{"id":179572,"date":"2002-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002"},"modified":"2017-08-15T18:45:33","modified_gmt":"2017-08-15T13:15:33","slug":"n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nCriminal Appeal No.855 of 1997\n\nN.J.Suraj                                      .. Appellant\n\n-vs-\n\nState rep. by Inpsector\nof Police,Kattoor Police\nStation, Coimbatore.                            .. Respondent\n\n\n        Appeal against the judgment of the learned Principal  Sessions  Judge,\nCoimbatore, made in S.C.No.180 of 1996 dated 16.10.1997.\n\n!For Appellant                  :       Mr.V.Gopinath, S.C.,\n                                        for Mr.K.Selvarangan\n\n^For Respondent         :       Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran\n                                Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.DHINAKAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                The sole appellant, who, in the judgment, will be referred  to
\nas  ‘the  accused’,  was tried before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in
\nSessions Case No.180 of 1996, on a charge of murder on an allegation  that  at
\nabout 2.00  or  2.30 a.m.  on 23.3.94, he caused the death of Shali, his wife,
\nby smothering and by causing asphyxia.  He was also charged under Section  201
\nI.P.C.   on an allegation that after causing the murder of Shali, he attempted
\nto screen the offence by leaving a suicide note at the scene, as  if,  it  was
\nwritten by  the  deceased  Shali.    The  learned  trial  judge  convicted and
\nsentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment for the  said  offence  under
\nSection 201  I.P.C.    while convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for
\nlife for the offence of murder.  Hence, the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Shorn of  unnecessary  details,  the  facts  necessary  to
\ndispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                The deceased  is  the  daughter  of  P.W.7.    The accused was
\nrunning a printing press under the  name  and  style  of  Prompt  Printers  at
\nTirussur in  Kerala.    The  deceased  was staying with her father at Paliseri
\nVillage near Tirussur and was employed in the printing press of  the  accused.
\nP.W.7 was  a tailor by profession.  The deceased studied up to 1 0th standard.
\nShe fell in love with the accused and wanted to marry him.    Accordingly,  on
\n19.3.94,  she married him and the marriage was registered at the Office of the
\nSub Registrar, Tirussur.    Ex.P.6  is  the  certificate  issued  by  the  Sub
\nRegistrar, showing  the  marriage  between  the accused and the deceased.  The
\nsaid fact was not known to the parents of the deceased and the parents of  the
\naccused  were  against the marriage and therefore, wanted the said marriage to
\nbe annulled.  It is the further case  of  the  prosecution  that  on  22.3.94,
\nEx.P.7  was  registered at the same office annulling the said marriage, though
\nthe said deed was not signed nor was it  presented  for  registration  by  the
\ndeceased and  it  was  presented  on  behalf of the accused.  On 22.3.9 4, the
\ndeceased left her house, carrying with  her  a  tiffin  box,  M.O.1  1,  after
\ninforming her  father  that  she is going to Prompt Printers for her job.  She
\nwas not seen alive thereafter by P.W.7.  At about 6.3 0 p.m.  on 22.3.94,  the
\ndeceased  and the accused went to Chitra Lodge at Coimbatore, where P.Ws.1 and
\n4 were working as receptionist and room  boy  respectively  and  asked  for  a
\ndouble  bed  room  after intimating P.W.1 that he and the deceased are husband
\nand wife.  The accused has stated that his wife had to attend an interview  on
\nthe  next  day  and  therefore,  they  had to stay in the lodge for the night.
\nP.W.1 obtained Rs.120\/- from the accused and allotted room No.59.  The accused
\nmade entries in the Check-in register, Ex.P.1 and the said entries are Ex.P.2.
\nHe wrote his name as Joshy, C.A., Chalayil  House,  Trivandrum  and  has  also
\nmentioned  in  the  said  register  that  the purpose of visit is to attend an
\ninterview.  A receipt was also issued for the receipt of Rs.120\/- and the said
\nreceipt stands marked as Ex.P.4.  and the receipt book is Ex.P.3.  P.W.4,  the
\nroom  boy,  took  the accused and the deceased to room No.59 and after getting
\ntea for them, left the room.  P.W.1 also saw  the  accused  and  the  deceased
\nleaving the room and returning at about 8.30 p.m.  On return, they entered the
\nroom and  locked it from inside.  P.W.4 went away in connection with his other
\nduties.  At about 9.00 or 9.30 p.m.  on 22.3.94, P.W.4 went home after handing
\nover charge to P.W.1 and returned on the morning of 23.3.94.   He  found  room
\nNo.59  locked  from  outside  and  when  questioned,  P.W.1  told him that the
\npersons, who were occupying the room, would have gone  out.    P.W.4  did  not
\nbother to verify.  On 24.3.94, as usual, he came and joined duty and purchased
\ncoffee and tea for the occupants in the lodge.  At about 8.30 a.m., he went to
\nthe  annexe  building,  where room No.59 was situate and found the room locked
\nfrom outside.  He noticed a foul  smell  emanating  from  the  said  room  and
\ntherefore,  informed  P.W.1  and at that time, P.W.3, the Assistant Manager of
\nthe lodge, was also present.  They went near the room and felt the foul  smell
\nand  therefore,  sent  information  to  Venkatachalam, the owner of the lodge.
\nAfter the arrival of the  owner  Venkatachalam,  a  complaint,  Ex.P.5  ,  was
\ndrafted  by  P.W.3  and  the  same was taken to the police station at Kattoor,
\nwhere it was handed over to P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector.  P.W.16, on receipt  of
\nthe complaint, Ex.P.5, registered a case in Crime No.828 of 1994 under Section
\n174 Cr.P.C.   by  preparing express reports.  Ex.P.44 is a copy of the printed
\nfirst information report.  The express reports were sent to the Court as  well
\nas to  the  higher  officials.    On  receipt  of  the intimation, P.W.18, the
\nInspector of Police, reached the police station, where he obtained a  copy  of
\nthe printed  first  information  report.   He left for the scene of occurrence
\nafter requisitioning the services of the sniffer dog, the finger print experts
\nand others.  On reaching the scene of occurrence with  his  police  party,  he
\nfound  the  room  locked  from  outside and therefore, broke open the door and
\nentered the room and inside the room, he found a girl lying dead  on  the  cot
\nand a hand bag was seen by the side.  There were also a tiffin box, M.O.11 and
\nan yellow polythene bag, M.O.27.  In the presence of witnesses, he prepared an
\nobservation mahazar, Ex.P.19  .    He  also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.45.  The
\nscene of occurrence was caused to be photographed and M.O.46  series  are  the
\nphotographs and M.O.47  series  are the negatives.  He searched the place.  In
\nthe hand bag, he found a  certificate  issued  by  the  University  and  other
\ncertificates.   He also found a purse containing the name of Puthur Jewellery.
\nA sum of Rs.111\/- and coins to the tune of Rs.8.55 were also seen in  the  bag
\nand  the  officer,  from  the certificates, came to know that the girl, who is
\nlying dead, hails from Tirussur.  He asked P.W.17, the  Sub-Inspector,  to  go
\nover to Tirussur to make enquiries.  Thereafter, P.W.18 conducted inquest over
\nthe dead  body  of  the  girl  between  noon and 3.45 p.m.  in the presence of
\npanchayatdars and at the time of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and  others.
\nEx.P.46 is  the  inquest  report.   He seized the jewellery, which were on the
\nbody of the deceased, under a mahazar, Ex.P.20, attested by witnesses.   After
\nthe  inquest,  a  requisition,  Ex.P.15, was sent to the doctor for conducting
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  On receipt  of  the  requisition,  P.W.11,  the  Tutor  in
\nForensic  Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted
\nautopsy on the  body  of  the  female  aged  about  23  years  and  found  the
\nfollowing:-\n<\/p>\n
“Body bloated.    Post-mortem  blebs seen on the front of the chest, abdomen &
\nright upper limb.  Face bloated.   Tongue  &  eye  balls  protruded.    Cornea
\ncollapsed.   There  was  petecheal  haemorrhages  in  the sclera of both eyes.
\nScalp hair easily peelable.  Post-mortem peeling of the skin  noticed  in  the
\nwhole of left  upper limb and was discoloured.  Face blackened.  Skin over the
\nrest of the body was easily peelable.  Marbling was present  in  both  thighs.
\nFinger nails   bluish.      Blood  stained  frothy  decomposition  fluid  seen
\ndischarging from the nostrils & vagina.\n<\/p>\n
1.  Diffuse contusion with black discolouration of the skin noticed  over  the
\nback of middle of the trunk 10 x 12 cm.  C\/s.  revealed subcutaneous bruising.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Contusion  9  x  6  cm.   in the midline of the back of the abdomen in the
\nregion of both loins.  C\/s.  revealed subcutaneous bruising.\n<\/p>\n
3.  There was an oblique incomplete abrasion seen around the upper part of the
\nneck over an area 28 x 1.5 cm.   encircling  the  neck,  and  it  resembles  a
\nligature mark.    The  point  of suspension is made out in the region behind &
\nbelow the right ear.  The skin was adherent to the subcutaneous plane and  was
\nnot easily peelable.    It  was  parchment  like  c\/s  was  pale.    Bloodless
\ndissection of the neck revealed nul injury to the soft tissues underneath  the
\nligature mark.   Hyoid  bone  and  larynx  were  intact.  Trachea, mucus shows
\nevidence of post-mortem staining.   Trachea  contained  blood  stained  frothy
\nfluid.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Circular  abrasion  6  x  4  cm.  surrounded by contusion seen on the left
\ncheek.  It was reddish black in colour.  Injuries are ante-mortem.  Hypostatic
\npost-mortem lividity seen along the left lateral aspect of  chest,  abdomen  &
\nleft thigh  &  left upper limbs.  Left upper discoloured & was blackish red in
\ncolour.”\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P.18, the  final
\nopinion, opining that the post-mortem findings are not inconsistent with death
\ndue to asphyxia as a result of hanging.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   In  the meantime, P.W.17, who was deputed to Tirussur for
\nthe purpose of investigation by P.W.18, went to the house of the deceased  and
\nthe  hand  book  maintained  by  the  deceased containing her hand writing and
\nsignature was seized under a mahazar, Ex.P.10, after it was produced by P.W.7.
\nHe also seized M.Os.24 and 26,  the  two  group  photographs  under  the  said
\nmahazar.  He  seized  some  documents  from  Prompt  Printers.   He questioned
\nwitnesses and recorded their statements.  He went to the  Office  of  the  Sub
\nRegistrar  on  25.3.94  and after giving a requisition, obtained a copy of the
\ncertificate showing the registration of the marriage of the deceased with  the
\naccused on 19.3.94.  The Registrar issued Ex.P.6, the copy and on perusing the
\nsame,  he  found  that the annulment of the marriage was also registered under
\nEx.P.7.  He questioned the Sub Registrar  and  recorded  his  statement.    At
\nTirussur  bus  stand,  he  questioned  some  witnesses,  where  he was given a
\npassport size photograph of the accused.  After completing  his  investigation
\nat  Tirussur, he returned to Kattoor police station on 26.3.94 and handed over
\nall the documents to P.W.18.  In the meantime, P.W.18 ,  continuing  with  his
\ninvestigation,  seized M.Os.1, 7 to 23, 25, 27, 28, 33 to 40, which were lying
\nat the scene of occurrence, under a mahazar Ex.P.21 attested by witnesses.  He
\nquestioned witnesses and recorded their statements.  At 8.30 a.m.  on 25.3.94,
\nhe went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital,  where  he  found  P.W.7,  the
\nfather of the deceased and others.  P.W.7 identified the dead body as the body
\nof his  daughter.    He  questioned Jose, who was present along with P.W.7 and
\nrecorded his statement.  He  perused  all  the  statements  of  the  witnesses
\nrecorded  by  P.W.17  and  also the certificates and other documents seized by
\nhim.  He questioned witnesses and recorded their statements.    He  also  made
\narrangements to  obtain  the  finger prints of the employees of the lodge.  On
\n29.3.94, the post-mortem certificate  was  received  by  the  officer  and  on
\nreceipt  of  the same, he came to know that Shali has suffered injuries due to
\nviolence.  He, thereafter, altered the crime to one under Section  302  I.P.C.
\nby preparing express reports.  Ex.P.47 is the express report.  He searched for
\nthe  accused  and  sent  a police constable to Tiruvananthapuram, who returned
\nlater and informed him that the accused is not available.  All  the  documents
\nwere sent  to Court.  The material objects seized from the scene of occurrence
\nwere sent to Court with a request to forward them for analysis.   Ex.P.2,  the
\nentries  in  the  Check-in  Register,  Ex.P.1,  were  sent to the hand writing
\nexpert, who gave Ex.P.43, his opinion, stating that  it  is  not  possible  to
\noffer   any   reliable  opinion  by  comparing  the  admitted  signatures  and
\nhandwritings of the accused with the disputed hand writing and signature found
\nin Ex.P.2.  P.W.18, on account of his illness, was admitted as in-patient  and
\nwas  at  K.G.Hospital  between  28.4.94 and 7.5.94 and after his discharge, he
\nsearched for the accused and came to know that  the  accused  has  surrendered
\nbefore the  Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovai, on 3.5.94.  He gave a requisition
\nto the Court to take the accused into custody for the purpose  of  questioning
\nhim.   He  also  gave  a  requisition  to  the  Court  for conducting the Test
\nIdentification Parade.  On receipt of the requisition,  P.W.10,  the  Judicial
\nMagistrate  conducted Test Identification Parade on 17.5.94 and at the Parade,
\nP.Ws.1, 4, 6 and another witness correctly identified the  accused.    Ex.P.14
\nare  the  proceedings  drafted  by  the  said  Magistrate  regarding  the Test
\nIdentification Parade conducted by him.  On  the  orders  of  the  Court,  the
\naccused was  handed  over  to  the police and at 5.00 p.m.  on 17.5.94, he was
\nbrought to the police station and was questioned in the presence of witnesses.
\nHe gave a statement and the admissible portion is Ex.P.22.   In  pursuance  of
\nthe  admissible  portion,  Ex.P.22,  the  accused took the police party to the
\nmotor pump shed room at the lodge and on the way to the second floor,  pointed
\nthe  switch board for motor starter, from where M.O.41, the key, was recovered
\nunder a mahazar, Ex.P.23, attested by P.W.13.  The accused,  thereafter,  took
\nthe  police party and pointed the shop of P.W.6, whose statement was recorded.
\nHe also pointed  P.W.9  and  the  officer  questioned  him  and  recorded  his
\nstatement.   When P.W.6 was questioned, he produced a bill book, Ex.P.8, which
\nwas seized under a mahazar.  On 29.7.94, P.W.18 was  promoted  and  therefore,
\nfurther investigation  was  taken  up  by  his  successor, P.W.19.  P.W.19, on
\ntaking up investigation, sent some of the documents to the hand writing expert
\nto compare them with the admitted  hand  writing  of  the  accused  and  after
\nobtaining  the reports, filed the final report against the accused on 13.12.94
\nunder Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.    on
\nthe  incriminating  circumstances  appearing against him and he denied all the
\ncircumstances and examined D.W.1 on his side.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  D.W.1, in his evidence, stated that Josie is a  friend  of
\nthe deceased  Shali  and  Josie  hails from Trivandrum.  He has further stated
\nthat the said Josie was introduced to him by Shali and according to  him,  the
\naccused and the deceased registered their marriage on 19.3.94 at the Office of
\nthe Sub  Registrar,  Tirussur.    He  has  further  stated that on 22.3.94, he
\nproduced a document before the Sub Registrar indicating the annulment  of  the
\nmarriage and  that  he  has  signed  as  one  of the witnesses.  He has marked
\nEx.P.7, the registered  marriage  annulment  certificate  issued  by  the  Sub
\nRegistrar.   According to him that after the marriage was annulled and when he
\nwas about to leave the Office of the Sub Registrar, Shali  informed  him  that
\nshe  intends  visiting Coimbatore, Ooty and other places along with her friend
\nJosie and that she was very  much  disappointed  with  the  annulment  of  the
\nmarriage and that she needs peace of mind.  In short, the accused has examined
\nD.W.1  to  show  that  the  deceased  left Tirussur in the company of Josie on
\naccount of the annulment of the marriage and it is for Josie  to  explain  the
\ncircumstances under which Shali met her end.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   The  prosecution,  to  establish  that  the  accused  has
\nmurdered Shali, relied upon circumstantial evidence since the  occurrence  was
\nnot witnessed by any one.  It is the settled principle of law that where there
\nis  no  eye-witness  to  the  murder  and the case against the accused depends
\nentirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict
\nthe accused on such evidence is that the circumstances  relied  upon  must  be
\nfully  established  and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances
\nshould be so far complete  as  not  to  leave  any  reasonable  ground  for  a
\nconclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it is true that in
\na  case  of  circumstantial  evidence not only should the various links in the
\nchain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such
\nas to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.    But
\nin  a  case  where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the
\ncircumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with  reasonable
\ndefiniteness  and  in  proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation
\nand he offers no explanation, which if  accepted,  though  not  proved,  would
\nafford  a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with
\nhis innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation  would  itself
\nbe  an  additional  link  which completes the chain vide DEONANDAN MISHRA -vs-
\nSTATE OF BIHAR ( A.I.R.  1955 S.C.  801).\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Keeping the above principle in mind, we will  now  analyse
\nthe evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing
\nall the links in the chain of circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   It is not in dispute that the dead body that was found in
\nroom No.59 of Chitra Lodge at Coimbatore is the body of  the  deceased  Shali.
\nP.W.7, the father of the deceased, in his evidence, stated that on the morning
\nof  22.3.94, Shali left the house for her job at Prompt Printers and that when
\nshe left the house, she had M.O.11, a tiffin box and other articles.  She  did
\nnot  return  home and finding that his daughter has not returned home, he went
\nto Prompt Printers, where he came to know that Shali did not come to the press
\non that day.  The said information was given to him  by  the  brother  of  the
\naccused.   Thereafter,  he and his sister’s son, Rose went to the house of the
\naccused and made enquiries.  The parents of the  accused,  who  were  present,
\ninformed him that if Suresh, the friend of the accused, is enquired, they will
\nbe  able  to  get the information as to the whereabouts of the accused and the
\ndeceased and therefore, P.W.7 went to the house of  Suresh,  which  was  at  a
\ndistance of 2  kms.    from  the  house of the accused.  When P.W.7 questioned
\nSuresh, he informed that the accused and the deceased have married each  other
\nand  the  marriage  was  also registered at the Office of the Sub Registrar on
\n19.3.94 and that the accused and the deceased  have  left  Tirussur  at  about
\n11.00 a.m.    in a bus for Shoranur after informing him that they are going to
\nBangalore via Shoranur.  On getting this information, P.W.7 made  arrangements
\nto  contact his son Sandosi, who was at Bangalore and wanted him to detain the
\ndeceased and the accused as soon as they alight at the railway  station.    He
\nalso  left for Bangalore accompanied by the father of the accused and Rose and
\nreached Bangalore at about 9.00 a.m.  on 23.3.94.  At Bangalore, they searched
\nfor the accused and the deceased and the son of P.W.7 informed  him  that  the
\naccused and  the  deceased  did  not come to Bangalore by train.  According to
\nP.W.7, they could not trace either the accused or the deceased and  therefore,
\nreturned to  Tirussur  at  about  11.00 a.m.  on 24.3.94 and at 6.00 p.m., the
\npolice officers from Coimbatore came to him and gave him the information about
\nthe death of his daughter at the lodge in Coimbatore.  The evidence of  P.W.7,
\ntherefore,  shows  that  the  deceased,  who  left the house on the morning of
\n22.3.94, was not seen alive thereafter by P.W.7 and her dead body was found on
\nthe morning of 24.3.94 after P.W.18, the investigating officer, went and broke
\nopen the door.  P.W.7, on reaching the lodge and after  looking  at  the  dead
\nbody,  which  was  kept  in  the  mortuary, identified the body as that of his
\ndaughter not only from the physical features, but also from  the  clothes  and
\nthe other  jewellery, which the deceased was wearing.  Therefore, there can be
\nno doubt in the mind of the Court that the dead body, which was found in  room
\nNo.59  at Chitra lodge is that of Shali and the said fact is also not disputed
\nby the defence.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The next question that is to be decided by this Court  is
\nwhether Shali died a natural death or was murdered.  Even at the outset we may
\nsay  that  the  materials  placed before this Court do not indicate that Shali
\ndied a natural death.  It is the evidence of P.W.1, the  receptionist  at  the
\nlodge and P.W.4, who was working as a room boy in the said lodge, that at 6.30
\np.m.   on 22.3.94, a male and a female came to the reception room and that the
\nmale wanted a room to be allotted after intimating  the  receptionist,  P.W.1,
\nthat  they  had to stay overnight as his wife is to attend an interview on the
\nnext day and P.W.1 , thereafter, allotted room No.59 to the two  persons,  who
\ntold him  that  they are husband and wife.  Ex.P.2 is the entry in Ex.P.1, the
\ncheck-in register and according to P.W.1, the  said  entry  was  made  by  the
\naccused in  his  presence  and that the accused has also put his signature.  A
\nperusal of Ex.P.2 shows that the accused had given his  name  and  address  as
\nJoshy,  C.A.,  Chalayil House, Trivandrum and that the purpose of visit is for
\nthe interview.  It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he demanded a sum of Rs.120\/-
\nfrom the accused and that the said amount was paid, for which  a  receipt  was
\nalso issued.   The  carbon  copy  of the said receipt is Ex.P.4.  According to
\nP.W.4, the room boy, the accused and the deceased were taken to room No.59 and
\nafter supplying them tea, he left the room.  He has further stated that he saw
\nthe accused and the deceased leaving the room  and  returning  at  about  8.30
\np.m., who  after  entering the room, locked it from inside.  P.W.4 has further
\nstated that on the next day, he found the room locked  from  outside  and  was
\nunder  the  impression  that the occupants of the room must have left on their
\nbusiness and therefore, did not give any importance to  the  said  fact.    On
\n24.3.94,  when he came for his duty, he found the room locked from outside and
\nnoticed a foul smell emanating from the room.  Therefore, he went and informed
\nP.W.1.  P.W.1, thereafter, informed the owner, who, on arriving at the  lodge,
\nadvised  P.W.3,  who  was  also  present,  to  lay  a  complaint  and later, a
\ncomplaint, Ex.  P.5, was drafted by P.W.3 and the  same  was  handed  over  to
\nP.W.16, the Sub-Inspector, on which, the crime came to be registered.  P.W.18,
\non  taking up investigation in the crime, reached the lodge and found the room
\nlocked from outside and therefore, he had to break open the lock to enter into
\nthe room.  On entering the room, he found a girl lying dead  on  the  cot  and
\nalso noticed  several  features  in the said room.  He prepared an observation
\nmahazar, Ex.P.19.  He also found a suicide note lying by the side of the  dead
\nbody and  the  same stands marked as M.O.19.  The officer also found M.O.20, a
\nletter alleged to have been written by Josie.  Thereafter, the body  was  sent
\nfor postmortem.    P.W.11  conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Shali and
\nissued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate as  well  as  Ex.P.18,  the  final
\nopinion  opining that the post-mortem findings are not inconsistent with death
\ndue to asphyxia as a result of hanging.  In the said  postmortem  certificate,
\nhe has stated that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and when examined in
\nCourt,  he  has  admitted in chief examination itself that he cannot deny that
\nthe deceased would have been made unconscious by  smothering  and  thereafter,
\nher body  would  have  been  hanged.   He has also stated that he had given an
\nopinion to the effect that Shali would have been hanged to death.  He has also
\nadmitted that the injuries, which he noticed on the dead body, could have been
\non account of some one smothering her for causing asphyxia and unconsciousness
\nand that thereafter, the body would have been hanged from  the  ceiling.    He
\nwent  on  to  admit  that  injuries  1,  2 and 4 could have been on account of
\nviolent beating of the deceased.  Though in  crossexamination  he  has  stated
\nthat  he  is  not  able  to give any definite opinion as to the cause of death
\nbecause he did not find any internal injuries, this Court, from  the  physical
\nfeatures  noticed  by  the  investigating  officer  and also from the injuries
\nnoticed by the doctor and noted in the post-mortem certificate,  Ex.P.16,  can
\nsafely  come to the conclusion that Shali died not a natural death but met her
\nend on account of homicidal violence and this conclusion of  ours  is  on  the
\nbasis of  the  materials  collected  and  placed  before the Court.  It is the
\nevidence of P.W.4, the room boy, that on 24.3.94, when he returned for duty at
\nthe lodge, he found room No.59 locked from outside.   He  noticed  foul  smell
\nemanating  from the room and therefore, informed P.W.1 and a complaint came to
\nbe laid thereafter.  P.W.18, on taking up investigation, reached the lodge and
\nfound the  room  locked  from  outside.    This  evidence  of   P.W.18   fully
\ncorroborates the evidence of P.W.4 that the door was locked from outside.  The
\nofficer had  to break open the door to gain entry.  On entering the room after
\nbreaking open the door, he found the dead body of Shali on a  cot.    He  also
\nnoticed M.O.1 9, a suicide note, and a saree, which was found hanging from the
\nceiling.   If it is a case of suicide, then it is impossible for the dead body
\nto have walked out of the room to lock it from outside and then  get  back  to
\nlie on the bed.  It is, of course, true that the suicide note, M.O.19, was not
\nsent  for hand writing expert and from this alone, the prosecution case cannot
\nbe rejected.  If the suicide note was written by the deceased, then  there  is
\nno explanation as to how the room was found locked from outside.  The evidence
\nof  P.W.4 that on 22.3.94, the room was found locked and that even on 24.3.94,
\nwhen he returned duty, the room was locked from outside  indicate  that  after
\nthe deceased  entered  the  room at about 8.30 p.m.  along with the accused on
\n22.3.94, she was not seen alive thereafter by any one and her  dead  body  was
\nseen inside  the room, which was locked from outside.  It is also not possible
\nfor this Court to hold that the deceased committed suicide by hanging  herself
\nwith the help of th e saree.  If the deceased had committed suicide by hanging
\nherself  with  the saree, then there is no explanation as to how the dead body
\ncame to be seen on the cot when the investigating officer  entered  the  room.
\nThe  saree,  which was seen hanging inside the room and the fact that the room
\nwas locked from outside coupled with the suicide note seen  at  the  place  of
\noccurrence,  therefore, indicate that the deceased Shali must have been hanged
\nafter she was made unconscious due to smothering or otherwise, the room  could
\nnot have been found locked from outside and the suicide note, M.O.19, was left
\nat  the  scene  of  occurrence only to deflect the course of investigation and
\nmake it appear, as if, it is a case of suicide.   We,  therefore,  reject  the
\ndefence theory that the deceased committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   The next question that is to be decided by us is whether
\nthe accused  is  responsible  for  the  death  of  Shali  and  for  this,  the
\nprosecution relied  upon  the  evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 and 9.  As we stated
\nearlier, P.W.1 is the receptionist and according to him, at  about  6.30  p.m.
\non  22.3.94,  the  accused  accompanied  by the deceased came to his lodge and
\nasked for a room after telling him that they are husband and wife and that the
\naccused has also told him that his wife had to attend an interview on the next
\nday and thereafter, a room was allotted to them.  It is the  further  evidence
\nof  P.W.1  that  the  accused made an entry, Ex.P.2, in the check-in register,
\nEx.P.1, by giving his name as Joshy, C.A.  at Chalayil House,  Trivandrum  and
\nthat he  made  those  entries  in his presence.  P.W.2, who was present at the
\nlodge at that time, also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 that  the  accused
\nalong with  the  deceased  entered  the lodge and asked for a room.  It is the
\nevidence of P.W.4, the room boy, that it was he, who took the accused and  the
\ndeceased to  room  No.59,  where,  after  getting them tea, he went away.  The
\ndeceased was not seen alive by any one thereafter and her dead body  was  seen
\nby the  investigating officer after the room was broken open.  The prosecution
\nbefore the trial Court, to establish that the person, who checked in with  the
\ndeceased,  is  the  accused, relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who has stated
\nthat on 27.3.94, a photograph was shown to him by  the  investigating  officer
\nand that he identified the person in the photograph as the person, who checked
\ninto the  room  with  the  deceased.    The  learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant-accused strenuously  contends  that  since  the  photograph  of  the
\naccused   was  shown  to  the  witness,  P.W.1,  on  27.3.94,  the  subsequent
\nidentification parade conducted by the Judicial  Magistrate,  P.W.10,  has  no
\nvalue  and  that  the evidence of P.W.1 also cannot be safely accepted to hold
\nthat the accused was in the company of the deceased when they entered the room
\nsince the photograph that was shown to him was a photograph of  an  individual
\nand  the witness had no chance of identifying a person from a group of persons
\nin a photograph.  It is, of course, true that to P.W.1, the officer had  shown
\na  photograph  and  the witness has identified the person in the photograph as
\nthe person, who checked into the room along with the deceased.   But  this  by
\nitself, in  our  view,  will  not affect the prosecution version.  It is to be
\nremembered that the accused went to the lodge on 22.3.94 and within five  days
\nthereafter,  a  photograph  was  shown  to  the  witness  and  from  the  said
\nphotograph, he informed the police  officer  that  the  person  found  in  the
\nphotograph  is  the person, who checked into the room along with the deceased.
\nEven if it is to be held that the subsequent  identification  parade  may  not
\nhave  much value in view of the admission of P.W.1 that a photograph was shown
\nto him earlier, the fact remains that on  the  fifth  day,  the  investigating
\nofficer  was able to fix the identity of the accused and showed the photograph
\nto the witness and the  witness  was  able  to  identify  the  person  in  the
\nphotograph  as  the person, who checked into the room along with the deceased.
\nIn this background, we have to consider the evidence of P.W.4, whose  evidence
\nclinchingly establishes  the complicity of the accused with the crime.  He has
\nstated in his evidence that it was he, who took the deceased and  the  accused
\nand  left  them  in  the  room  and  it  was  he,  who purchased tea for them.
\nAccording to him, the room was found locked for about  two  days  and  on  the
\nmorning  on 24.3.94, he noticed a foul smell emanating and therefore, informed
\nP.W.1.  According to him, on 27.3.94 during the course of  investigation,  the
\nofficer  showed him a group photograph and in the group photograph, he pointed
\nthe person, who is the accused in the case, as the one who  checked  into  the
\nroom along  with  the  deceased.    P.W.4  was not shown the photograph of the
\naccused alone, but what was shown to  him  was  M.O.26,  a  group  photograph,
\nwherein along with other persons, the accused is also found.  This photograph,
\nM.O.26,  was  seized  from  the  house of the deceased and the authenticity of
\nM.O.26 was not questioned by the defence before the trial Court.  The  defence
\nwas satisfied by making a simple suggestion to P.W.4 that M.O.26 was not shown
\nto  him  on  27.3.94  and  except for the said suggestion, the defence did not
\nelicit any answer to show that on 27.3.94, a group photograph, M.O.26, wherein
\nthe accused is also found, was not shown to P.W.4.    The  above  evidence  of
\nP.W.4,  therefore, clearly establishes that on 27.3.94, a group photograph was
\nshown to him and that he was able to identify the accused, who  was  found  in
\nthe  group,  as the person, who checked into the room along with the deceased.
\nIt is, of course, true that P.W.18, in his evidence, stated that he  had  also
\nshown  a  passport  size  photograph to P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and others on 27.3.94 and
\nthat they were questioned and from this, it  cannot  be  said  that  the  said
\nphotograph was shown for the purpose of identification.  The evidence of P.W.4
\nread  in  the  background of the evidence of P.W.18 clearly indicates that for
\nthe purpose of identification, M.O.26 was shown to P.W.4 and he identified the
\naccused from the group photograph and he was also shown the  other  photograph
\nof  the  accused  when he was questioned and therefore, it cannot be said that
\nthe identification of the accused from the photograph is doubtful.   The  fact
\nremains,  as  we stated earlier, that the officer was able to fix the identity
\nof the accused even on 27.3.94, which was confirmed not  only  by  P.W.1,  but
\nalso by P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  It is to be remembered at this stage that when P.W.7 went
\nto the  printing press, he did not find the accused.  He did not also find him
\nin his house; but on the contrary, his enquiries revealed  that  the  deceased
\nleft  along  with the accused to Bangalore and therefore, he made arrangements
\nthrough his son to detain the accused and the deceased at Bangalore.  He  also
\nwent to Bangalore accompanied by the father of the accused, but could not find
\neither  the accused or the deceased and perforce, had to return to Tirussur on
\n24.3.94.  On the evening of 24.3.94, he came to  know  that  his  daughter  is
\nlying  dead  in  a  lodge and therefore, went to Coimbatore and identified the
\nbody at the hospital.  Under the above circumstances, it is for the accused to
\nexplain as to where he was during the said relevant period.  He did not  offer
\nany  explanation; on the contrary, he had come out with a false explanation by
\nexamining D.W.1 to make it appear as if that the  deceased  Shali  went  along
\nwith Josie  to  Coimbatore,  Ooty and other places.  This defence was probably
\ntaken by the accused in view of the letter, M.O.20, which  was  found  at  the
\nscene of  occurrence.  A perusal of the letter, M.O.20, clearly indicates that
\nthe said letter could not have been written by a male; but on the contrary, it
\nmust have been written only by a girl friend of the deceased since in the said
\nletter, the said Josie has made enquiries with the deceased as to whether  she
\nis  still  wearing  churidhars  or whether she has changed her dress to saree.
\nShe has stated in the said letter that she has started wearing sarees and  she
\nis no  longer  wearing churidhar.  She has also made enquiries about the other
\ngirl friends of their group.  If the letter was written by  a  male,  then  it
\nescapes  one’s  comprehension  as to why the said Josie should wear sarees and
\nwhy he should make enquiries about the dress of the deceased.    The  recitals
\nfound  in M.O.20, therefore, clearly show that the said letter was written not
\nby a male, but by a girl friend of the deceased and the accused,  misdirecting
\nhimself on the recitals found in M.O.20, examined D.W.1 to make it appear that
\nJosie is  a male and that the deceased left in his company.  It is, of course,
\ntrue that the investigating officer has deputed a  police  constable  to  make
\nenquiries  about  Josie  and  according  to  the  officer,  a  report was also
\nsubmitted by the said constable, but the  said  report  was  not  produced  in
\nCourt.   This  Court, from the above nonproduction of the report of the police
\nconstable, cannot come to the conclusion that the deceased left in the company
\nof Josie in view of the discussions, which we have made above.  If  there  had
\nbeen  a  person  by  name Josie and the deceased has left in his company, then
\nnothing prevented the accused from marking the voters list  to  establish  his
\ntheory  that  the  deceased  left in the company of Josie and in our view, the
\nsaid defence was probably prompted in view of Ex.P.2, the entries  in  Ex.P.1,
\nthe Check-in  register  and Ex.P.20.  On the contrary, the evidence shows that
\nthe entries in Ex.P.2 and the evidence of D.W.1 that the deceased  left  along
\nwith  Josie is a false statement and the false statement is an additional link
\nin the chain of circumstances against the accused as held by the Supreme Court
\nin DEONANDAN MISHRA -vs- STATE OF BIHAR ( A.I.R.  1955 S.C.  801).  In  JOSEPH
\nVERSUS  STATE  OF KERALA [2000 SCC (Cri) 926], the Supreme Court has held that
\nthe accused, instead of making at least an attempt to explain or  clarify  the
\nincriminating circumstances inculpating him and connecting him with the crime,
\nby  his adamant attitude of total denial of everything, when they were brought
\nto his notice by the Court, only produces the missing link to connect him with
\nthe crime and the blunt and outright denial  of  every  one  and  all  of  the
\nincriminating  circumstances pointed out connect the accused with the death of
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  In this background, we have to  take  into  consideration
\nthe evidence of P.W.6, the person from whom, according to the prosecution, the
\naccused and  the  deceased purchased nighties and lungi.  P.W.6 was pointed by
\nthe accused after his arrest.  P.W.6 has, in his evidence, identified  M.O.27,
\nthe  yellow  polythene bag, and according to him, he used to give similar bags
\nto his customers.  He has also identified Ex.P.9 as  the  counterfoil  of  the
\nbill  issued  by him indicating the sale of night clothes and the Court cannot
\nloose sight of the fact that M.O.27 was seized by P.W.18, after he entered the
\nsealed room.  Though pointing out a person by the accused may not attract  the
\nprovisions  of  Section  27  of the Evidence Act, still it is admissible under
\nSection 8 of the Evidence Act as to the conduct of the accused.    In  Prakash
\nChand vs.   State (Delhi Admn.), (1979 M.L.J.(Cri) 419), the Supreme Court has
\nheld as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
” There is a clear distinction between the conduct of a person against whom an
\noffence is alleged, which is admissible under Section 8 of the  Evidence  Act,
\nif  such  conduct  is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and the
\nstatement made to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation which  is
\nhit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code.  What is excluded by Section 162,
\nCriminal  Procedure  Code,  is  the  statement made to a Police Officer in the
\ncourse of investigation and not the evidence relating to  the  conduct  of  an
\naccused person (not amounting to a statement) when confronted or questioned by
\na Police  Officer  during  the  course  of an investigation.  For example, the
\nevidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that an accused person led a Police
\nOfficer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might
\nhave been used in the commission of the offence were found  hidden,  would  be
\nadmissible  as  conduct,  under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of
\nwhether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or  antecedent  to
\nsuch  conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act (vide
\nHimachal Pradesh Administration v.  Om Prakash<\/a> [(1972) 1 S.C.J.691]).”\n<\/p>\n
P.W.6 has also identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade.    It
\nis,  of  course,  true that the photograph was shown to him also on an earlier
\noccasion during the course of investigation.  But, this, in our view, does not
\naffect the substratum of the prosecution version that the deceased was in  the
\ncompany  of the accused and was seen by P.W.6, who sold, certain clothes under
\nthe bill, Ex.P.9, on 22.3.94.  Similarly, P.W.9 was examined  to  say  that  a
\nrope  was  purchased  by  the  accused  on the night of 22.3.94 and though the
\nmaterials do not show that the rope  was  used  to  cause  the  death  of  the
\ndeceased,  the  fact  remains  that  the  accused  and  the deceased were seen
\ntogether by P.W.9 on the night of 22.3.94 and under the  above  circumstances,
\nit is  for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased.  He has
\nno explanation; on the contrary, the dead body of Shali was found  inside  the
\nroom, which  was  found locked from outside.  We, at this stage, state that we
\nhave not placed much reliance upon the recovery of  M.O.41,  the  key,  which,
\naccording to the prosecution, was seized in view of the evidence of P.W.4 that
\nthe  keys  maintained at the lodge will have an emblem of the lodge and also a
\ntoken and M.O.41 does not contain any of these.  In any event, the place  from
\nwhere  M.O.41 was recovered is a place frequented by everyone as it was on the
\nway to the second floor of the lodge and near the motor pump switch room.  But
\nthat by itself will not be a reason for us to hold that the  accused  did  not
\ncommit  the  offence  as  alleged  by  the  prosecution  in  view of the other
\noverwhelming evidence, which we discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  On the materials, we find that the  learned  trial  Judge
\nwas  justified  in convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused and we find
\nno reason to interfere with the same.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes<\/p>\n
sra<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
3.-do- Thro’ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
5.The District Collector, Coimbatore District.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Director of General of Police, Madras-4.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Criminal Appeal No.855 of 1997 N.J.Suraj .. Appellant -vs- State rep. by Inpsector of Police,Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore. .. Respondent Appeal […]<\/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-179572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - 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\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-15T13:15:33+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=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T13:15:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":7146,\"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\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\",\"name\":\"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T13:15:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - 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\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-15T13:15:33+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":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T13:15:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002"},"wordCount":7146,"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\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002","name":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T13:15:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-j-suraj-vs-state-rep-by-inpsector-on-28-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/179572","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=179572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}