{"id":179907,"date":"2008-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-25T10:15:19","modified_gmt":"2014-05-25T04:45:19","slug":"madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 4305 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MADHU, S\/O. APPU NADAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :24\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n           Crl.R.P. NO.4305     OF 2007\n            ===========================\n\n     Dated this the 24th day of November,2008\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Petitioner   is    the   second   accused    in<\/p>\n
C.C.222\/1999 on the file of   Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram.    He was<\/p>\n
convicted   for the offence under section 379 read<\/p>\n
with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced<\/p>\n
to rigorous imprisonment for three years.    Though<\/p>\n
petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
before  Sessions   Court,   Thiruvananthapuram   in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.369\/1999, the appeal was dismissed confirming<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence.   It is challenged in<\/p>\n
the revision.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   Learned counsel appearing for revision<\/p>\n
petitioner and    learned Public Prosecutor were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    The  argument  of  the   learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for revision petitioner is that revision<\/p>\n
petitioner  was  convicted  solely  based  on   the<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007             2<\/span><\/p>\n
recovery of M01 car sterio allegedly based on the<\/p>\n
information furnished by the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and identity of M01 as the stolen car sterio was<\/p>\n
not established and therefore     conviction is not<\/p>\n
sustainable.     Learned Public Prosecutor submitted<\/p>\n
that there is no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent conviction.\n<\/p>\n
    4. Prosecution case is that on the night of<\/p>\n
6.2.1995     fiat car KLU 8766 of PW1 was parked in<\/p>\n
front of his house in the Car Porch. So also taxi<\/p>\n
car KLY-1827 belonging to PW3 was also parked near<\/p>\n
the fiat car.      On the morning, PW1 found the car<\/p>\n
sterios of both the cars were stolen by opening<\/p>\n
the car.     PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information<\/p>\n
Statement on 13.2.1995 based on which Ext.P4 FIR<\/p>\n
was registered.     PW6, the Assistant Sub Inspector<\/p>\n
after preparing Ext.P4 FIR      and registering the<\/p>\n
case, proceeded to the house of PW1 and prepared<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 scene mahazar.     PW7 the Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police, Malayinkil found the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
along with the first accused proceeding in an<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007               3<\/span><\/p>\n
autorikshaw at Pavankode along with     car sterio and<\/p>\n
tools. Getting suspicious PW7 questioned them and<\/p>\n
arrested them and registered Crime 45\/1995 under<\/p>\n
section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure.       While<\/p>\n
questioning,     on the information furnished by the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner, PW7 along with the       revision<\/p>\n
petitioner     reached  his  house.    When   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner produced M01 car sterio after preparing<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 recovery mahazar PW7 was recovered it.       On<\/p>\n
the information furnished by first accused M02 car<\/p>\n
sterio was recovered under Ext.P4 recovery mahazar.<\/p>\n
As  it    was   revealed  that  the  theft  relate  to<\/p>\n
Poojappura Police Station,      FIR along with M0s 1<\/p>\n
and   2    were   transferred  to  Poojappura   Police<\/p>\n
Station.      PW8, the Sub Inspector of Poojappura<\/p>\n
Police       Station    conducted    the    subsequent<\/p>\n
investigation    and  laid   the charge.     Both  the<\/p>\n
accused pleaded not guilty.      Prosecution examined<\/p>\n
eight    witnesses  and   marked  eight  exhibits  and<\/p>\n
identified M0s 1 and 2.      When the case was posted<\/p>\n
for   argument     after  questioning   the   accused,<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007              4<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petitioner absconded.     Therefore learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate proceeded against the first accused and<\/p>\n
as per judgment dated 29.7.1999 first accused was<\/p>\n
convicted    and  sentenced  for  the  offence  under<\/p>\n
section 379 read with section 34 IPC.     The case as<\/p>\n
against     revision    petitioner  was  refiled   as<\/p>\n
C.C.222\/1999.       Learned  Magistrate,  after   the<\/p>\n
petitioner was arrested and produced, heard him and<\/p>\n
the prosecution and as per judgment dated 20.8.1999<\/p>\n
convicted revision    petitioner.  Hearing him on the<\/p>\n
question of sentence, Magistrate sentenced him.<\/p>\n
Learned      Magistrate   convicted   the    revision<\/p>\n
petitioner based on the recovery of M01       by PW7<\/p>\n
under     Ext.P5  recovery  mahazar   believing   the<\/p>\n
prosecution case that it was      on the information<\/p>\n
furnished by revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
    5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for revision      petitioner,    conviction<\/p>\n
could be sustained only if the identity of M01<\/p>\n
recovered under Ext.P5 is proved to be the stolen<\/p>\n
article belonging to PW1.    If there is discrepancy<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007              5<\/span><\/p>\n
on the identity of the car sterios stolen and<\/p>\n
recovered under Ext.P5 and the discrepancy is not<\/p>\n
explained by prosecution, revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
entitled to contend that based on the recovery he<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted.      That exactly is the case<\/p>\n
herein.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      The evidence of PW1 corroborated by the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW3 establish that on the night of<\/p>\n
6.2.1995 PW1 had parked his fiat car KLU 8766 and<\/p>\n
PW3 had parked his taxi car KLY 1827 in the Car<\/p>\n
Porch of the house of PW1.       On the morning of<\/p>\n
7.2.1995 it was found that car sterios of both the<\/p>\n
cars were stolen on the previous night.      Though<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 First Information Statement was furnished<\/p>\n
only on 13.2.1995, PW1 had given proper explanation<\/p>\n
for the delay and there is no reason to disbelieve<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1 corroborated by PW3 with regard<\/p>\n
to the theft.     From the evidence of PW1 and PW3<\/p>\n
corroborated by Ext.P1 First Information Statement<\/p>\n
and Ext.P2 scene mahazar prepared by PW6 subsequent<\/p>\n
to the registration of the case under Ext.P4 FIR,<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007              6<\/span><\/p>\n
it is proved      that the   car sterios of both the<\/p>\n
fiat car and the ambassador    car were stolen on the<\/p>\n
night of 6.2.1995.      First accused was convicted<\/p>\n
based on the recovery of M02 holding that it was on<\/p>\n
the   information furnished by him.    The conviction<\/p>\n
of the first accused is not a question to be<\/p>\n
decided in this revision.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     Though after seven days from the date of<\/p>\n
theft, when PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information<\/p>\n
Statement,    details of the car sterios stolen from<\/p>\n
his fiat car were unveiled in Ext.P1 as the in dash<\/p>\n
car sterio.     It is not mentioned in Ext.P1 that it<\/p>\n
was ROAD MASTER     indash as stated by him   at the<\/p>\n
time   of    evidence.    Ext.P2  scene  mahazar  was<\/p>\n
prepared by PW6 after Ext.P1 First Information<\/p>\n
Statement was furnished by PW1 and     Ext.P4 FIR was<\/p>\n
registered.     In Ext.P2 scene mahazar also after<\/p>\n
inspecting the fiat car PW6 unambigously stated<\/p>\n
that the car sterio stolen from the fiat      car is<\/p>\n
indash model.     There is no mention in Ext.P2 that<\/p>\n
it was     ROAD MASTER  indash.  The evidence of PW7,<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007              7<\/span><\/p>\n
based on which petitioner was convicted, shows that<\/p>\n
on  the     information  furnished  by  the  revision<\/p>\n
petitioner PW7 and     as lead by revision petitioner<\/p>\n
he reached the house of the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n
from there M01 car sterio was recovered.         When<\/p>\n
revision petitioner was questioned under section<\/p>\n
313   of     Code of   Criminal  Procedure,  revision<\/p>\n
petitioner stated that M01 car      sterio was taken<\/p>\n
from his house.      Therefore there is no reason to<\/p>\n
disbelieve the evidence of PW7 corroborated by<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 that M01 was recovered from the house of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     But the question is whether M01 which<\/p>\n
was recovered under Ext.P5 is the indash car sterio<\/p>\n
stolen from the fiat car of PW1.\n<\/p>\n
    8. Though PW1 identified M01 as the stolen car<\/p>\n
sterio Ext.P5 recovery mahazar with      evidence of<\/p>\n
PW7 and Pw1 establish that M01 is not indash model<\/p>\n
car sterio but ROAD MASTER     12 V – ground made in<\/p>\n
Japan.     Even at the time of examination of PW1 he<\/p>\n
did not give any explanation for stating in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
that the car sterio stolen from his car was indash<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007               8<\/span><\/p>\n
car sterio if      in fact what was stolen was    ROAD<\/p>\n
MASTR car sterio which was recovered under Ext.P5.<\/p>\n
Pw7 the Sub Inspector of Police     who recovered M01<\/p>\n
also did not explain that indash car sterio and<\/p>\n
roadmaster car sterio are one and the same. PW8 the<\/p>\n
subsequent Investigating Officer has     not conducted<\/p>\n
any investigation on this aspect as it was not<\/p>\n
spoken to by him.      Therefore as the evidence now<\/p>\n
stand what was stolen from the fiat car of PW1 was<\/p>\n
indash model      car sterio. But what was recovered<\/p>\n
under Ext.P5 is M01 which is a       ROAD MASTER   car<\/p>\n
sterio.      Prosecution has failed to establish that<\/p>\n
M01 car sterio is the one which was stolen from the<\/p>\n
fiat car of PW1.     Though PW1 identified M01 as the<\/p>\n
car sterio stolen from his car      in the absence of<\/p>\n
proper explanation as to how M01 was identified, no<\/p>\n
reliance could be placed on the identification made<\/p>\n
by PW1.     Apart from the make of the car sterio, PW1<\/p>\n
had not disclosed anything to identify M01 as the<\/p>\n
stolen article.     In such circumstances, petitioner<\/p>\n
is entitled to at least the benefit of doubt. As<\/p>\n
CRRP4305\/2007             9<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution     failed  to   prove  that   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner committed the offence,     conviction of<\/p>\n
the petitioner solely based on the recovery of M01<\/p>\n
is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
    Revision is allowed.    Conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.222\/1999  as confirmed by<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.369\/1999 are set<\/p>\n
aside.      Petitioner is found not guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence.     He is acquitted. Bail bond executed by<\/p>\n
him stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                        JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4305 of 2007() 1. MADHU, S\/O. APPU NADAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-25T04:45:19+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-25T04:45:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1405,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-25T04:45:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-25T04:45:19+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-25T04:45:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008"},"wordCount":1405,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008","name":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-25T04:45:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179907","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=179907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}