{"id":171737,"date":"2007-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-22T20:09:26","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T14:39:26","slug":"vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA\n\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.755 of 2004\n\n\nVandu alias Madasamy\t\t..  Appellant\n\nVs\n\nState by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nSrivilliputtur Taluk Police Station,\nSrivilliputtur,\nVirudhunagar District.\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\tAppeal filed against the Judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge,\nVirudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in S.C.No.2 of 2002 by judgment dated\n23.9.2002.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t....\tMr. V.Kathirvelu\n\t\t\tAmicus Curiae\n\n^For Respondent\t....\tMr.P.N.Pandidurai\n\t\t\tAddl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe sole accused\/appellant in the case of murder on being found guilty as
\nper the charge on trial and awarded life imprisonment in S.C.No.2\/2002 on the
\nfile of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District, has
\nchallenged the judgment before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)The accused is the husband of Somu since  deceased in the incident.
\nP.W.1 is the sister of the deceased.  P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased and
\nthe accused.  Out of wedlock, the accused and the deceased had two children.
\nFrom the time of marriage, he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife.  From the
\nplace where they were living, she often used to go P.W.1’s house at Mathur.
\nThereafter, the brother of the deceased by name Sundarraj shifted the house from
\nMathur to Kothankulam.  The deceased along with her children came to her
\nbrother’s house four months prior to the occurrence.  The accused, two months
\nprior to the occurrence, came to Kothankulam and called her back.  But, she
\nrefused.  Then, the accused agreed to live with his family at Kothankulam.
\nAccordingly, he came and they took a rented premises of one Gopal and they were
\nliving with their children.  The deceased was employed in Alagammal Villow
\nFactory while the accused was doing some pipeline work at Srivilliputtur.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)On 17.2.2001 during evening hours, the accused came in a drunken mood
\nand quarreled with his wife.  The next day, i.e., on 18.2.2001, at about 8
\nO’clock, the accused took his wife to Pillaiyarkulam Kanmai Bund for collecting
\nfirewood.  At that time, he took an aruval also.  At about 1.00 p.m. he returned
\nhome and informed the children that they could be in the house along with their
\nsenior maternal aunt, P.W.1 and he would be coming back with his wife.  At the
\nplace of occurrence, he called his wife, the deceased, to share the bed.  When
\nshe refused, he cut her with aruval, M.O.1 and caused her death and fled away
\nfrom the place of occurrence.  P.W.1, since her sister, the deceased did not
\nturn up, was in search of her and found her dead at the place of occurrence.
\nP.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.12 the Sub Inspector of the respondent Police, on
\nthe strength of which a case came to be registered under section 302 of Indian
\nPenal Code.  The Express F.I.R-Ex.P.10, was despatched to the Court.  P.W.14,
\nwhen he was the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station, on the
\nreceipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, proceeded to the spot,
\nmade inspection in the presence of witnesses, prepared Ex.P.3-Observation
\nMahazar and also the sketch-Ex.P.12.  He conducted inquest on the dead body in
\nthe presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13-the Inquest
\nReport.  He also recovered the material objects from place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. Following the inquest made, a requisition was forwarded to the
\nGovernment Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.  P.W.10, the doctor attached to
\nthe Government Hospital conducted the autopsy on the dead body and gave the
\npostmortem certificate, Ex.P.9, where he has opined that the deceased would
\nappear to have died 24 to 28 hours prior to autopsy due to shock and
\nhaemorrhage.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)The accused appeared before P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer
\nof Pillaiyarkulam who was in his office on 20.2.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. and gave
\na confessional statement narrating the entire incident,  which was marked as
\nEx.P.5.  Along with the confessional statement, the Village Administrative
\nOfficer produced the accused before the respondent Police Station.  The
\nInspector also enquired him.  When he came forward to give the confessional
\nstatement, the same was also recorded by the investigating officer, the
\nadmissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.7.  The aruval M.O.7 was also
\nproduced along with M.Os.8 and 9, the blood stained shirt and dhothi.  They were
\nall recovered under the cover of Mahazar.  The accused was sent for judicial
\nremand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)  All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead body and also the material objects recovered from the accused including
\nthe aruval were all subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department
\nwhich resulted in two certificates, Exs.P.16 and 17, the Chemical Analysis
\nReport and the Serologist Report.  On completion of investigation, the
\ninvestigating officer filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.  Necessary charges were
\nframed. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the
\nprosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied upon 17 exhibits and 14 material
\nobjects.  On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the
\naccused\/appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied them as
\nfalse.  No defence witnesses were examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Both sides were given opportunity to advance their arguments.  Arguments
\nwere heard, materials were scrutinised and the Trial Court took a view that the
\nprosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused
\nguilty under Section 302  IPC and awarded life imprisonment.  Hence, this appeal
\nis preferred at the instance of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Advancing his arguments Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned counsel appointed as
\namicus curiae by this Court to appear on behalf of the appellant\/accused, inter-
\nalia, submitted the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)The prosecution had no direct evidence and it rested its entire case on
\ntwo circumstances, viz., the last seen theory as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3 that
\nthey saw the accused in the company of the deceased at about 8.00 a.m.  on the
\nday of occurrence and secondly, the extra judicial confession alleged to have
\nbeen made by the accused to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8 at about
\n1.00 p.m. on 20.2.2001.  Attacking these pieces of evidence, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that in the instant case, P.Ws.1 and 3 could not be believed for
\nthe simple reason that P.W.1 is the own sister of the deceased and P.W.3 was the
\ndaughter of the deceased.  So far as these two witnesses are concerned, what
\nthey have stated was that the accused left the house along with his wife at
\nabout 8.00 a.m. and the occurrence has taken place during evening hours and
\nthere was sufficient interval and apart from this, even as per the prosecution
\ncase, the accused came to the house during noon hours.  In the circumstance,
\nwhat happened in the intervening period, was not known to the accused and hence,
\nthe last seen theory would be of no avail to the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)The learned counsel further added that the extra judicial confession
\nwas also not believable for the reason that there is nothing to point out that
\nthe accused has previously acquainted to P.W.8-the Village Administrative
\nOfficer and thus, there is no occasion for him to meet the Village
\nAdministrative Officer and give such a confessional statement.  Thus, the
\nconfessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused to the Village
\nAdministrative Officer, P.W.8 was nothing but an introduction by the prosecution
\nto suit its convenience and hence, both these materials were not available for
\nthe prosecution.  But, the lower Court has erroneously believed the same and
\nrecorded an order of conviction.  Hence, the evidence has got to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel would submit that
\nin the instant case, there was provocation which led the accused to act so, even
\nif it could be taken that the prosecution has proved the case that it was the
\naccused who attacked his wife and caused her death.  Even as per the narration
\nof the prosecution case, the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife in the
\npast and also on previous day, there was a quarrel between them.  On the day of
\noccurrence, both of them left for cutting firewood and when both of them were in
\nthe Kanmai Bund, after making preparation, the accused called her for sharing
\nthe bed.  But, she refused.  In the circumstance, it passed in the mind of the
\naccused that she used to have sharing offer with the third parties and not with
\nhim and once he got such an opinion in his mind, he got provoked naturally and
\ntook the aruval and cut the deceased on her neck. Thus, there was a provocation
\ndue to the conduct of the wife and also sustained provocation due to suspicion
\nentertained by him.  Under such circumstance, it has got to be considered by
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions
\nand this Court paid its anxious consideration over the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is not in controversy that the wife of the accused was done to death
\nin an incident that took place at the time and place of occurrence as put forth
\nby the prosecution.  In order to prove the said fact the prosecution has
\nexamined P.W.10, Postmortem doctor, through whom Ex.P.9, postmortem certificate
\nwas marked wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of
\nshock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. She died of homicidal
\nviolence as put forth by the prosecution, was never questioned by the accused at
\nany stage of proceedings.  Hence, it has got to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In order to prove that it was the accused who caused the death of his
\nwife, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.  But, in the instant
\ncase, in the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has placed
\ncircumstances which are sufficient and also pointing to the hypothesis that
\nexcept the accused no one else could have committed the offence.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Admittedly, the accused was living with his wife and also with his
\nchildren in a premises which belongs to one Gopal.  On the day of occurrence,
\nleaving the children and P.W.1, the accused took his wife for collecting
\nfirewood.  This fact is also not denied by the accused.  When they went
\ntogether, it was the accused who came to the house at noon hours.  At that time,
\nhis wife\/deceased did not come with him and thereafter, the accused left the
\nhouse stating that his wife is collecting firewood and that he would come with
\nher back.  But, he did not come with his wife.  On the contrary, he absconded.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the deceased was found
\nin the company of the accused at about 8.00 a.m. and both went for collecting
\nfirewood.  These facts are spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3.  But, the accused had no
\nexplanation to offer as to what happened to his wife.  In the opinion of the
\nCourt, this is a strong circumstance against the accused.  It is needless to say
\nin a given case where the prosecution rested the case on circumstantial
\nevidence, if a particular fact or circumstance is within the special knowledge
\nof the accused, he must come forward with a clear answer or explanation to that
\nand in the absence of the same, that circumstance itself will be acting against
\nthe accused.  In the instant case, the accused had no answer or explanation to
\nstate what happened to his wife.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Secondly,  the prosecution had to its benefit an extra judicial
\nconfession made by the accused to P.W.8 the Village Administrative Officer.  In
\na given case, before accepting the extra judicial confession, the Court has to
\napply three tests, viz.,
\n“1.To whom the said extra judicial confession is made?;\n<\/p>\n
2.Whether the person to whom the extra judicial confession is made, his evidence
\ninspires the confidence of the Court?;\n<\/p>\n
 and\n<\/p>\n
3.Whether the extra judicial confession is consistent to the prosecution case?”
\nIf these tests are applied to the present case, the Court is thoroughly
\nsatisfied that the prosecution case has passed all the above three tests.
\nP.W.8, is the Village Administrative Officer of the same place.  The accused
\nappeared before him and made the confessional statement.  It is recorded by the
\nVillage Administrative Officer, P.W.8 and also the accused was immediately taken
\nto the Police Station along with the extra judicial confession. It is true that
\nVillage Administrative Officer and the accused were not previously acquainted to
\neach other.  That by itself cannot be a reason to reject the extra judicial
\nconfession and in the instant case, the evidence of P.W.8 is marshalled by the
\nlower Court and it inspired  the confidence of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Apart from this, the entire narration in the extra judicial confession
\nis consistent to the prosecution case.  In such circumstance, the lower Court
\nwas perfectly correct in relying its decision on the piece of evidence also and
\nthus, the last seen theory spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3 and also the extra judicial
\nconfession given by the accused, both put together, in the opinion of the Court,
\nwould be the sufficient circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Coming to the question of the nature of the act of the accused, the
\nCourt has to necessarily disagree with the contention put forth by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the accused\/appellant. What was all contended by the
\naccused before the Court below as narrated by him in the extra judicial
\nconfession and also before this Court, is that he found his wife talking with
\nfew male at two or three places and thus, he entertained suspicion in her
\nfidelity.  It is highly doubtful when a man see his wife talking with male
\nmembers in a society, whether it would lead to pass in the mind or make an
\nimpression or form an opinion that the character of his wife has got to be
\ndoubted or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Further, in the instant case, he has given in the entire narration that
\nhe has not spoken anything at any point of time and she has acted in such a way
\nthat her fidelity would be questioned.  The learned counsel further added that
\nthere was a sudden provocation as could be seen from the entire confessional
\nstatement, that preceding the occurrence the accused called her to share the
\nbed.  But, she was not amenable to his request. The reason being that it was an
\nopen kanmai bund and it is naturally the modesty of a woman to make her to
\nrefuse.  But, he called her, to which course of action she refused.  At any
\nstretch of imagination the refusal of a wife to share the bed of a man and that
\ntoo in a public place cannot cause provocation.  Thus, it would be quite clear
\nthat a provocation was one that itself was made and he was not provoked by his
\nwife.  Neither the sustained provocation nor sudden provocation was available in
\nthe case for the accused to act so.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.So, under such circumstance, the Court is of the opinion that when the
\naccused cut the deceased on her neck on the neck with aruval, he should have
\ncertainly known that the injuries cause would in the ordinary course of action
\nwould cause death.  Therefore, it would attract the penal provision of murder.
\nThe lower Court has correctly convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and
\nsentenced him to life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The judgment of the lower Court in convicting and sentencing the
\naccused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC does not require any
\ninterference and the same is affirmed.  Hence, the appeal must fail and fails.
\nAccordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ap<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station,
\n  Srivilliputtur,
\n  Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High  Court, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/03\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA Criminal Appeal (MD) No.755 of 2004 Vandu alias Madasamy .. Appellant Vs State by The Inspector of Police, […]<\/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-171737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - 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\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2638,\"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\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - 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\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007"},"wordCount":2638,"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\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007","name":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T14:39:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandu-alias-madasamy-vs-state-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vandu Alias Madasamy vs State By on 1 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/171737","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=171737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171737\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}