{"id":171033,"date":"2004-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004"},"modified":"2019-02-20T00:13:08","modified_gmt":"2019-02-19T18:43:08","slug":"ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 21\/12\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  N.DHINAKAR           \nand \nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  N.KANNADASAN             \n\nCriminal Appeal No. 1634 of 2002\n\n\n1.Ravi\n2.Jeeva\n3.Mohan \n4.Jagadeesan \n5.Kanthammal                            ... Appellants.\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nState rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nSholingur, Vellore District.            ... Respondent\n\n\n\n        Prayer:  Appeal against the judgment passed by the  learned  Principal\nSessions Judge, Vellore, in S.C.No.  43 of 2002 dated :  25.10.2002.\n\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.V.Karthic for\n                M\/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.A.Kandaswamy   \n                Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.  DHINAKAR, J) <\/p>\n
        The  appellants,  five  in  number,  have  preferred  the above appeal
\nagainst the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Principal
\nSessions Judge, Vellore, in S.C.No.43 of 2002.  The appellants  1  to  3  were
\ncharged  and  convicted  under Section 148 IPC., while appellants 4 and 5 were
\ncharged and convicted under Section 147 IPC.  On being convicted under Section
\n148 IPC., appellants 1 to  3  were  each  sentenced  to  six  months  rigorous
\nimprisonment  and  appellants  4  and  5  were each sentenced to pay a fine of
\nRs.1,000\/- with a default sentence of six months rigorous  imprisonment.    On
\nbeing  charged  and  convicted under Section 341 IPC., appellants 1 and 2 each
\nwere sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment, while  appellants  3  to  5
\nwere  directed  to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- with a default sentence of one month
\nrigorous imprisonment.  The appellants 1 to 3 were also charged under  Section
\n302 IPC.    The  learned  trial  Judge,  while acquitting the third appellant,
\nconvicted appellants 1 and 2 for the said offence and sentenced  each  one  of
\nthem to  imprisonment for life.  Appellant No.4, who was charged and convicted
\nunder Section 302 read with 149 IPC., was also acquitted, but he was convicted
\nunder Section 323 IPC.  for causing simple injury to the deceased Krishnan and
\non being convicted, appellant No.4 was sentenced to pay  a  fine  of  Rs.750\/-
\nwith a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.  The appellants
\nchallenge their conviction and sentence in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The case of the prosecution is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        The first  appellant  is  the younger brother of P.W.3’s husband.  The
\nsecond appellant is the son of the fourth appellant.  The third  appellant  is
\nthe elder brother of the fifth appellant.  Appellants 4 and 5 are co-brothers.
\nThe  deceased, P.W.1, husband of the fifth appellant are brothers and P.W.3 is
\ntheir sister.  P.W.1 is the uncle  of  P.W.2.    They  were  all  residing  at
\nVeeramuthur village.  A week prior to the date of incident, P.W.2 purchased an
\nacre  of land from one Dayalan and to irrigate the said land, P.W.3 went there
\nand she was accompanied by  Loganathan,  her  husband,  and  her  son,  P.W.2.
\nRadha,  daughter  of  P.W.3, informed P.W.1 that her mother, P.W.3, was beaten
\nand cut by appellants 1, 2 and Munusamy.  She informed  that  P.W.3  had  been
\ntaken to  Government  Hospital,  Sholinger.  The deceased went to the hospital
\nand on being informed that P.W.3 had been taken to  the  Government  Hospital,
\nVellore, he  went  there.  Thereafter, the witnesses returned to their houses.
\nIn respect of the incident, Loganathan, the husband of P.W.3, gave a complaint
\nat the police station.  The police filed a case against Munusamy,  Narasimhan,
\nSekar and others.  They were sent to Jail.  The second appellant and the first
\nappellant absconded.    The  first  appellant  gave  a  complaint  against the
\ndeceased and the said complaint is Ex.P-15.  On account of this, there was  no
\nlovelost between  the  families  of  the  appellant  and  the  deceased.  Both
\ncriminal cases were pending on the relevant date.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  On the mid night of 12\/13.5.2001, P.W.1 was irrigating  the  lands
\nand appellants  1 to 5 went there.  The first appellant questioned P.W.1 as to
\nthe whereabouts of the deceased Krishnan.  P.W.1 informed him that he has gone
\nout for his work.  The first appellant threatened him, that  unless  he  tells
\nhim the  truth,  he  will be cut.  P.W.1 informed the first appellant that the
\ndeceased will return in a shortwhile.  Appellants 1 to 5 went  towards  north.
\nThereafter,  P.W.1  left the place immediately leaving the spade there itself,
\nbrought P.Ws.2 and 3, and followed the first appellant.   At  that  time,  the
\ndeceased was  seen  coming  in  the  opposite direction in a motor cycle.  The
\nfirst appellant, with a knife, which he had in his hand, cut him on  the  head
\nas well as  on  the  forehead.  He also cut the deceased on the shoulder.  The
\ndeceased  stopped  his  motor-cycle  and  the  second  appellant  stabbed  him
\nrepeatedly on  the  neck.  The deceased attempted to run from the place chased
\nby the third appellant, who stopped him from back.  The  first  appellant  cut
\nhim on  both his hands followed by the second appellant, who stabbed him.  The
\ndeceased requested the appellants not to cut him,  but  the  fourth  appellant
\nbeat  him with a stick on his left hand and the fifth appellant instigated the
\nfourth appellant not to leave him.  On seeing  P.W.1,  the  appellants  rushed
\ntowards  him  and therefore, P.W.1 went and hide himself in a sugarcane field.
\nThere was sufficient light and the occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1  as  well
\nas by  P.Ws.2  and  3.   All the three were hiding themselves in the sugarcane
\nfield and at 6.00 a.m.  went to the police station at Kondapalayam,  where  an
\noral  complaint was given to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 6.30 a.m.
\nThe same was reduced into writing.  The said statement  is  Ex.P-1.    On  the
\ncomplaint,  Ex.P-1,  a case in Crime No.118 of 2001 was registered against the
\nappellants under Section 3 02 IPC.  and the printed first  information  report
\nis Ex.P-14.    The  investigation  in  the  crime was, thereafter, taken up by
\nP.W.13, Circle Inspector of Police, Sholinghur.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  P.W.13, on getting information over phone about  the  registration
\nof  a grave crime, reached the police station at 7.00 a.m., where he was given
\na copy of the printed first information report.  He proceeded to the scene  of
\noccurrence  and  at  7.30  a.m.,  prepared  an observation mahazar and a rough
\nsketch under Exs.P-4 and P-17 respectively.   P.W.9,  the  photographer,  took
\nphotographs.  The  inquest  was  conducted  between  8.30 a.m.  and 10.30 a.m.
\nover the dead body of the deceased in the presence of  Panchayatdars  and  the
\ninquest report  is  Ex.P-18.    The  officer  seized M.Os.5 to 8 including the
\nblood-stained earth and the sample earth from the scene  of  occurrence.    He
\nalso seized  a  TVS  motor  cycle.  He questioned witnesses and recorded their
\nstatements.  After the inquest, the body was handed over to a Police Constable
\nwith a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  On receipt of the requisition, P.W.4, Assistant Surgeon,  attached
\nto  Government Hospital, Sholinghur, conducted autopsy on the body of Krishnan
\nand found the following external injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.An incised wound on the right side of forehead sized 5cm x 3cm x = cm.\n<\/p>\n
2.An incised wound on the right ear 4 x = through and through.\n<\/p>\n
3.A penetrating wound on the right cheek sized 2 x 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
4.A penetrating wound on the left side of upper aspect of  neck  4x2x1  cm  in
\nsize.\n<\/p>\n
5.A penetrating wound on the lower part of left side of neck 2x1x3cm.\n<\/p>\n
6.An incised wound, in front of left shoulder sized 4x1x = cm.\n<\/p>\n
7.An incised wound on the tip of right shoulder sized 2 cm x 1 = cm x = cm.\n<\/p>\n
8.A  lacerated wound on the upper part of right side of back sized 4 cm x 2 cm
\nx = cm.\n<\/p>\n
9.Deformity of left forearm with irregular lacerated wound sized 6 cm x 3 cm x
\n2 cm.  Fracture (B) bones of left forearm.  Fractured bones protruding through
\nthe wounds.\n<\/p>\n
10.A penetrating wound above the umbilicus sized 4 cm x 2 cm x parieta deep.\n<\/p>\n
11.A penetrating wound on the left side of upper aspect of back sized 3×1 = cm
\nx 2 = cm.\n<\/p>\n
12.A penetrating wound on the outer part of upper aspect of left side of  back
\nsized 3×1 = x viscera deep.\n<\/p>\n
13.A  lacerated  wound on the occipital area of scalp sized 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm
\nto 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the lower part of back.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P-3, the post-mortem certificate, with his  opinion  that
\nthe deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries
\nincluding  fracture  of  bones  and injuries to vital organs, viz., spleen and
\nkidney, and death would have occurred about 9 to 11 hours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  P.W.13,  continuing  with  his  investigation,  searched  for  the
\nappellants, but they were found absconding.  He forwarded the material objects
\nto Court  for  sending them for chemical analysis.  On 29.5.2001, on coming to
\nknow that the appellants have surrendered, he filed a petition and  took  them
\ninto police  custody.    On  30.5.2001,  they  were  questioned  at the police
\nstation.  The first appellant gave a statement and the admissible  portion  is
\nEx.P-19  and the admissible portion of the statement given by second appellant
\nis Ex.P-20.  In pursuance of the said  statements,  the  appellants  took  the
\npolice party and from behind the T.V.S.  Quarters, produced M.Os.2 to 4, which
\nwere seized under the mahazar Exs.P-21 and P-22.  On 2.6.2001, the doctor, who
\nconducted  autopsy,  was  questioned  and  the  statement  of  the  doctor was
\nrecorded.  The weapons seized were also sent to Court  for  sending  them  for
\nanalysis.  The final report was filed against all the appellants on 6.7.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  appellants  were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
\non the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.   They  denied  all
\nthe incriminating  circumstances.    They did not examine any witness on their
\nside.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The cause of death of Krishnan is not  in  dispute  and  the  same
\nstands  established  through  the evidence of the doctor, P.W.4, who conducted
\nautopsy on the body of Krishnan.   It  was  he,  who  issued  the  post-mortem
\ncertificate,  Ex.P-3,  with his opinion that the death was on account of shock
\nand haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital  organs,  viz.,  spleen  and
\nkidney  and  he  has  stated in his evidence that the injuries would have been
\ncaused by sharp edged weapons.  On the medical  evidence,  we  hold  that  the
\ndeceased  Krishnan  died  on  account  of  homicidal  violence, which fact was
\nneither disputed before the trial Court nor before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The prosecution before the trial Court examined three witnesses as
\neye witnesses.  They were examined as  P.Ws.1  to  3.    The  learned  counsel
\nappearing for the appellants submits that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have witnessed
\nthe  incident  and  the  complaint alleged to have been given by P.W.1 at 6.30
\na.m.  could not be the real first information statement and  there  must  have
\nbeen some  information  to the police authorities much prior to 6.30 a.m.  and
\nthe said information has been suppressed by  the  prosecution.    The  learned
\ncounsel  submits  that  the  present first information statement, Ex.P-1, must
\nhave been prepared after due deliberation by  implicating  the  appellants  on
\naccount  of  the existing civil and criminal disputes that were pending during
\nthe relevant date.  In support of his plea,  he  drew  our  attention  to  the
\nevidence of the witnesses and in particular, to the evidence of P.W.12.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   We  will now find out whether P.Ws.1 to 3 could have been present
\nat the scene of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence.  The case of P.W.1 is
\nthat while he was irrigating the fields, appellants 1  to  5  went  there  and
\nafter  questioning  the whereabouts of the deceased, went in search of him and
\nthat when the deceased was seen coming in the opposite direction in  a  T.V.S.
\nMotor  Cycle,  he  was  surrounded  and  cut by appellants 1 to 3 and that the
\nfourth appellant beat him on his head with a stick on the instigation  of  the
\nfifth appellant.    According  to  him,  apart  from  him,  P.Ws.2  and 3 also
\nwitnessed the incident and that after the occurrence all the three were hiding
\nthemselves in a sugarcane field for more  than  three  hours  and  thereafter,
\nP.Ws.1 and  2  went  to  the  police station to give a complaint.  The learned
\ncounsel submits that this evidence of P.W.1 that he  and  P.W.2  went  to  the
\npolice station  and gave a complaint at 6.30 a.m.  is destroyed by P.W.12, the
\nSub Inspector of Police, when she gave evidence in Court.  The counsel submits
\nthat P.W.12 has stated that the complaint was registered by her at 1.00  a.m.,
\nthat is, on the mid night of 12\/13.5.200 1.  We perused the evidence of P.W.12
\nand even  in  the chiefexamination, she has stated that at about 1.00 a.m.  on
\nthe mid night of 1 2\/13.5.2001, P.W.1 appeared at the police station and  gave
\na  complaint,  which  was  reduced  into  writing  and a crime was registered.
\nP.W.12 , the  Sub  Inspector  of  Police,  who  had  given  such  evidence  in
\nchiefexamination that  the complaint was given at 1.00 a.m.  by P.W.1, was not
\ntreated hostile.   The  Additional  Public  Prosecutor,  trying  to  save  the
\nsituation,  wanted  to  infer  this  court  that  there  should  have  been  a
\ntypographical error, when the evidence of P.W.12 was typed.   This  answer  by
\nthe  Additional Public Prosecutor has no legs to stand in view of the definite
\nstatement made by P.W.12  in  the  chief-examination  that  at  mid  night  on
\n12\/13.5.2001, P.W.1  appeared  and  gave  a complaint.  If there was a mistake
\nwhile typing and it was wrongly typed as 1.00 a.m., instead of 6.30  a.m.,  by
\nthe  typist while recording the evidence of P.W.12, then the words “mid night”
\ncould not  have  been  mentioned  by  P.W.12.    The  fact  that  P.W.12   has
\nspecifically  stated  that  at  mid night P.W.1 appeared and gave a complaint,
\ntherefore, shows that the complaint could not have been given at 6.30 a.m.  by
\nP.W.1 as claimed by him in Court and that there must have been an  information
\nat the police  station  even  at  1.00 a.m.  regarding the incident.  The said
\nstatement given to the police officer at 1.00 a.m.  is not  before  the  Court
\nand  therefore,  this  Court  cannot  but  take  the  view  that  it  has been
\nsuppressed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In the above background, it becomes relevant for  this  Court  to
\nconsider the  evidence  of  P.W.1.   In the cross-examination, he has admitted
\nthat the police officers were at the scene of occurrence  even  at  6.00  a.m.
\nand at  that  time, P.Ws.1 and 3 were at the police station.  If the complaint
\nwas lodged at 6.30 a.m.  as claimed by P.W.1, then the police  officers  could
\nnot have  been present at the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m.  and P.Ws.2 and
\n3 could not have been at the police station at that  time.    This  answer  of
\nP.W.1, therefore, shows that P.Ws.2 and 3 have reached the police station much
\nearlier to  6.00 a.m.  and the police officers were at the scene of occurrence
\nat 6.00 a.m.  and examined P.W.1 at that time.  This evidence of P.W.1 is also
\nsupported by P.W.2, who in his evidence, has stated that he  was  examined  by
\nthe police  officers  at  6.30 a.m.  If the complaint was really registered at
\n6.30 a.m.  on 13.5.2001, then P.W.2  could  not  have  been  examined  by  the
\ninvestigating  officer at 6.30 a.m., as the complaint itself, according to the
\nprosecution, came into existence only at that time.  The fact that there  must
\nhave  been  a first information statement even at mid night is strengthened by
\nthe admission made by  P.W.2  in  the  cross-examination.    While  P.W.2  was
\ncross-examined,  he  was asked, whether he had informed the police that he saw
\nthe dead body at 6.00 a.m., to which, he answered that he saw the dead body at
\n5.00 a.m.  He went on to add that he did not inform the  police  that  he  and
\nRadha,  the  daughter  of  P.W.3,  reached  the sce ne of occurrence and found
\nKrishnan lying dead.  When the investigating officer was in the  box,  it  was
\nelicited  as  a contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act that P.W.2
\ninformed the police officer, when his statement was recorded under Section 161
\nof the Cr.P.C., that he along with P.W.3 reached the place, where the deceased
\nwas lying dead, at 6.00 a.m.  and saw the dead body.    This  shows  that  the
\nearlier  version  of P.W.2 during the course of investigation is that the dead
\nbody of Krishnan was seen by him at 6.00 a.m.  and if that be  the  case,  the
\npresent version that he along with P.Ws.1 and 3 were present and witnessed the
\noccurrence  and  thereafter they were hiding themselves in the sugarcane field
\ncannot be true.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the above background, we find it difficult to accept Ex.P-1 as
\nthe  first  information  statement  to  the  police  and  that  there  was  an
\ninformation to  the  police  even at 1.00 a.m.  regarding the incident, though
\nP.Ws.1 to 3 have stated that after the incident, they were  hiding  themselves
\nin the  sugarcane  field.  The said fact is not found mentioned in Ex.P-1, the
\ncomplaint, alleged to have been given by P.W.1 at 6.30 a.m.  The investigating
\nofficer did not also notice any sugarcane field since he did not  mention  the
\nsugarcane field in the observation mahazar.  When the witnesses had a definite
\ncase  that they were hiding themselves in a sugarcane field, it is the duty of
\nthe investigating officer to have verified during his investigation as to  how
\nfar a  sugarcane  field was situate from the scene of occurrence.  When P.W.6,
\nthe Village Administrative Officer, was in the box, he was  cross-examined  as
\nregards  the  topography of the scene of occurrence and he was also questioned
\nabout the sugarcane field.  He has stated that a sugarcane filed  was  in  the
\nvillage  during  the  relevant  period  only at Karikkal Colony and the place,
\nwhere the deceased was lying dead, is only a foot-path  surrounded  by  thorns
\nand bushes.    This  piece  of  evidence  of  P.W.6, therefore, shows that the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they were hiding in a sugarcane field  cannot  be
\ntrue  and  that  there must have been another first information statement with
\nthe police and the same has been suppressed and the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, who
\nare related to the  deceased  have  been  projected  as  eye  witnesses  after
\npreparing the present first information statement, Ex.P-1.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   In  any  event,  in  view  of the above suspicious features, the
\nappellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and the same is given to them.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the result, the appeal  is  allowed  and  the  conviction  and
\nsentence imposed  upon  the  appellants  are  set  aside.  It is reported that
\nappellants 1 and 2 are in jail.  They are directed to be  released  forthwith,
\nunless they  are  detained in connection with any other cases.  The bail bonds
\nof appellants 3 to 5, if any, shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
bs\/<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
4.The District Collector, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Director General of Police, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/12\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN Criminal Appeal No. 1634 of 2002 1.Ravi 2.Jeeva 3.Mohan 4.Jagadeesan 5.Kanthammal … Appellants. -Vs- State rep. by Inspector of Police, Sholingur, […]<\/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-171033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-19T18:43:08+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=\"16 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-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-19T18:43:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3091,\"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-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-19T18:43:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-19T18:43:08+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-19T18:43:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004"},"wordCount":3091,"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-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004","name":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-19T18:43:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi vs State Rep. By on 21 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171033","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=171033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}