{"id":171345,"date":"2010-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-24T15:01:17","modified_gmt":"2015-02-24T09:31:17","slug":"s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1472 of 2008()\n\n\n1. S.MARIAPPAN, C.P.NO.4569,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU.M.P(STATE BRIEF)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA\n\n Dated :16\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         K.HEMA, J.\n\n           ----------------------------------------------\n                 Crl.Appeal No.1472 of 2008\n           ----------------------------------------------\n                 Dated 16th November, 2010.\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           This appeal arises from conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
passed against the appellant under Sections 457 and 397 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- under Section 397 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two<\/p>\n
years. He was also sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment<\/p>\n
and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000\/- under Section 457 and in default<\/p>\n
to undergo simple imprisonment for three years more. The fine, if<\/p>\n
realised, was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1.<\/p>\n
           2.  According to prosecution, accused, 9 in number,<\/p>\n
with the intention to commit robbery, committed house breaking<\/p>\n
by night into the house of PW1 on 12.9.1990 at about 1 O’ clock<\/p>\n
by breaking open the front door of the house by hitting with a<\/p>\n
stone. PW1 was attacked by beating with an iron rod and also by<\/p>\n
stabbing with knife. The accused removed the gold ornaments<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                2<\/span><\/p>\n
from PW2 and robbed various other gold ornaments kept in the<\/p>\n
house in the show case and also inside a table. Two watches and<\/p>\n
a clock were also stolen, and the articles were worth a total<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.66,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
             3. The appellant is charge sheeted as first accused by<\/p>\n
the police. The case against other accused were split up. No co-<\/p>\n
accused was tried along with appellant.           The prosecution<\/p>\n
examined PW1 to PW7, marked Exts.P1 to P7 series and MO1<\/p>\n
series and MO2. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but<\/p>\n
pleaded innocence.\n<\/p>\n
             4. The trial court, on an analysis of the evidence on<\/p>\n
record found that PW1 and PW2 identified accused and from their<\/p>\n
evidence, it is revealed that appellant being a member of the<\/p>\n
dacoits, having committed house breaking into the house of PW1,<\/p>\n
and having committed dacoity, together with co-accused forming<\/p>\n
a group of more than 5, and he having used deadly weapon and<\/p>\n
caused injuries to PW1, he is guilty of offence of dacoity and also<\/p>\n
having committed house breaking by night.\n<\/p>\n
             5. The appellant was undefended. Sri.M.P.Liju was<\/p>\n
appointed as State Brief. Learned defence counsel argued that as<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
per the letter sent from the jail, appellant was in custody from<\/p>\n
1990 onwards and he was implicated falsely and without any<\/p>\n
basis, in this case. It is also argued that as per the remand report,<\/p>\n
it will appear that appellant was in custody of the Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
police and he has not committed the alleged offence.           He is<\/p>\n
implicated on suspicion and without any materials and no<\/p>\n
recovery was effected through appellant.          The appellant was<\/p>\n
produced in court from the jail for the purpose of trial and he was<\/p>\n
identified by PW1 and PW2 in court after 16 years of the incident<\/p>\n
and such identification cannot be acted upon, in the absence of<\/p>\n
their identification at least during the investigation before the<\/p>\n
police or in test identification parade, it cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
             6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 and<\/p>\n
PW2 correctly identified appellant in court and there is no reason<\/p>\n
to reject their evidence.      It is also submitted that appellant’s<\/p>\n
involvement was revealed, when accused 5 and 7 were arrested<\/p>\n
by the Tamil Nadu police and they made a confession to the Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu police.      A1 was implicated in the light of the confession<\/p>\n
statement made by A5 and A7 to the Tamil Nadu police.<\/p>\n
             7. On hearing both sides and on going through the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence in detail, I find that there is nothing on record to show<\/p>\n
under what circumstances, appellant was implicated as first<\/p>\n
accused in this case. Though accused nos.5 and 7 were arrested<\/p>\n
in this case, the Investigating Officer has no case that they made<\/p>\n
any confession to him personally revealing the involvement of<\/p>\n
first accused in the crime. According to him, 5th and 7th accused<\/p>\n
made confession to the Tamil Nadu police and that was what he<\/p>\n
“understood”. It is not clear why and on what basis, PW5, the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer arrayed appellant as first accused, in the<\/p>\n
absence of any material before him, at least as a confession<\/p>\n
statement made by the 5th and 7th accused to him personally. He<\/p>\n
has no case he had taken a copy of the alleged confession made<\/p>\n
to Tamil Nadu police to satisfy himself that appellant was<\/p>\n
implicated.\n<\/p>\n
             8. In this context, it is also relevant to note that PW5<\/p>\n
admitted that first accused was not even arrested. The reason for<\/p>\n
non-arrest for non-arrest is not stated. Thus, appellant was not<\/p>\n
even questioned by         Investigating Officer       to confirm his<\/p>\n
involvement in the offence. No attempt was also made to recover<\/p>\n
any stolen article or other material objects in this case through<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                5<\/span><\/p>\n
first accused. To confirm the involvement of first accused, there<\/p>\n
must be some evidence before the court.         Having allegedly<\/p>\n
robbed money, ornaments and various other articles, it is<\/p>\n
probable that appellant may be in possession of any of the<\/p>\n
material objects or he may be able to give some information<\/p>\n
regarding such articles which were robbed. But evidence is silent<\/p>\n
about any investigation being made to connect appellant with the<\/p>\n
crime.\n<\/p>\n
             9. As per the evidence of PW5 himself, appellant was<\/p>\n
not shown to any of the witness for the purpose of identification.<\/p>\n
So, under what circumstances Investigating Officers confirmed<\/p>\n
that appellant was involved in this case is not known. Though<\/p>\n
PW1 and PW2 would identify appellant in court, such identification<\/p>\n
was made after 16 years of incident, for the first time in court<\/p>\n
only. As per the evidence of PW5, appellant was not caused to be<\/p>\n
identified during investigation.   In this context, learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor submitted that PW1 and PW2 had sufficient time to<\/p>\n
identify the appellant at the scene since he spent a lot of time in<\/p>\n
the house.\n<\/p>\n
             10. But a perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW2 shows<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08               6<\/span><\/p>\n
that they had shown over-anxiety to implicate appellant in this<\/p>\n
case. Though prosecution has no case that the appellant had<\/p>\n
beaten PW1 with an iron rod, PW1 and PW2 deposed in court that<\/p>\n
the appellant beat PW1 with iron rod.          This case is totally<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the prosecution case. PW1 and PW2 developed<\/p>\n
a new case after 16 years of the incident to implicate the<\/p>\n
appellant with the crime.   Neither in the final report submitted by<\/p>\n
the police or in the charge framed by the court, an allegation is<\/p>\n
made that appellant had beaten PW1 with iron rod.<\/p>\n
              11. Since PW1 and PW2 put forward a new case while<\/p>\n
examined in court after 16 years of the incident, it is essential<\/p>\n
that their evidence is assessed and evaluated with greater care<\/p>\n
and caution. PW1 and PW2 themselves have no case that they<\/p>\n
identified appellant before the police. The Investigating Officers<\/p>\n
also have no case that appellant was caused to be identified by<\/p>\n
PW1 and PW2. In fact, PW5 stated that appellant was not even<\/p>\n
arrested. As per the evidence, no recovery was also effected from<\/p>\n
appellant to connect him with the crime. PW2 deposed in court<\/p>\n
that it was appellant who attacked PW1 to the maximum when<\/p>\n
compared to other accused.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
             12. But, according to the prosecution, it was second<\/p>\n
accused, who had beaten with the iron rod and the other person<\/p>\n
who had inflicted injury on PW1 is the 4th accused and not the<\/p>\n
appellant who is first accused. There is no case for prosecution<\/p>\n
that appellant attacked PW1 by using any weapon. Even in the<\/p>\n
charge, framed by court, there is no such allegation. The trial<\/p>\n
court failed to note all these facts but the appellant was convicted<\/p>\n
only on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 from which the<\/p>\n
trial court drew conclusion that appellant was present at the<\/p>\n
scene etc.     I do not find it safe to act upon the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
and PW2 and hence appellant cannot be convicted based on the<\/p>\n
sole testimony of PW1 and PW2 for the alleged offences. It would<\/p>\n
appear that only because the appellant was present in court, PW1<\/p>\n
and PW2 have identified him and shown over anxiety to implicate<\/p>\n
him with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
             13. According to PW1 and PW2, there was a scar on<\/p>\n
the appellant’s leg and it was the identification mark which helped<\/p>\n
them to identify appellant in court. But, neither PW1 nor PW2<\/p>\n
have such case before the police.         Taking all these facts into<\/p>\n
consideration, I find that the conviction and sentence passed<\/p>\n
Crl.A. NO. 1472\/08                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
against the appellant on the sole basis of the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
and PW2 cannot be sustained. Prosecution has failed to prove its<\/p>\n
case against appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             14. In the result, the following order is passed :<\/p>\n
       (i)   The conviction and sentence passed against the<\/p>\n
              appellant are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
       (ii)  The appellant is found not guilty of offences under<\/p>\n
              Section 457 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and he<\/p>\n
              is acquitted of the said offences.\n<\/p>\n
       (iii) The appellant is set at liberty forthwith and he shall be<\/p>\n
              released, if his detention is not required in connection<\/p>\n
              with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
       (iv) The release order shall be issued forthwith.<\/p>\n
                        This appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               K.HEMA, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
tgs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1472 of 2008() 1. S.MARIAPPAN, C.P.NO.4569, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU.M.P(STATE BRIEF) For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA Dated :16\/11\/2010 O R D E R K.HEMA, […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 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\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-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=\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-24T09:31:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T09:31:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T09:31:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 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":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 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\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-24T09:31:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T09:31:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010"},"wordCount":1532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010","name":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T09:31:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-mariappan-vs-the-officer-in-charge-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Mariappan vs The Officer-In-Charge on 16 November, 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\/171345","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=171345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}