{"id":180510,"date":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007"},"modified":"2019-02-02T21:56:56","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T16:26:56","slug":"manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 13\/02\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.379 OF 2004\n\n1.Manoharan\n2.Malar\n3.Bagavathi\t\t\t\t..  Appellants\n\nVs.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nState rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nThiruvaiyaru Police Station,\nThanjavur District\nCrime No.25 of 2002\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the\njudgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District\nSessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.115 of 2002 dated\n29.12.2003.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.A.P.Muthupandian\t\t\t\t\t\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.A.Balaguru, APP\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)\t<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants, three in number, have brought forth this criminal appeal,
\nchallenging the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast
\nTrack Court-1, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.115 of 2002, whereby the first accused
\nstood charged and tried under Sections 449, 302 and 307 IPC, while the second
\nand third accused stood charged and tried under Sections 302 r\/w S.109 and 307
\nr\/w 114 IPC and A-1 was found guilty under Sections 449, 302 and 324 IPC and he
\nwas sentenced to undergo 5 years RI under Section 449 IPC, 3 years RI under
\nSection 324 IPC and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
\nthe second and third accused were found guilty under Section 302 r\/w S.109 IPC
\nand they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and they were acquitted of
\nthe charge under Section 307 r\/w S.114 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Paulraj. They were living in
\nOlaithevarayan Pettai. ON 19.01.2002, P.W.1 went over to the house of one
\nRenuka, wife of Muruganandam, for getting back her radio. When she asked about
\nthe radio, she was attacked by the said Renuka and Muruganandam.  In this
\nregard, P.W.1 went to Thiruvaiyaru Police station and gave a complaint. Then,
\nP.W.1 went to his sister’s house at Mayiladuthurai and she returned from there
\nto her village on 29.01.2002 and her husband was also available at that time in
\nthe house.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)At about 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, namely on 29.01.2002, A-1
\nto A-3 came over there and criminally trespassed into the house and dragged
\nPaulraj outside of the house. A-1 stabbed the said Paulraj with knife on his
\nchest and the offence was abetted by A-2 and A-3. On hearing the distressing
\ncry, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)P.W.1 went to Thiruvaiyaru Police Station and gave the complaint,
\nEx.P.1, in this regard.  On the strength of Ex.P.1, P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, registered a case at about 10.00 p.m. in Crime No.25 of 2002 under
\nSections 450, 341, 109, 307 and 302 IPC. Express FIR, Ex.P.15, along with Ex.P.1
\ncomplaint was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\td)P.W.21, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation on receipt of
\nthe copy of the FIR. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and made an
\ninspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the observation
\nmahazar and Ex.P.19, the rough sketch. Following the same, he conducted inquest
\non the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and
\npanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.20, the inquest report. The dead body of the
\ndeceased was sent to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for the purpose of
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\te)P.W.20, the Doctor attached to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, has
\nconducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the injuries.  She
\nhas issued Ex.P.18, the post-mortem certificate, wherein she has opined that the
\ndeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested A-1 on
\n1.2.2002. A-1 made a confessional statement in the presence of the witnesses and
\nthe admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.7.  Pursuant to the confessional
\nstatement, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered in the presence of the
\nwitnesses under a cover of mahazar. A-2 and A-3 were also arrested. All the
\naccused were sent for judicial remand. In respect of the injuries sustained by
\nA-1, he was medically examined by P.W.19, the Doctor and he has issued Ex.P.17,
\nAccident Register.  All the M.Os recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead body of the deceased and also the M.Os recovered from the accused, were
\nall subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department, on requisition
\nmade by the Investigation Officer through the concerned court. Ex.P.11 and
\nEx.P.12, the Chemical Analyst’s reports and Ex.P.13, the Serologist’s report
\nwere received.  On completion of the investigation, final report was filed by
\nthe Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
\n21 witnesses and relied on 20 exhibits and 8 M.Os. On completion of the evidence
\non the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313
\nCr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of
\nprosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was
\nexamined. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial court
\nfound A-1 guilty under Sections 449, 302 and 324 IPC, while A-2 and A-3 were
\nfound guilty under Section 302 r\/w S.109 IPC and A-2 and A-3 were acquitted of
\nthe charge under Section 307 r\/w S.114 IPC and all the accused were sentenced to
\nundergo imprisonment as referred to above. Hence, this criminal appeal has been
\nbrought forth.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3; that insofar as P.W.2 was concerned, he has turned
\nhostile and hence, his evidence was not available for the prosecution; that
\ninsofar as P.W.3 was concerned, her husband was examined as P.W.6; that
\naccording to him, at the time of occurrence, his wife was serving him food and
\nhence, P.W.3 could not have seen the occurrence at all and hence, the evidence
\nof P.W.3 was to be eschewed; and that insofar as P.W.1 was concerned, from the
\nevidence of P.W.2 at the time of cross examination, though he turned hostile, it
\nwould be quite clear that she went to her sister’s house at Mayiladuthurai and
\nreturned subsequently and hence, she could not have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, there is no
\nevidence insofar as A-2 and A-3 were concerned; that both of them, even as per
\nthe case of prosecution, did not make entry or trespass into the house of the
\ndeceased and hence, it was A-1, who dragged the deceased outside and thus, A-2
\nand A-3 were falsely implicated in the case; that insofar as A-1 was concerned,
\nthe medical evidence was not in support of the prosecution; that the
\neyewitnesses did not properly account for the injuries sustained by the
\ndeceased; that according to them, the first accused stabbed the deceased only
\nonce, but as per the post-mortem Doctor, she has noted six injuries on the dead
\nbody and thus, they did not tally and hence, it could be well stated that the
\neyewitnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all and their evidence has
\ngot to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Added further the learned counsel that the evidence as to the alleged
\nconfessional statement of A-1 and the recovery of M.O.1 knife were all
\nintroduced in order to strengthen the case of prosecution, if possible, but in
\nvain and that the evidence in that regard is worthless and should not be
\nbelieved by the Court and hence, the prosecution did not prove the case beyond
\nreasonable doubt, but the lower court has, erroneously, taken a view that the
\nprosecution has proved the case and hence, it has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The case of the prosecution was that one Paulraj, the husband of P.W.1,
\nwas done to death at about 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence in front of his
\nhouse. It is not the fact in controversy that Paulraj died out of homicidal
\nviolence. The said fact was never questioned by the accused at any point of
\ntime.  In order to substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has examined
\nP.W.20, the post-mortem Doctor and she has issued Ex.P.18, the post-mortem
\ncertificate to that effect. Hence, it could be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In order to prove the act of the accused, the prosecution examined
\nthree eyewitnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.2 has turned hostile and thus, his
\nevidence was not available for the prosecution, as rightly contended by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants. Insofar as P.W.3 is concerned, the evidence
\nof her husband, P.W.6 would clearly indicate that P.W.3 could not have been
\npresent at the time of occurrence and thus, P.W.3’s evidence was also not
\navailable for the prosecution.  But, the prosecution, to its benefit, had the
\nevidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 has narrated the entire case.  It is needless to say,
\nin a case like this, the Court has to look into the evidence available and apart
\nfrom that, if the evidence available before the court has inspired the
\nconfidence of the Court, the court can rest the conviction. In the instant case,
\nP.W.1 went over to the house of Renuka for getting back the radio and she was
\nattacked and that she preferred a complaint. That was the main reason for A-1 to
\ngo to the house of the deceased and attacked him.  P.W.1 has clearly narrated
\nthe entire incident and thus, the Court is of the considered opinion that her
\nevidence would be suffice for the prosecution pointing to the guilt of A-1. In
\nthe instant case, the prosecution had to its benefit the medical opinion, which
\nhas corroborated the prosecution case. Apart from that, the evidence as to the
\nrecovery of M.O.1, knife pursuant to the confessional statement given by A-1,
\nremains acceptable. Hence, the prosecution was able to prove the act of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.At the time of occurrence, according to the witnesses, it was A-1, who
\nentered into the house and dragged the deceased outside and stabbed him and
\ncaused his death.  This was spoken to by P.W.1 and it was also corroborated by
\nthe other evidence, as referred to above. Apart from that, it is to be pointed
\nout that A-1 went to the house of the deceased at about 8.30 p.m. and entered
\ninto the house and dragged him outside when he was unarmed and stabbed him to
\ndeath and hence, it has got to be inferred that A-1 has got an intention to
\ncause his death and thus, the act of A-1 would attract the penal provisions of
\nmurder.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Insofar as A-3 was concerned, it is brought to the notice of the Court
\nthat pending appeal, she died and hence, the appeal becomes abated. Insofar as
\nA-2 was concerned, the Court has to record an order of acquittal. In the instant
\ncase, there is nothing to infer that A-2 and A-3 abetted the offence.  It is
\ntrue, A-2 and A-3 proceeded with A-1 to question the conduct of P.W.1 in giving
\npolice report against Renuka, but at the same time, it cannot be inferred that
\nthey had knowledge of any intention of A-1 to stab or kill the deceased or the
\ncriminal act in the house of P.Ws. Apart from that, in the instant case, there
\nis no evidence to show that A-2 and A-3 made any entry into the house of P.W.1.
\nEven as per the evidence, it was A-1, who made criminal trespass into the house
\nand dragged the deceased Paulraj outside and stabbed him.  Under these
\ncircumstances, insofar as A-2 and A-3 were concerned, this court is unable to
\nfind sufficiency of evidence to hold that they are also guilty of the offence,
\nas stated above.  Hence, A-2 and A-3 are entitled for outright acquittal.
\nInsofar as A-1 was concerned, his act as to the criminal trespass and committing
\nmurder has been proved. Insofar as the evidence as to the attack on P.W.2 was
\nconcerned, though P.W.2 has turned hostile, in the chief examination, he has
\ncategorically stated that after the attack made on him by  A-1, he became
\nunconscious and fell down. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1
\nhave got to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 are sustained.
\nInsofar as A-2 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed on her are set
\naside and A-2 is acquitted of the charges levelled against her. The bail bond,
\nif any executed by A-2, shall stand terminated. The criminal appeal becomes
\nabated in respect of A-3.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the result, the appeal is dismissed in respect of A-1 and the appeal
\nis allowed in respect of A-2.  The criminal appeal becomes abated in respect of
\nA-3.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District Sessions Judge,
\n  Fast Track Court No.1,
\n  Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Thiruvaiyaru Police Station,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13\/02\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.379 OF 2004 1.Manoharan 2.Malar 3.Bagavathi .. Appellants Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur […]<\/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-180510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - 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\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-02T16:26:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T16:26:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2163,\"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\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T16:26:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - 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\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-02T16:26:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T16:26:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007"},"wordCount":2163,"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\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007","name":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T16:26:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-state-rep-by-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoharan vs State Rep. By on 13 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/180510","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=180510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}