{"id":179781,"date":"2002-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002"},"modified":"2017-02-08T18:48:39","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T13:18:39","slug":"john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 19\/08\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SHANMUGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 of 1995\n\nJohn Kannedy                                   .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by,\nInspector of Police\nTanjore Town (East)\nPolice Station                                  .. Respondent\n\n        This Criminal Appeal is preferred under S.374 of The Code of  Criminal\nProcedure  against  the  conviction  and  sentence imposed by the District and\nSessions Judge, Tanjore, in S.C.No.41 of 1992.\n\nFor Appellant :  Mr.K.Magesh\n                for Mr.V.Sairam\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.S.Jayakumar\n                Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
M.  CHOCKALINGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        This Criminal appeal has arisen  from  the  Judgment  of  the  learned
\nSessions  Judge,  Tanjore  made in S.C.No.41 of 1992 wherein the appellant was
\nfound guilty under S.302 of Indian Penal Code and  was  sentenced  to  undergo
\nlife imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  appelant\/accused stood charged for an offence under S.302 of
\nI.P.C.  alleging that on 29.12.1991  at  12  noon,  he  caused  the  death  of
\nIrudhayasamy  by  attacking him with an aruval on his head and different parts
\nof the body and also stood charged for an offence under S.32 4 of I.P.C.   for
\nbiting  one Mohammed Harrif, who caught hold of him when the appellant\/accused
\nwas above to escape.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The case of the prosecution for the disposal of  this  appeal  can
\nshortly be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        P.W.1  Patritia  was residing with her parents at Jabamalai Matha Koil
\nStreet, Tanjore.  Her senior paternal uncle,  the  deceased  Irudhayasamy  was
\nalso residing in the same street.  The appellant\/accused, the youngest brother
\nof  the said Irudhayasamy was a liquor addict and was leading an immoral life.
\nThe  said  Irudhayasamy  used  to  condemn  the  accused  for  his   nefarious
\nactivities.  Enraged  over  the  this, the aappellant\/accused got annoyed.  In
\nview of the same, the relationship between the deceased and the appellant  got
\nstrained.   A  few days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant came to
\nthe house of the deceased, quarreled with him and left the  house  by  stating
\nthat “who are  you  to condemn me.  I will see to it”.  On 29.12.1991 morning,
\nJayamary, the wife of the deceased has gone outside.  At about  12  noon,  the
\ndeceased was  attending  his  work in his house.  The appellant\/ accused armed
\nwith an aruval came to the house of the  deceased  and  shouted  “Irudhayasamy
\ncome out”.    Uttering  these  words,  he  trespassed  into  the  house of the
\ndeceased.  Seeing this, P.W.1 Patritia and P.W.2 Chandrasekaran,  the  son  of
\nthe deceased  raised  alarm  and followed the appellant.  The appellant pushed
\nthe deceased down, sat over his chest, cut him indiscriminately  on  his  neck
\nand head  and  caused  his  death  instantaneously.    The  inhabitants of the
\nneighbouring house, on hearing the alarm, rushed to the place  of  occurrence.
\nThe   appellant,  who  was  armed  with  aruval,  threatened  them  with  dire
\nconsequences.  At the request of  P.W.5  Sundaram,  one  Harrif  and  Selvaraj
\ncaught the  appellant red-handed.  When they secured aruval, the appellant had
\nbitten Mohammed Harrif in his hand.  Immediately, P.W.5 phoned over to Tanjore
\nEast Police Station.  P.W.9 Almas Ali, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on
\nduty by 12.30 P.M., received the telephonic message and proceeded to the place
\nof occurrence.  P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of  P.W.1
\nPatritia, which  was  marked  as  Ex.P1.    The  Sub  Inspector  arrested  the
\nappellant\/accused  in  the  presence  of  Mohammed  Harrif  and  Selvaraj  and
\nrecovered M.O.1 Aruval from him under Ex.P6 Mahazar.  P.W.9 took the appellant
\nto the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.1053\/91 under S.302 of
\nI.P.C.  The  express  F.I.R.   marked as Ex.P7 was despatched to the concerned
\nJudicial Magistrate’s Court immediately.  P.W.10 Adheenam, who  was  the  then
\nInspector of  Police,  Tanjore  East, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.  by
\n2.50 P.M., took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence,
\nand on inspection, he prepared Ex.P2  Observation  Mahazar  and  Ex.P10  rough
\nsketch.  At  about  3.30  P.M.    the  Investigation  Officer  recovered M.O.4
\nbloodstained wooden stick, M.O.5 a pair of bloodstained chappels, M.O.6  blood
\nstained  sleeved  banian, M.O.7 bloodstained earth and M.O.8 sample soil under
\nEx.P3 Mahazar.  The Investigation Officer conducted the inquest on the body of
\nthe deceased between 3.45 P.M.   and  5.30  P.M.    in  the  presence  of  the
\nwitnesses and prepared  Ex.    P11  inquest report.  He enquired the witnesses
\npresent and recorded their statements.  P.W.10 sent the body of  the  deceased
\nalong  with  the  requisition  for  autopsy  through  P.W.8  Police  Constable
\nChandrasekaran.  On receipt  of  the  said  requisition,  P.W.7  Dr.R.Premila,
\nattached  to  the  Government  Hospital,  Tanjore, commenced and conducted the
\nautopsy on the dead body of Irudhayasamy.  The Doctor witnessed the  following
\ninjuries on the dead body.\n<\/p>\n
1.  An oblique incised wound over the left side of occipital region 7 x 24\/2cm
\nx bone deep cutting the occipital bone partially.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A horizontal incised wound over the left side of neck in its upper part 7
\nx \u00be x \u00bd cms with tailing anteriorly, measuring 4 cms.  The wound is situated 3
\ncms below the left mastoid.\n<\/p>\n
3.  An incised wound over the right side of neck at its middle 6 x 1 \u00bd x \u00bd cms
\nhorizontally placed with a tailing of 1 cm at its posterior end.\n<\/p>\n
4.  A gaping oblique incised wound over the front and right side of neck 9 x 5
\ncms cutting trachea  oesophagus  and  partially  cutting  the  6  th  cervical
\nvertebra.   It  has also found to cut sterno-mastoid muscles partially and the
\nright common carotid artery and  right  internal  jugular  vein  (major  blood
\nvessels) and vaegous nerve.\n<\/p>\n
5.  An incised wound seen over the top of right shoulder 4 x 1 \u00bd x 1 cms.\n<\/p>\n
6.   An  incised  wound  seen  over top of right shoulder 2 x \u00bd x \u00bc cms \u2013 \u00bd cm
\nabove wound No.5.\n<\/p>\n
7.  An oblique incised wound seen over the left supra clavicular region 3 x  1
\n\u00bd x \u00bc cms at the junction of inner and middle 3rd of left collar bone.\n<\/p>\n
8.   An  oblique  incised  wound  over  the upper part of right shoulder blade
\nregion 5 x \u00bd x \u00bc cms.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor has issued postmortem certificate  under  Ex.P5.    The  Postmortem
\nDoctor who was examined as P.W.7, has opined that the deceased would appear to
\nhave died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   At  about  8.30  P.M.,  P.W.10  recovered M.O.2 bloodstained full
\nsleeved shirt and M.O.3 bloodstained lungi were recovered under Ex.P4 Mahazar.
\nOn a requisition made by the Investigation Officer, the accused  was  remanded
\nto judicial  custody  on  30.12.1991.   P.W.11, Ramaiyan, who succeeded to the
\nOffice of P.W.10 as Inspector of  Police,  Tanjore  Town  East,  took  up  the
\nfurther investigation.    The  material objects recovered by the Investigation
\nOfficer during investigation were sent  for  chemical  analysis  under  Ex.P12
\nrequisition.   Ex.P13  is  the  Chemical Analyst’s Report, while Ex.P14 is the
\nSerologist’s Report.  P.W.11 Investigation Officer examined Dr.Sellaraman, who
\ngave treatment to Mr.Harrif, who sustained injuries at the time of occurrence.
\nOn completion of the investigation, P.W.1 Investigation Officer laid the final
\nreport under Ss 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  In order to prove the charges levelled against  the  accused,  the
\nprosecution  has  examined  P.Ws.1  to  11,  marked Exs.P1 to P15 and produced
\nM.Os.1 to 10.  The appellant-accused when questioned under S.313  of  Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure, has flatly denied all the statements made by the witnesses
\nas false.   No  defence  witness  was examined.  After hearing both sides, the
\nlearned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under S.302  of  I.P.C.    and
\nsentenced  him to undergo life imprisonment, while he acquitted the accused of
\nthe charge under S.324 of I.  P.C.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The learned Counsel appearing for the  appellant  interalia  would
\nsubmit  that  the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt;
\nthat both the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased; that P.W.1 was
\nnone else, but a son of another brother of the deceased; that  P.W.2  was  the
\nson  of  the  deceased  himself; that the motive attributed to the accused for
\ncommitting such a grave crime of murder was very flimsy; that that apart,  the
\nprosecution  has  not  proved  the  said  motive  also;  that  there  is vital
\ndiscrepancy between the evidence  of  P.Ws.1  and  2,  who  according  to  the
\nprosecution  are the eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence; that according to
\nthe postmortem report, eight numbers of cut injuries were found on the body of
\nthe deceased, but P.Ws.1 and 2, though they claimed to  be  the  eyewitnesses,
\nwho  were present nearby the place of occurrence, have not correctly accounted
\nfor the same; that Ex.P1 could not have  been  the  First  Information  Report
\nregarding  the crime; that it is pertinent to note that Exs.P2, P3 and P4 have
\nreached  the  Magistrate’s  Court  only  on  30.12.199  1,  and   under   such
\ncircumstances,  a  great  doubt is cast upon the prosecution version; that the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is inconsistent to each other; that the  lower  court
\nhas not taken into consideration that P.W.3, who according to the prosecution,
\nwas  one of the eyewitnesses, has turned hostile; that the lower court has not
\nbelieved the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the charge under S.324
\nof IPC against the appellant, and under such circumstances,  the  lower  court
\nshould  have  rejected  the  case of the prosecution against the accused under
\nS.302 of IPC on the same evidence, an d hence the verdict of the  trial  court
\nhas got to be set aside by allowing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Countering to the above contention, the learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor would submit that there are no  merits  in  the  appeal;  that  the
\nprosecution  has  examined  P.Ws.1  and  2  who were the eyewitnesses and have
\nnarrated the events correctly and consistently; that it is true that P.W.3 has
\nturned hostile, but P.Ws.4 and  5  have  clearly  deposed  to  the  fact  that
\nfollowing the commission of the crime, the accused was caught red-handed; that
\non  information  given  by  P.W.5,  a  case  has  been  registered;  that  the
\ninvestigation has been done  without  any  delay  whatsoever;  that  there  is
\nnothing  to suspect the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the
\narrest and recovery of the material objects; that  all  the  material  objects
\nwere  subjected to chemical analysis; that the medical evidence stands in full
\ncorroboration of the ocular evidence; that there are no merits in the  appeal,
\nand hence, the same has got to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The  charge  that was levelled against the accused, the appellant
\nbefore this court was that he murdered his  elder  brother  Irudhayasamy,  the
\ndeceased, at  12  noon  on 29.12.1991 at his residence.  In order to prove the
\nsaid charge, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 as eyewitnesses.  P.W.1
\nis the daughter of one of the brothers of both the deceased and the appellant,
\nwhile P.W.2 is the son of the deceased.  From the evidence, it would be  clear
\nthat  the  appellant  was  leading a wayward life and was a drunkard; and that
\nIrudhayasamy used to condemn his activities.  Both the witnesses have  deposed
\nthat  a  few  days prior to the occurrence, the appellant came to the house of
\nIrudhayasamy, quarrelled with him and uttered with words of threat.  According
\nto the witnesses, on 29.12.1991, when Irudhayasamy was inside the house alone,
\nthe accused armed with M.O.1 aruval, came to the residence  and  shouted  from
\noutside  “Irudhayasamy  come out” and so saying, he trespassed into the house.
\nLooking at this, the witnesses  followed  him  and  could  see  the  appellant
\npushing  Irudhayasamy  down and cut him indiscriminately on his head, neck and
\nother parts of the body.  The  presence  of  the  witnesses  at  the  time  of
\noccurrence  is  not  disputed  by  the  accused during the course of the cross
\nexamination.  It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 was closely related  to  both
\nthe appellant and the deceased.  The appellant is unable to show any reason or
\ncircumstance to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses.  Their evidence is
\nnot  shaken  by  the  cross  examination, and nothing worth mentioning is seen
\nbrought out in their evidence in  favour  of  the  appellant.    Hence,  their
\nevidence  cannot  be  rejected on the sole ground that they are related to the
\ndeceased.  It remains to be stated that the occurrence has taken place  inside
\nthe  residence of the deceased, and hence, the close relations and inhabitants
\nof the house alone could witness an occurrence, which takes place  inside  the
\nresidence.  The court is of the view that their evidence is cogent, convincing
\nand acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In the instant case, the accused arming with Aruval was caught at
\nthe place of occurrence by the neighbours.  This fact is clearly spoken to  by
\nP.Ws.4 and  5.  This is one of the strong circumstances connecting the accused
\nto the crime in question.  Just half an hour  from  the  time  of  occurrence,
\nP.W.5 has brought the incident to the notice of the police.  On receipt of the
\nsaid  information,  P.W.9,  Sub  Inspector of Police has proceeded to the spot
\nimmediately and recorded Ex.  P1 statement from P.W.1 at 1.00  P.M.    On  the
\nstrength  of  Ex.P1  complaint,  he  has registered a case against the accused
\nunder S.302 of I.P.  C.  by 2.15 P.M.  The arrested  accused  along  with  the
\nweapon  was  taken  from  the  place  of  occurrence  to  the  Police  Station
\nimmediately.  On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.10  the  Investigation
\nOfficer  took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared
\nEx.P2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P10 rough sketch, conducted  inquest  on  the
\nbody  of  the  deceased  in  the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P11
\ninquest report.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body  of  the  deceased,
\nhas  been  examined  as  P.W.7,  and  the postmortem report has been marked as
\nEx.P5.  According to P.W.7 the Doctor, Irudhayasamy would appear to have  died
\nof shock  and  haemorrhage  due  to  multiple  cut injuries.  From the medical
\nevidence, adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be disputed that the  injuries
\nfound  on  the  body  of the deceased Irudhayasamy would have been caused with
\nM.O.1 aruval.  The Doctor has opined that the injury No.4 was fatal and  would
\nbe sufficient  to  cause  the  death instantaneously.  The medical evidence as
\nadduced above, has  fully  supported  the  ocular  evidence,  adduced  by  the
\nprosecution through  P.Ws.1  and  2.  Without any hesitation, the court has to
\nnecessarily accept the ocular evidence coupled with the medical  evidence  and
\nhold  that  Irudhayasamy  died on account of the homicidal violence, which was
\nperpetrated upon the deceased by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Apart from the above, M.O.1 bloodstained aruval, the weapon  used
\nby  the  appellant\/accused for attacking the deceased along with all the other
\nmaterial objects, including the clothes of the deceased, the  clothes  of  the
\nappellant\/accused,  etc.,  were  subjected  to  chemical analysis and found to
\ncontain the human blood of ‘O’ Group, which is tallying with the  blood  group
\nof the  deceased.    All  these  materials  would  indicate  that  it  was the
\nappellant\/accused who committed the offence.  The Court is unable to  see  any
\nmerit in  the  contentions  put  forth  by  the  appellant’s  side.  Under the
\ncircumstances, the learned Sessions Judge  was  justified  in  convicting  the
\naccused under S.302  of  I.  P.C.  and in sentencing him to life imprisonment.
\nThis Court has no reason to interfere with the finding  of  the  trial  Court.
\nHence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the
\njudgment of the lower Court.  The learned Sessions Judge shall take  steps  to
\ncommit the accused to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes                             (P.S.M.J.) (M.C.J.)\nInternet:  Yes                          19-8-2002\n\nTo:\n1.  The Sessions Judge,\nTanjore District.\n2.  The Sessions Judge,\nTanjore District,\nThrough The Principal Sessions Judge,\nThanjavur.\n3.  The District Collector,\nThanjavur.\n4.  The Director General of Police,\nChennai 4.\n5.  The Superintendent,\nCentral Prison, Trichy.\n6.  The Inspector of Police,\nThanjavur Town (East).\n7.  The Judicial Magistrate,\nNo.I, Thanjavur.\n8.  The Judicial Magistrate,\nNo.I, Thanjavur,\nThrough The Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nThanjavur.\n9.  The Public Prosecutor,\nMadras.\n\nnsv\/\nP.SHANMUGAM, J.\nAND\nM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.\n\nJudgment\nin\nC.A.No.19 of 1995\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/08\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SHANMUGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 of 1995 John Kannedy .. Appellant -Vs- State by, Inspector of Police Tanjore Town (East) Police Station .. Respondent This […]<\/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-179781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJohn Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 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\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-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=\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2541,\"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\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\",\"name\":\"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 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":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 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\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002"},"wordCount":2541,"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\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002","name":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T13:18:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-kannedy-vs-state-by-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"John Kannedy vs State By on 19 August, 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\/179781","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=179781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}