{"id":177283,"date":"2008-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-12T18:39:21","modified_gmt":"2015-01-12T13:09:21","slug":"sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDATED : 06\/11\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nCrl.A(MD)No.417 of 2002\n\n1.Sudalai\n2.Poovammal\t\t\t\t  ...  Accused\/Appellants\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\nThe State represented by the\n Inspector of Police,\n Mukkudal Police Station\n Crime No.8\/1999\t\t\t  ... Complainant\/Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the conviction\nand sentence passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial\nMagistrate, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.253 of 1999 dated 21.01.2002.\n\n!For Appellants    ...  M\/s.P.Theogaraj\n^For Respondent    ...  Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan\n                        Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe second accused is the wife of the 1st accused. P.W.3 is the step-
\nbrother of A-1 and the husband of the deceased. They were living in adjoining
\nhouses having a common courtyard.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the case of the prosecution that A-2 suspected that the deceased was
\nhaving illicit intimacy with A-1 and under such circumstances, a quarrel arose
\nbetween the accused and the deceased in which the first accused with the handle
\nof a weeding spade beat the deceased on the head and the second accused
\nstrangulated her with Thali string and thereby caused her death, resulting in
\nregistration of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused were tried by the learned I Additional District Judge cum
\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.253\/1999 on two charges.
\n\t As per the first charge, on 03.01.1999 at about 6.30 p.m, there was a
\nwordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased in which the first accused
\nassaulted the deceased on head with the handle of a weeding spade, thereby, he
\ncommitted the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. As per the
\nsecond charge, in the same transaction, after sustaining head injury at the
\nhands of A-1, on the deceased falling down, A-2 throttled her neck with Thali
\nstring, resulting in her death, thereby, she committed an offence punishable
\nunder Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined
\nP.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to 19 and produced M.Os.1 to 6. The learned Trial
\nJudge, on conclusion of the trial, by order dated 21.01.2002 convicted A-1 under
\nSection 302 read with 34 IPC and A-2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to
\nundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- each, in default, to
\nundergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the
\nappellants have preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The prosecution case, as put forth by its witnesses, is concisely
\nnarrated below:-\n<\/p>\n
\tA) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that 15 days prior to
\nthe occurrence, the deceased and P.W.3 informed him that  A-2 quarrelled with
\nthe deceased as if the deceased was having illicit intimacy with A-1.  On
\n03.01.1999 at about 06.15 p.m., he along with P.W.2 went to the house of the
\ndeceased and found A-1 assaulting the deceased on the head with the handle of a
\nweeding spade and A-2 strangulating her with the string of Thali. When P.W.1
\nwent near raising alarm, A-1 threatened and drove him by showing the spade
\nhandle. P.W.1 rushed to the nearby garden where P.W.3 was working, informed him
\nabout the occurrence, returned back along with him to the scene place and found
\nthe deceased dead. Leaving P.W.3 at the scene of occurrence, P.W.1 accompanied
\nby P.W.2 went to the police station by walk covering a distance of 15 kms and
\ngave a complaint (Ex.P.1) at 10.00 p.m.
\n\tP.W.2, sister’s husband of the deceased is another eye witness in the case
\nand he corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the husband of the deceased
\nand he stated about the frequent quarrels between A-2 and the deceased. On being
\ninformed about the occurrence by P.W.1, he rushed to the occurrence place where
\nhe found the deceased dead.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the course of trial, P.W.4, examined as an eye witnesses, turned
\nhostile.  P.Ws.5 and 6 who attested the  Observation Mahazar; P.Ws.9 and 10,
\nexamined as witnesses for recording the statement from A-2 and P.Ws.8 and 14,
\nwho  attested the statement of A-1; did not support the case of the prosecution
\nand they were treated as hostile.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, on 03.01.1999 at 10.00 p.m., reduced
\nthe oral complaint given by P.W.1 into writing under Ex.P.1 and registered a
\ncase in Crime No.8\/99 for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.11
\nis the printed First Information Report.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.15, the police constable, on receipt of Ex.P.11, printed First
\nInformation Report at 10.45 p.m., delivered the same to the Investigating
\nOfficer and to the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, at 11.00 p.m.
\n\tP.W.16, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the  information, reached
\nthe scene of occurrence along with P.W.11 at 11.45 p.m and prepared Observation
\nMahazar and Rough Sketch Exs.P.15 and 16 respectively in the presence of P.Ws.5
\nand 6. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of
\nP.Ws.1 to 3. Ex.P.17 is the inquest report. He forwarded the dead body to the
\nhospital for the purpose of Post Mortem along with his requisition under Ex.P.4.
\n\tP.W.7, the Medical Officer, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the
\ndeceased on 04.01.1999 at 11.45 p.m., and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.5,
\nwherein, he noticed the following:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“External Injuries: 1.A ligature mark. Blackish in colour on middle of
\nneck encircling neck on both sides more to the right horizontalin direction and
\ninterrupted at the back size 30 cms x 1cms. On dissection there was
\nextravasation of blood on trachea and underlying tissues . A incised wound 4x1x1
\ncms on lt pauelat region of scalp vertical in direction close to hair line (AM)\n<\/p>\n
3. An incised wound 2x1x1 cms horizontal in direction on middle of scalp (AM)\n<\/p>\n
4.Contusion on RT upper part of thigh on lateral aspect size 8×4 cms on
\ndissection blood clots seen on wound (AM). Skin deep abrasion 3\/4×1\/2cms on RT
\nangle of mouth (AM). Int.exam: Liver, Spleen, Kidneys, Lungs congested. Heart:
\nRT side chamber contains 30 ml of dark red Blood.  LT side chamber empty. Lungs
\nQdamatous and exists frothy blood on dissection stomach contains about 300 gms
\nof partially digested rice particles.  Intestine distended C-gas. Bladder empty.
\nuterus enlarged 12 weeks size contains products of conception: Ovaries studded
\nfollicle of corpus interim on RT side. Both ovaries are enlarged. Vagina
\nNormal”.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of respiratory
\narrest due to suffocation.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter Post Mortem, on production of the cloths and Thali of the deceased
\n(M.Os.3 to 6) by P.W.13 police constable, the Investigating Officer despatched
\nthe same to the Court. In the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, A-2 was arrested and in
\npursuance of the voluntary statement given by her, M.O.1 weeding spade was
\nrecovered under a cover of Mahazar attested by P.Ws.8 and 9. In the presence of
\nP.Ws.8 and 14, A-1 was arrested and his statement was recorded. The
\nInvestigating Officer after examination of witnesses and receiving medical and
\nforensic opinions and on conclusion of the investigation, laid the final report
\non 20.04.1999 against the first and second accused for an offence punishable
\nunder section 302 read with 34 IPC, 302 IPC respectively.
\n\tThe learned trial Judge, on the basis of the incriminating materials
\nproduced on the side of the prosecution, questioned the accused Under Section
\n313 Cr.P.C., for which, the accused pleaded not guilty.  On the side of the
\ndefence D.W.1 was examined and a document was marked as Ex.D.1. D.W.1 is the
\ncousin of the first accused.  The deceased is also related to him. He was
\nresiding next to the house of the deceased and the accused. He states that the
\ndeceased committed suicide by hanging. According to him, accompanied by one
\nValli, he entered into the room  by removing the front door, brought the body
\ndown and thereafter, informed the same to P.Ws.1 & 2 and in that regard, a
\ncomplaint was given to the Police.  Ex.D.1 is the history of the case given by
\nthe Investigating Officer P.W.16, while giving a requisition to the Medical
\nOfficer along with Ex.P.4 to conduct post-mortem wherein it has been stated that
\nA-2 caught hold of the deceased while A-1 assaulted her with stick and
\nthereafter, A-2 tightened the Thali around the neck of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Trial Judge, on perusal of the materials placed and
\nconsidering the arguments advanced on both sides, convicted and sentenced the
\nappellants as stated supra; hence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that P.Ws.1 and 2 are
\nresiding in the neighbouring village and their presence at the time of
\noccurrence is doubtful and their statement that at the relevant time, they
\nvisited the house of the deceased to see the children, is unbelievable. When
\nother witnesses including D.W.1, the neighbour of the deceased were very much
\navailable, the prosecution has purposely chosen to examine P.Ws.1 and 2 since
\nthey happen to be closely related to the deceased viz., brother and sister’s
\nhusband respectively of the deceased. P.W.4, though cited as an independent eye
\nwitness, did not support the case of the prosecution. Almost all the other
\nwitnesses, who attested the observation Mahazar and statements of the accused,
\nturned hostile. The ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not sufficiently
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence through P.W.7.  Though the occurrence is
\nsaid to have taken place in the court-yard of the houses, the body was found
\ninside the house and there is no explanation therefor by the prosecution.  The
\nevidence of D.W.1 is natural and in the event of accepting his evidence, the
\nprosecution case may be discarded and a conclusion can be reached that the
\ndeceased committed suicide. In view of the reason that the deceased committed
\nsuicide, an enquiry under Section 173 Cr.P.C., should have been conducted. At
\nany rate, even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other materials furnished by
\nthe prosecution are accepted as truthful and genuine, there was no pre-
\nmeditation or intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. The
\noccurrence might have taken place all of a sudden subsequent to the wordy
\nquarrel that took place between the deceased and the accused just prior to the
\noccurrence. At any rate, the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
\noccurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. and P.W.1 accompanied with P.W.2 by walk
\nreached the police station covering a distance of about 15 kms and lodged the
\ncomplaint Ex.P.1 at 10.00 P.M., hence, there was no delay. Ex.P.1 reached the
\nCourt situated 10 kms away at 11.00 p.m., therefore, there was no possibility at
\nall to concoct or improve the case against the accused. P.W.12 reduced into
\nwriting the information furnished by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and the same was also
\nattested by P.W.2, therefore, the First Information Report coming into existence
\nat the relevant point of time cannot be doubted. The suicide theory as projected
\nby D.W.1 is falsified when the evidence of the Medical Officer P.W.7 is
\nappreciated in the proper perspective.  P.W.7 has positively opined that in a
\ncase of suicide, ligature mark would be slanting on the neck and further opined
\nthat injury Nos.2 and 4 would have been caused in the manner as put forth by the
\nprosecution and that the 5th injury would have been sustained due to fall and
\nthereby the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by the medical
\nevidence. It was the further opinion of the Medical Officer that the death was
\noccurred only due to injury Nos.1 to 4. It is pointed out that the Investigating
\nOfficer, in his evidence, has explained the reason for removal of the front door
\nviz., it was under repair. In Ex.P.1 itself, it is clearly stated that the body
\nof the deceased was removed from the court-yard to the residence for the purpose
\nof giving first aid and water to the deceased. It is also stated therein that
\nthe deceased and the accused indulged in a wordy quarrel, exchanging filthy
\nlanguage, and only thereafter, the occurrence had taken place. According to him,
\nthe trial Court has assigned sound reasonings for convicting the accused and its
\norder does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.We have perused the materials available on record and considered the
\nsubmissions made on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.A-1 and P.W.3 are brothers through different mothers. They were living
\nin adjacent houses having common  court yard. The marriage between the accused
\ntook place only six months prior to the occurrence. After marriage, there used
\nto be frequent quarrels between the second accused and the deceased since the
\nsecond accused suspected that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with her
\nhusband. P.Ws.1 and 3 speak about the frequent quarrels between them prior to
\nthe occurrence.  Even on the date of occurrence, the quarrel started in a
\nsimilar manner.  Such aspect is cogently narrated by P.Ws.1 and 2. Though P.W.4,
\nan independent eye witness, and other witnesses who attested the mahazar as well
\nas the statement of the accused turned hostile, we are of the considered opinion
\nthat the case of the prosecution has been substantiated through the ocular
\ntestimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated by P.W.7 and other contemporaneous
\nmaterials. P.W.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the First
\nInformation Report, which came into existence without delay at 10.00 p.m., and
\nit reached the Court within an hour. In the First Information Report, the motive
\npart of the prosecution case as well as the occurrence have been narrated in
\ndetail. When P.W.1 was nearing the house of the deceased, he could witness the
\nquarrel between the accused and the deceased and it has been specifically stated
\nthat they were exchanging vulgar language against each other and under such
\ncircumstances, on the provocation given by A-2, A-1 is said to have assaulted
\nthe deceased with stick and A-2 tightened the neck with Thali. Since there used
\nto be frequent quarrels between the second accused and the deceased, P.W.3,
\nhusband of the deceased, used to compromise between them, as they are closely
\nrelated. On that date also, such quarrel ensued, resulting in the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On a careful scrutiny of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1, we could see
\nthat there was no intention and premeditation to cause the death of the
\ndeceased. The deceased was also quarreling with the accused by using filthy
\nlanguage. Under such circumstances, the occurrence had taken place suddenly.  On
\nnoticing the nature of injuries described in the Post Mortem Certificate, we
\ncould infer that there was no intention on the part of the accused. Therefore,
\nwe hold that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out.
\n\tThe opinion of the Medical Officer is that injury Nos.1 to 4 are
\nsufficient in the ordinary course to cause death and in the light of the
\nevidence available, it is clear that those injuries were caused only by A-1 and
\nA-2. While disbelieving the suicide theory as put forth through D.W.1, we hold
\nthat the accused have committed culpable  homicide not amounting to murder and
\nthey are liable to be convicted under Section 304 (i) IPC. The accused 1 and
\n2\/appellants are aged about 27 and 20 respectively and it is reported that they
\nare recently married.  Under such circumstances, while convicting them under
\nSection 304(i) IPC, they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 4 years. The
\nperiod they have already undergone shall be set off. The fine amount of
\nRs.1000\/- with default clause imposed by the court below is retained.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The criminal appeal is partly allowed subject to the above modification.
\nIt is reported that the accused are on bail. The Sessions Judge concerned is
\ndirected to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit them to
\nPrison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
 The Inspector of Police,
\n Mukkudal Police Station<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06\/11\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.A(MD)No.417 of 2002 1.Sudalai 2.Poovammal … Accused\/Appellants Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station Crime […]<\/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-177283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - 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\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-12T13:09:21+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\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-12T13:09:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2628,\"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\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-12T13:09:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 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":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - 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\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-12T13:09:21+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\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-12T13:09:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008"},"wordCount":2628,"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\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008","name":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-12T13:09:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudalai-vs-the-state-represented-by-the-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudalai vs The State Represented By The on 6 November, 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\/177283","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=177283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}