{"id":174057,"date":"2008-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-28T14:05:58","modified_gmt":"2018-04-28T08:35:58","slug":"t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.521 of 2007\n\n\nT.Krishnasamy                \t\t..    Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n\nThe State\nby the Inspector of Police,\nPalani Adivaram Police Station,\nDindigul District.            \t\t..   Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 24.08.2007 made in S.C.No.177 of 2005 by the\nlearned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.\n\t\n!For appellant \t\t... Mr.D.Venkatesh\n\n^For respondent\t\t... Mr. P.N.Pandithurai\n                            Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made<br \/>\n by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division,<br \/>\nDindigul dated 24.08.2007 made in S.C.No.177 of 2005 whereby the appellant\/sole<br \/>\naccused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 364 and 302 IPC and<br \/>\nawarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the first charge and imprisonment for<br \/>\nlife for the second charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can<br \/>\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) PW.1 is the resident of Kudumbapatti within the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nrespondent police station.  The accused\/appellant was living in the opposite<br \/>\nhouse to that of PW.1.  There was a land dispute over families on a passage<br \/>\nsituated in between the properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) On 13.1.2005, at about 8.00 a.m., 7 years old son of PW.1, named Siva<br \/>\nwas playing in front of PW.1&#8217;s house.  He did not return for a long time.  Then<br \/>\nPW.1, PW.2 and all the family members were made a search for him.  It was also<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of the public by making publicity in the news papers and<br \/>\neven then, the child could not be traced out.  Then PW.1 went to the respondent<br \/>\npolice station and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police<br \/>\nPW.18.  On the strength of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.78\/2005 for<br \/>\n&#8220;boy missing&#8221;.  Printed F.I.R. Ex.P.14 along with complaint Ex.P.1 was sent to<br \/>\nthe Court and to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)\t On receipt of copy of the F.I.R., PW.19, the Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nproceeded to the house of PW.1, made an inspection in front of the house of PW.1<br \/>\nin the presence of witnesses and prepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.6 and also<br \/>\na rough sketch Ex.P.15.  He recorded the statements from PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) While the matter was pending investigation, on 16.1.2005, when PW.9<br \/>\nwas in his house, the accused\/appellant appeared before him and he made a<br \/>\nconfession to the effect that it was he who murdered the child.  PW.9, in turn,<br \/>\ntook him to PW.10 V.A.O.  PW.10 took the accused to the respondent police<br \/>\nstation at about 10.45 a.m. on 16.1.2005 when the Inspector of Police was in the<br \/>\nStation.  He gave a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses to<br \/>\nPW.19. The admissible part of that confessional statement was marked as Ex.P.17.<br \/>\nHe then converted the case of boy missing for offences under sections 364 and<br \/>\n302 IPC. Amended F.I.R. Ex.P.16 was despatched to the Court and to the higher<br \/>\nofficials.  Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence.  There also he<br \/>\nprepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.19 and a Rough Sketch Ex.P.18.  He<br \/>\nrecovered MO.1 cricket bat and MO.2 cricket ball in the presence of witnesses<br \/>\nunder the cover of mahazer Ex.P.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) Pursuant to the confession, it was the accused who took the police<br \/>\nparty to the place of occurrence viz., well, wherefrom the dead body of was<br \/>\ntaken out.  The investigator conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence<br \/>\nof witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.20 Inquest Report.  The dead<br \/>\nbody was subjected to post-mortem by PW.15 Doctor, attached to the Government<br \/>\nHospital, Palani.  He also gave a post-mortem certificate Ex.P.19.   He also<br \/>\ndeposed to the effect that the child was died out of asphyxia by drowning.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) The place of occurrence and the dead body of the child was<br \/>\nphotographed.  The skull and other parts of the body was sent for tests.<br \/>\nEx.P.13 was the Superimposition report, which revealed that it was the dead body<br \/>\nof the child.  Ex.P.26 was the Biological Report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and<br \/>\nfrom the dead body were placed before the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.19, filed a final report<br \/>\nagainst the accused\/appellant as per the charges.  The case was committed to the<br \/>\nCourt of Sessions.  Necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 19 witnesses and relied on 27 Exhibits and 4 MOs.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found in<br \/>\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied by the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant as false.  On the side of the defence, neither witness was<br \/>\nexamined nor exhibit was marked.  The trial Court after hearing the arguments<br \/>\nadvanced by either side and on considering the materials available on record,<br \/>\ntook the view that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubts<br \/>\nand found the accused\/appellant guilty of the charges and awarded punishments as<br \/>\nreferred to above, which is the subject matter of the appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of    the appellant, Mr. D.Venkatesh,<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) The entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence.  The prosecution mainly rested upon two circumstances.  Firstly, it<br \/>\nwas PW.5 who saw the accused taking the child at about 8.30 a.m., on 13.1.2005.<br \/>\nSecondly, when the accused was returning from the scene of occurrence, he was<br \/>\nintercepted by PW.6.  thus, these two circumstances, according to the<br \/>\nprosecution, would indicate the complicity of the offender.  But, at no stretch<br \/>\nof imagination, these circumstances would connect the accused to the crime.<br \/>\nPW.6 was none else than the matrimonial uncle of PW.1.  According to him, he<br \/>\nknew about paper publication and also child missing on 13.1.2005 itself.  When<br \/>\nthat being so, one would expect to speak about that  he saw the child in the<br \/>\ncompany of the accused but till 16.1.2005, he had not opened his mouth.  It<br \/>\nwould be an indicative of the fact that he was an interested witness in the<br \/>\ncase.   Apart from that, he belonged to some other village.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) The place of occurrence was a well situated in sugarcane fields and<br \/>\nthere were a lot of houses situated in and around the well and field but no one<br \/>\nwas examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Though PW.6 gave evidence to the effect that he saw the accused<br \/>\ncoming near the place of occurrence, that by itself can not connect the accused<br \/>\nto the crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) In the instant case, PW.15, Doctor who conducted post-mortem, has not<br \/>\ngiven any final opinion as to the cause of death in the post-mortem certificate<br \/>\nEx.P.9.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v)  Even PW.4, who spoke about the panchayat, could not say the date or<br \/>\nthe month of the panchayat held.  Thus, it was nothing but a false case foisted<br \/>\nagainst the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) The lower Court has not considered any one of these aspects.  Hence,<br \/>\nthe accused\/appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a<br \/>\nthorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is not a fact in controversy that 7 years old child of PW.1 was<br \/>\nfound dead in a well.  The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor<br \/>\nPW.15, who also deposed before the Court that the child appeared to have died of<br \/>\nasphyxia due to drowning.  The identity of the child was proved by<br \/>\nsuperimposition test and PW.1 has also identified the child to the investigator.<br \/>\nInsofar as the aspect of identity of the child and also the cause of death leave<br \/>\nno doubt in the minds of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. True, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but it relied on<br \/>\nthree circumstances as could be seen from the available materials.  Firstly,<br \/>\nPW.5, the coconut vendor, found the accused taking the child at about 8.30 a.m.,<br \/>\non 13.1.2005.  PW.5 is neither interested in the prosecution witness nor<br \/>\ninimical to the accused.  According to PW.1, the child was playing outside his<br \/>\nhouse.  In the instant case, there were strained relationship between the<br \/>\nparties.  PW.4 was the person who spoke about the panchayat in respect of<br \/>\ndispute between families over a passage abutting to the house of PW.1.  Even in<br \/>\nthat panchayat, the accused was not ready to abide by the decision taken by the<br \/>\npanchayat.  Thus, the relationship was originally strained. PW.5 an independent<br \/>\nwitness has spoken about the fact that the child was taken at about 8.30 a.m.,<br \/>\non 13.1.2005.  Thereafter, the child was not found.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. PW.1 and others made search of the child on 13.1.2005, 14.1.2005 and<br \/>\n15.1.2005 but in vain.  Hence, PW.1 went to the police station and gave a<br \/>\ncomplaint under Ex.P.1 on 16.1.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The reading of Ex.P.1 would clearly indicate that he had not spoken<br \/>\nanything about the accused but they simply spoke about the fact that the child<br \/>\nwas playing outside the house and found to be missing.  At this juncture, it is<br \/>\npertinent to point out that, no motive can be attributed to PW.1 that he has<br \/>\ngiven a false case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The strong circumstance, in the instant case, against the accused is<br \/>\nthat he appeared before PW.9 to whom he gave extra judicial confession and<br \/>\npursuant to which, he was taken to V.A.O. PW.10 and thereafter, PW.9 and PW.10<br \/>\nhad taken the accused to the respondent police station.  At this juncture, it is<br \/>\npertinent to point out that, following the confession given by the accused to<br \/>\nthe police officer, it was the accused who identified the well in which the dead<br \/>\nbody of the child was found.  Had the accused not pointed out the place of the<br \/>\noccurrence viz., the well, wherein the dead body was found, the police could not<br \/>\nhave found the dead body of the child.  This, in the opinion of the Court, is a<br \/>\nstrong circumstance in favour of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Further, in the instant case, immediately, after the occurrence, it<br \/>\nwas PW.6, who saw the accused nearby the place of occurrence.  When he was<br \/>\nquestioned, the accused answered him that he was returning after seeing a known<br \/>\nperson.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  All these would go to show that there were evidence to indicate that<br \/>\nit was the accused who took the child as the same was last seen by PW.5 and<br \/>\nafter the occurrence, it was PW.6 who intercepted and asked the accused<br \/>\nwherefrom he was coming, and on being pointed out by the accused after giving<br \/>\nconfession, the police went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body<br \/>\nof the child in the well.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. All these would go to show that there were sufficient circumstances<br \/>\npointing to the complicity of the offender.  Hence, applying the test what is<br \/>\nnecessary in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, in the present case,<br \/>\nthe Court is satisfied that there were sufficient circumstances placed and<br \/>\nproved by the prosecution pointing out to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.  The lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty<br \/>\nas per the charges. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the lower<br \/>\nCourt either factually or legally. Hence, the judgment of the lower Court has<br \/>\ngot to be affirmed and accordingly, affirmed.  The Criminal Appeal fails and the<br \/>\nsame is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Palani Adivaram Police Station,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of<br \/>\n  the Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD) No.521 of 2007 T.Krishnasamy .. Appellant vs. The State by the Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Dindigul District. .. [&hellip;]<\/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-174057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-28T08:35:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T08:35:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1904,\"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\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\",\"name\":\"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T08:35:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-28T08:35:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T08:35:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008"},"wordCount":1904,"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\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008","name":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T08:35:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-krishnasamy-vs-the-state-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Krishnasamy vs The State on 19 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/174057","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=174057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}