both in chief and cross,  would clearly establish that accused 1 and 2 alone came and attacked the deceased 1 and 2   and   inflicted   cut injuries on both of them.  As a matter of fact, the defence of the accused in Section  313  Cr.P.C.  questioning was one of total denial.  They further went to the extent of stating that they had no enmity with the deceased party at all.   If that be the situation, there was no reason for P.W. 1 to give a statement against the accused to implicate them in a double murder case.  It is true that P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased and as such  his evidence can be considered to be an interested  evidence.   But in the absence of any enmity, as admitted by the accused, the evidence of an eye witness, who is the relative of the deceased, cannot be said to be unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
     13.  It is settled law that if  the eye-witnesses are interested witnesses,  their evidence cannot be rejected straight away for the mere reason that they  are  relatives and on the other hand their evidence has to be analysed with care and caution.  The same would apply to the child witness also.  In the light of the said principles, we have analysed the evidence of P.W.1, who was aged about  15 years at the time of examination  very cautiously.  In  fact, P.W.1 would admit  that  he had no education.   During cross examination, he has stated that he knew timing  and he could see the clock and tell the time.  He was asked to see  the  Wall Clock put on the wall of Court Hall and tell the timing.  Accordingly, after seeing the Wall Clock, he told the Court the correct time.  When he was asked about the distance between his place and the place where the occurrence took place,  and the place where the head was thrown, he was able to give  clear details by showing the distance between the Court premises and the roadside.  These answers  clearly indicate that P.W.1 is a truthful eye witness and his evidence is trustworthy  and the same can be accepted as credible.  Furthermore, his evidence has been corroborated  by the evidence of  P.W.6, Doctor, who found  some partially digested food articles in the body of the deceased  No.   I.  Apart from that, the  observation mahazar  which has been prepared immediately by P.W.12  at 1.00   O’  clock on  23.1.1995,   would  also  show the topography given by  P.W.1 in his  evidence  and the same  tallies with  the particulars given in the observation mahazar.  This apart, the  “J}f;Fr; rl;o” (Tiffin box)  which  contained  a portion  of  the  food was found  available  at  the  scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
   14. It is true that P.W. 12  would  admit  that P.W.2  told him that he did not go to the spot  during  that  night,  since he was afraid to go there during  night hours and that he went to the spot only in the early morning.   But this admission of P.W.12 would be of no use to the accused, since P.W.2 told the Police that P.W.1 gave information about                                                                                                                                     the occurrence to them during  that night itself.  There may be some variation between the evidence of P.W.2   and the statement given by him to the police with reference to the arrival of P.W.2  at the spot.  But the fact remains that the evidence of P.W.1  that  he went to P.W.2 and informed him about the occurrence during  that night itself, is consistent with the evidence of P.W.  2.  Therefore, this contention has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    15. It  was  contended that the pocket diary and general diary were not produced.  According to P.W.11  Sub-Inspector of police,  the complaint was written by Writer   Chellappa  and that the F.I.R. was also written by him in his own handwriting.  The said Writer Chellappa has not been examined.  A perusal of Exhibits P-16 and 17 would show that these documents reached the Magistrate concerned at  about 3 a.m. on the same night i.e. on 23.1.1995.  Therefore, non-production of the general diary and the pocket diary, is in no way useful to the defence, especially, when we are satisfied that the documents, which have been prepared at 12.30 p.m.  reached the hands of the Magistrate at 3.00 a.m. itself.\n<\/p>\n
   16. for the foregoing reasonings,  there is no merit in this appeal and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
   17. Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. C.R. Malarvannan, Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant\/A-1.  The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs.1,500\/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only)  to the Amicus Curiae- Mr. C. R. Malarvannan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 Author: M Karpagavinayagam Bench: M Karpagavinayagam, A Rajan JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Mani, the Appellant \/Accused 1 and his son Pandi – Accused 2, were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (on two counts) and 201 I.P.C. 2. The facts […]<\/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-168427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - 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\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-02T17:55:15+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-02T17:55:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3111,\"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\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-02T17:55:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - 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\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-02T17:55:15+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-02T17:55:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003"},"wordCount":3111,"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\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003","name":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-02T17:55:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-11-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mani vs State Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/168427","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=168427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168427\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}