{"id":177909,"date":"2006-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006"},"modified":"2014-05-07T01:38:47","modified_gmt":"2014-05-06T20:08:47","slug":"maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 10\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\t\t\t\t\n\nCriminal Appeal No.360 of 2003\n\n\n\nMaluku Mohamed\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\t\t\t\t\tAccused\t\t\t\n\n\nvs.\n\n\nState, by\t\t\t\t\nInspector of Police,\nBoothpandi Police Station,\nBoothpandi, Kanyakumari District.\nCr.No.720 of 1999.\t\t... \tRespondent\n\t\t\t\t\tComplainant\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nagainst the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari\nDistrict at Nagercoil, dated 31.01.2003, in Sessions Case No.110 of 2000.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t    \t...\tMr.S.Shanmugavelayutham\n\n\n^For Respondent     \t...\tMr.K.Radhakrishnan,\n\t\t\t   \tAdditional Public Prosecutor.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
I – JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred to as the
\n‘accused’) in Sessions Case No.360 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal
\nSessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.  The accused questions the
\ncorrectness of the judgment dated 31.01.2003 rendered in the above stated
\nsessions case, whereunder he was convicted for the offence punishable under
\nSections 341, 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
\nfor one month under Section 341 I.P.C., imprisonment for life with a fine of
\nRs.1000\/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under
\nSection 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324
\nI.P.C.  The sentences were directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
II – CHARGE<\/p>\n
\t2. The charge against the accused is that on 12.10.1999 at 6.45 a.m., he
\nwrongfully restrained the deceased Samsudeen and his son, P.W.1, which is
\npunishable under Section 341 I.P.C.; in the course of the same transaction, he
\nattacked the deceased on his head by using a rice pounder, with an intention to
\ncause his death and inflicted grievous injuries, causing the death of the
\ndeceased, which is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; and also attacked P.W.1
\non his head with the same weapon and caused simple injury, which is punishable
\nunder Section 324 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
III – CASE OF THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n
\t3. The prosecution story, unleashed from the evidence of the witnesses
\nexamined by them, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The accused had some misunderstanding with his wife and the matter was
\nreferred to Jamath ten months prior to the date of occurrence.  The deceased was
\na Member of the Jamath.  The deceased advised the appellant to pronounce Talaq
\nand hence, the appellant developed grudge over the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) P.W.1, Abdul Kadar, is the son of the deceased.  P.W.8, Hanifa, is the
\nfather-in-law of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)   On 12.10.1999 at abut 6.45 a.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went to
\ntheir field.  When they were near Marthal tank, the appellant waylaid them and
\nby saying that “you alone was instrumental for divorcing my wife”, attacked the
\ndeceased with a rice pounder, M.O.3, on his head.  When he again attacked the
\ndeceased, P.W.1 intervened and prevented the attack.  Hence, the accused
\nattacked P.W.1. on the left side of his head with same rice pounder, M.O.3.  The
\ndeceased lost his consciousness and fell down.  When P.W.2, Mohammed Yusuf, and
\none Sheik Mohammed, who were coming behind P.W.1 and the deceased, shouted, the
\nappellant left the scene of occurrence with the weapon.  Brother of P.W.1, one
\nSaleem and two others took the deceased and P.W.1 to Government Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) P.W.9, Dr.Ramachandran, Kottar Government Hospital, admitted the
\ndeceased at 7.30 a.m. on 12.10.1999 and found a lacerated injury over saggital
\nline of head, between two parietal bone 4.” x 1.” x bone deep bleeding from the
\nwound present (NC) pupil unequal not reacting to light.  Treatment was given to
\nthe deceased.  P.W.9 issued an accident register, Ex.P13, for the injury found
\non the deceased. P.W.9 sent an intimation to the Police under Ex.P14.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) P.W.9 also treated P.W.1 for the injuries sustained by him and issued
\nan accident register, Ex.P15, certifying that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was
\nsimple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) On receipt of Ex.P14, the police came to the hospital and recorded his
\nstatement, Ex.P1 and thereafter, the deceased was taken to Tirunelveli
\nGovernment Hospital for better treatment.  But, unfortunately, he was declared
\ndead.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) P.W.11 is the Head Constable, who received information, viz. Ex.P14,
\nabout the incident at 8.15 a.m. On 12.10.1999, he rushed to the hospital and
\nrecorded the statement of P.W.1, viz. Ex.P1.  P.W.11, after returning to the
\npolice station, registered a case in Crime No.720 of 1999 for the offence
\npunishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 I.P.C.  Ex.P19 is the printed FIR,
\nwhich was despatched to the Court and handed over to the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, P.W.14, for investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h) P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation at
\n11.00 a.m. on 12.10.1999,  visited the scene of occurrence at 11.10 a.m. and
\nprepared  observation mahazar, Ex.P12, in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7.  P.W.14
\nalso drew rough sketch, Ex.P20.   P.W.14  recovered bloodstained earth, M.O.4
\nand also collected sample earth, M.O.5, from the scene of occurrence at 11.30
\nam, under mahazar, Ex.P9, attested by P.Ws.6 and 7.  P.W.14 examined P.W.2 and
\none Saleem and recorded their statements.  At 1.30 p.m. he examined P.W.1 and
\nrecorded his statement.  He recovered bloodstained shirt, M.O.1, worn by P.W.1
\nand also a bloodstained lungi, M.O.2, worn by the deceased, under mahazar,
\nEx.P11, in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7.  He also examined P.Ws.6 and 7 and
\nrecorded their statements.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased, Ex.P18, at 9.00
\np.m., the case was altered into one under Section 302 IPC.  Ex.P21 is the
\naltered FIR, which was sent to the Magistrate Court through the  Police
\nConstable, P.W.13.\n<\/p>\n
\t(j) On receipt of the altered FIR, Ex.P21,  Inspector of Police, P.W.16,
\ntook up further investigation in the case and conducted inquest over the dead
\nbody on 13.10.1999 and prepared inquest report, Ex.P23. During the inquest,
\nP.W.16 examined panchayatdars, P.W.2 and others and recorded their statements.
\nP.W.16 gave a requisition to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, for
\nconducting postmortem on the dead body and deputed Constable, P.W.12, for the
\nsaid purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t(k)  P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
\ndeceased.   He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
1. An antero posterior, sutured lacerated injury seen on the top of head, 17 cm
\nabove the root of nose, measuring 11cm x 1cm x bone depth.
\n\tOn dissection of scalp, skull and dura, sub scalpel contusion seen on the
\nfrontal, mid parietal and occipital regions, measuring 25cm x 20 cm.  Fracture
\nof skull, left tempero parietal bones, 11 cm in length, seen.  Diffused sub
\ndural and sub arachnid haemorrhage seen over left cerebral seen overt left
\ncerebral hemisphere.  Laceration of brain left tempero parietal lobes.  5cm x
\n3cm x 2cm and laceration of cerebella hemispheres.  3cm x 2cm x 2cm each seen.
\nFracture base of skull, left middle cranial fossa, 3cm in length present.\n<\/p>\n
2. Abrasions seen in the following areas:\n<\/p>\n
i)  Back of right shoulder, 2cm x 2cm.\n<\/p>\n
ii) Middle of front of left thigh, 3cm x 3cm.\n<\/p>\n
iii)Right knee, 2cm x 2cm.\n<\/p>\n
iv) Right middle toe, 1cm x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
v)  Inner aspect of right foot, near base
\n\t    of big toe, 1cm x 1cm.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor, P.W.13, who conducted post mortem, was of the opinion that the
\ndeceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.  Ex.P17 is
\nthe postmortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t(l) P.W.16, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant at 3.00 p.m. on
\n13.10.1999, near Marthal tank. When P.W.14 examined the accused in the presence
\nof P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement and the
\nadmissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P24. Pursuant to the confession
\nstatement of the accused,  rice pounder, M.O.3, was recovered under mahazar,
\nEx.P25, attested by P.Ws.3 and 4.   P.W.16 examined P.Ws.3 and 4 and recorded
\ntheir statements.  P.W.16 sent the accused as well as material objects to the
\nCourt.  He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.\n<\/p>\n
\t(m) P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned
\nhostile.\n<\/p>\n
\t(n) P.W.14, on completion of investigation,  filed the final report in the
\ncourt against the accused on 19.11.1999.\n<\/p>\n
\t(o)  The prosecution, accordingly, examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16,
\nfiled Exs.P1 to P25  and marked M.Os.1 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
IV – DEFENCE<\/p>\n
\t4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against him in
\nthe evidence of prosecution witnesses, he was innocent and had know complicity
\nwith the crime, but was falsely implicated. That apart, the accused examined
\nD.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.D1 to D5.  D.W.1 is Dr.Alexon Devasagayam, who
\ntreated the accused for acute psychiatrist episode from 10.12.1997 to 07.02.1998
\nand issued a certificate, Ex.D3, to that effect.  D.W.2 is Dr.Nagarajan, who had
\nalso treated the accused for his unsound mind and issued a certificate, Ex.D4,
\nabout his mental status.  D.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused, who speaks
\nabout the mental disorder of the accused. Ex.D1 is the medical notes, Ex.D2
\nseries is the prescription and Ex.D5 series is the prescription and bills.
\nThus, the accused took the defence that he was not mentally sound at the time of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
V – JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT<\/p>\n
\t5. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
\nplaced before it, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as
\nstated earlier.  Hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
VI – CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT<\/p>\n
\t6.1. Mr.R.Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel appearing  for  the accused,
\nrelying on the evidence of the witnesses examined on the side of the accused,
\nnamely D.Ws.1 to 3, submits that the accused is entitled to the benefit of
\nSection 84 IPC, as, at the time of occurrence, the accused was suffering from
\nschizophrenia.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.2. Without prejudice to the above contention, learned counsel for the
\naccused alternatively submits that assuming the motive behind the crime, as
\nprojected by the prosecution is accepted, since the wife of the accused brought
\na divorce proceedings, as per the Muslim Personal law, before the Jamath, in
\nwhich the deceased was a member and in the said proceedings, the deceased
\nsuggested the accused to pronounce talaq against his wife, the accused got
\nprovoked against the deceased, as his wedlock broke due to the ill-advice of the
\ndeceased, which was subsisting in the mind of the accused all along.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.3.  With this backdrop of subsisting provocation,  on seeing the
\ndeceased and PW1, the accused lost his power of self control and attacked the
\ndeceased and thus, learned counsel for the accused claims benefit of Exception 1
\nto Section 300 IPC, seeks modification of the conviction and sentence under
\nSection 302 IPC and pleads for alteration of the same into one under Section
\n304(i) IPC.\n<\/p>\n
VII – CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n
\t7.1. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the
\naccused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC, as the evidence
\nadduced by the accused, viz. D.Ws.1 to 3, are not sufficient enough to
\nsubstantiate that the accused was suffering from  schizophrenia at the time of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that there
\nis ample evidence to prove the motive aspect of the prosecution case, as spoken
\nto by P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8 and therefore, it is a case of pre-planned murder.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.3. It is also contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that
\nsince the alleged talaq was pronounced ten months prior to the date of
\noccurrence, there is no question of sudden provocation to attract Exception 1 to
\nSection 300 IPC and  therefore, the accused is not entitled to any modification
\nin the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
VIII – CONSIDERATION AND FINDING<\/p>\n
\t8. We have given very careful consideration to the relevant evidence and
\nthe submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
\n\t9.1. The motive for the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution and
\nspoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8, was not denied by the accused.  The prosecution
\nsubstantially proved that the deceased was a member of the Jamath, before which
\nthe divorce proceedings between the accused and his wife were initiated.  The
\nfact that the deceased suggested the accused to pronounce talaq against his wife
\nis not disputed.  As the wedlock of the accused and his wife was broken, the
\naccused developed enmity against the deceased, is also substantially proved.
\nTherefore, the case of the prosecution that there was a strong motive for the
\naccused to cause the death of the deceased is well founded.
\n\t9.2.  On the fateful day, with an intention to cause the death of the
\ndeceased, the accused waylaid the deceased and his son, P.W.1, who were
\nproceeding to their field.  The injury inflicted on P.W.1, who was a direct
\nwitness to the occurrence, substantially proves the presence of P.W.1 at the
\nscene of occurrence.  P.W.1 in clear terms, deposed that the accused shouted on
\nthe deceased for having suggested him to pronounce Talaq against his wife and he
\nalone was responsible for pronouncement of Talaq, due to which his wedlock was
\nirretrievably broken, and attacked the deceased with rice pounder, M.O.3 on his
\nhead.  P.W.1 also deposed that when he intervened to prevent the accused, the
\nattack landed on the left side of his head.  This portion of the evidence of
\nP.W.1, who is an injured eye witness to the occurrence, is clear and direct.  We
\ndo not see any reason to disbelieve the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.3.  That apart, the contention made on behalf of the accused that the
\naccused was suffering from schizophrenia cannot be accepted since the accused
\nwas in  good state of mind at the time of occurrence, as he was able to
\ncorrelate the Talaq pronounced by him before the Jamath, in which the deceased
\nwas a member and to declare that the deceased alone was responsible for having
\nsuggested to pronounce Talaq.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.4. Of course, the accused, as a defence, examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and
\nmarked Exs.D1 to D5 to substantiate his evidence under Section 84, IPC.  Section
\n84 IPC reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“84. Act of a person of unsound mind.– Nothing is an offence which is done by a
\nperson who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is
\nincapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either
\nwrong or contrary to law.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.5. D.Ws.1 and 2 are doctors, who examined the accused and gave treatment
\nfor his mental illness.  D.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused.  D.W.1,
\nDr.Alexan Devasahayam, deposed that he treated the accused for Acute
\nPsychiatrist Episode as an in-patient from 10.12.1997 to 14.12.1997 and
\nthereafter, as an out- patient on 21.12.1997, 31.12.1997, 11.01.1998,
\n22.01.1998 and 07.02.1998.  D.W.2, Dr.Nagarajan,  deposed that he treated the
\naccused from 23.07.2000 to 20.08.2000 for his mental unsoundness. D.W.3 is the
\nbrother-in-law of the deceased, who deposed that the accused was suffering from
\nmental illness for the past 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.6.  Schizophrenia is a mental disorder involving a breakdown in the
\nrelation between thought, emotion, and behaviour, leading to faulty perception,
\ninappropriate actions and feelings, and withdrawal from reality into fantasy and
\ndelusion. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary – 11th Edition).  Therefore, it is
\na temporary disorder and it can be cured.   Even According to D.W.1, the accused
\ndid not avail any treatment after 07.02.1998. The occurrence took place on
\n12.10.1999.  Of course, neither the evidence of D.W.1 nor D.W.2 would help the
\naccused to state that he was suffering from mental disorder on the date of
\noccurrence, viz. 12.10.1999. Even, D.W.3, the brother in law of the accused also
\ndid not depose that the accused was actually suffering from mental disorder on
\nthe date of occurrence. In the absence of any satisfactory material evidence to
\nshow that the accused was suffering from mental disorder at the time of
\noccurrence, it is not proper for us to give the benefit of Section 84, IPC,
\noverlooking the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution that the accused was
\nin sound  mind at the time of occurrence, as he was annoyed against the deceased
\nfor having suggested to pronounce Talaq and intended to take revenge against him
\nfor the same.  The sound mind of the accused and the motive behind the
\noccurrence, therefore, stand substantially proved by the prosecution.
\n\t9.7. That apart, the evidence of P.W.1 also corroborates with that of
\nP.W.2, an independent witness, who clearly and directly deposes that when the
\ndeceased and his son were proceeding to their field on the date of occurrence,
\nthe accused waylaid them and shouted against the deceased that he alone
\nsuggested to pronounce Talaq against his wife and attacked him with rice
\npounder, M.O.3, on his head.  The weapon used, viz. rice pounder, seized on the
\nconfession statement given by the accused  as well as the medical evidence
\nadduced by P.W.9 and P.W.10, with reference to the injury inflicted on the
\ndeceased, corroborates the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2.  Therefore, the
\ncase of the prosecution that with clear intention to cause the death of the
\ndeceased, the accused attacked him with rice pounder, M.O.3 stands proved.
\n\t9.8.1. However, the alternative plea made on behalf of the accused
\nclaiming benefit of Exception 1 to  Section 300, IPC deserves consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.8.2.  According to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8, the deceased was
\na member in the Jamath and the accused developed enmity against the deceased for
\nhaving suggested the accused to pronounce Talaq against his wife in the divorce
\nproceedings initiated by his wife before the Jamath.  The further case of the
\nprosecution is that the accused developed a perennial enmity against the
\ndeceased from the date of pronouncement of the Talaq, as the wedlock between him
\nand his wife was broken due to the ill-advice of the deceased, on account of
\nwhich, the accused, on seeing the deceased and his son, P.W.1 on the fateful
\nday, lost his self-control and caused attack on the head of the deceased, which
\nresulted in his death.  Of course, the words employed by the accused at the time
\nof causing the attack on the deceased would clearly spell out the intention to
\ncause the death.  But the very same words also substantiate the enmity that
\nsubsisted in the mind of the accused, which got provoked on seeing the deceased
\nand made him to attack the deceased as he was instrumental for divorcing his
\nwife.  Hence, we see some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the
\naccused to bring the act of the accused under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC and
\nconvict him under Section 304(i), IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.8.3.  In view of the direct evidence of P.W.1, an injured eye witness as
\nto the injury inflicted on him by the accused, which is also supported with the
\nevidence of P.W.15, the Doctor, who treated him, we do not see any reason to
\ninterfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Sections
\n341 and 324, IPC for the injury caused on P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
IX – DECISION<\/p>\n
\t10. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused
\nunder Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section
\n304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to
\npay a fine of Rs.1000\/- and a compensation of Rs.5000\/-, which shall be paid
\nwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
\nfailing which, the accused shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment as
\ndefault sentence.  The compensation amount so paid shall be given to the wife of
\nthe deceased and if she is not alive, the same shall be given to P.W.1, the son
\nof the deceased.  The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under
\nSection 341 and 324 IPC by the trial court remain unaltered.  All the sentences
\nare to run concurrently.  The sentence already undergone shall be given set off.
\nThe appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
ATR\/gb\/kpl<\/p>\n
Copies to:\n<\/p>\n
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n   Kanyakumari District at
\n   Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Inspector of Police,
\n   Boothpandi Police Station,
\n   Boothpandi, Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Public Prosecutor,
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n   Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2003 Maluku Mohamed … Appellant Accused vs. State, by Inspector of Police, Boothpandi Police Station, Boothpandi, Kanyakumari District. Cr.No.720 […]<\/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-177909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - 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\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-06T20:08:47+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-06T20:08:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3319,\"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\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-06T20:08:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - 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\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-06T20:08:47+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-06T20:08:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006"},"wordCount":3319,"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\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006","name":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-06T20:08:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maluku-mohamed-vs-state-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maluku Mohamed vs State on 10 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/177909","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=177909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}