{"id":183781,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-06T06:35:59","modified_gmt":"2014-04-06T01:05:59","slug":"s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.210 of 2008\nand Criminal Appeal (MD)Nos. 224, 313 , 398 of 2008\n\n\n\nS.Velmurugan\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\/A1\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Crl.A.210\/2008\n\nRobin @ Robinson\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\/A3\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Crl.A.224\/2008\n\nDhamodharan\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\/A2\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Crl.A.313\/2008\n\nEssakkimuthu\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\/A4\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Crl.A.398\/2008\n\nVs\n\nState rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nVilathikulam Police Station,\nTuticorin District.\t\t\t        ..\tRespondent in all<\/pre>\n
(Cr.No.115 of 1997)\t\t\t\t        the appeals<\/p>\n
Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.  against the judgment dated
\n10.04.2008 made in S.C. No.170 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions
\nCourt-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant in\t        ... Mr.C.Mayil Vahana\nCrl.A.No.210\/2008   Rajendran\n\nFor Appellant in\t... Mr.P.Andiraj\nCrl.A.No.224\/2008\n\nFor Appellant in \t... Mr.V.Gopinath,\nCrl.A.No.313\/2008\t    Senior Counsel for\n\t\t\t    Mr.P.Andiraj\n\t\nFor Appellant in\t... Mr.A.W.D.Tilak\nCrl.A.No.398\/2008\n\n^For Respondent  \t... Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan,\n\t\t\t    Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n(Judgment of the Court was delivered by\nP.MURGESEN, J.)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and
\nsentences imposed on the accused by judgment dated 10.04.2008 made in S.C.
\nNo.170 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court
\nNo.1, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 and the respondent is the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The case of the prosecution is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1-Neethirajan is the resident of Pallakulam, Vilathikulam. P.Ws.1, 4,
\n5 and 7 are the children of the deceased Udayar. P.W.8-Parvathi is the first
\nwife of the deceased Udayar. P.W.9-Mariammal is the wife of the deceased
\nKattamariappan. P.W.10-Chinnathai is the wife of the deceased Mariappan. The
\nfirst accused-Velmurugan belongs to the community of P.W.1. The deceased Udayar
\nis the leader of the community. The first accused used to do rowdism and he was
\npulled up by P.W.1’s father. In the year 1996, a complaint was lodged against
\nthe first accused regarding damage of a political party office. In that way the
\nfirst accused was not happy with P.W.1’s father. P.W.1’s brother and one
\nMayilraja who was supported by the first accused contested in the Panchayat
\nBoard election and P.W.1’s brother won in that election and so the first accused
\ndeveloped enmity towards the father of P.W.1. Further there was an enmity
\nbetween Nedungulam Village and Pallakulam Village and the same was ended in a
\ncompromise. On 19.04.1997, a political meeting was held in Vilathikulam and
\nP.W.1’s father headed that meeting. On 20.04.1997, there was a bullock-cart
\nrace. After finishing the function, at 11.00 a.m. on that day, the deceased
\nUdayar, Kattamariappan, Deivendran, Muniasamy @ Sathiyaraj, Selvaraj, Mariappan,
\nAyyanar and Sakthivel were travelling to their village in an Ambassador Car
\nbearing Registration No.PY-01-B-6166 belonging to P.W.11-Poongani, the sister of
\nP.W.4. When they were reaching near Keelvilathikulam Andi Reddiar Bridge at
\nabout 11.30 a.m., the first accused-Velmurugan along with other accused came
\nfrom under the bridge and he directed all the accused to throw bombs on the car.
\nAll the 12 accused threw bombs on the car and as a result, P.W.1 who was driving
\nthe car, lost his balance and drove the car into the garden of one Subbiah
\nReddiar. Thereafter, the accused Essakkimuthu and Essakkithurai threw bombs into
\nthe car due to which the face of Mariappan was crushed. Then both the accused
\nEssakkimuthu and Essakkithurai cut the deceased Mariappan with aruval.  P.W.1’s
\nfather came out of the car and ran from the place of occurrence, but he was
\nchased by the first and second accused and was attacked with an aruval. The said
\nKattamariappan was also chased and attacked by the accused Peer Mohamed and
\nRobin when he was running.  The other persons in the car ran away in fear.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Vilathikulam and
\nthey were treated by P.W.21-Dr.Rajmohan. On 20.04.1997, at about 1.50 p.m.,
\nP.W.1 was treated by P.W.21. P.W.21 examined P.W.1 and found the following
\ninjuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) A deep crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left forehead.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left ear on the back side
\nof the head.\n<\/p>\n
3) On the left side of the chest and left side of the face – 10 Nos. abrasion
\ninjury.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions from the upper part of left thigh on the front side up to the leg.
\nEx.P17 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Doctor examined P.W.3-Selvaraj and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Abrasions in the whole right hand with presence of ceramic particles and a
\ncrush injury of size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm  on the right front hand on the outside area.\n<\/p>\n
3) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm adjacent to 2 cms from the second wound and
\nit looked like a fracture.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions from the upper part of right thigh up to the leg with presence of
\nglass particles.  The injury was of the size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
5) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right chest.\n<\/p>\n
6) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm near the middle finger of the left hand.\n<\/p>\n
7) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left hand.\n<\/p>\n
8) An abrasion on the forehead of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm with presence of glass
\nparticles.\n<\/p>\n
9) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right hand.\n<\/p>\n
10) An abrasion on the second finger of the right hand of size 1 x 1 cm.
\nEx.P18 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The Doctor examined P.W.4-Muniasamy @ Sathiyaraj and found the
\nfollowing injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 2 abrasions of size 10 x 1 cm extending from left front hand till outside
\narea and similarly 4 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm nearer to it.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 3 x 1 cm on the left front hand 10 cms from the wrist
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
3) An abrasion of size 4 x 1 cm on the outside portion of the left wrist.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions over the left area of the stomach.\n<\/p>\n
5) A cut injury of size 3 x 1 cm skin deep on the outside portion of upper left
\nthigh.\n<\/p>\n
6) Abrasions over left middle thigh on the outside portion of size 10 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
7) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the upper portion of right thigh on the
\noutside area.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P19 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. At 3.20 p.m. on that day, the Doctor examined P.W.5-Deivendran and
\nfound the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Many abrasions found of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm from the upper portion of left hand
\ntill outside portion of the knee.\n<\/p>\n
2) 10 Nos. abrasions over the left front hand till outside portion of size 1\/2 x
\n1\/2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
3) A contusion of size 2 x 2 cm above the fourth finger and an abrasion of size
\n1\/2 x 1\/2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
4) An abrasion on the left back side of the head of size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
5) An abrasion of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm on the extreme left upper portion of the
\nhead.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P20 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. At 3.40 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.6-Ayyanar and found the following
\ninjuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 20 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the entire back portion till hip bone
\nwith blood.\n<\/p>\n
2) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left cheek.\n<\/p>\n
3) Presence of a sound in the ear.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P21 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.6.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. At 3.50 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.2-Sakthivel and found the
\nfollowing injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1\/2 cm x skin deep on the outside area of the
\nleft front hand.\n<\/p>\n
2) An abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm on the outside portion of right thigh.
\nEx.P22 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. P.W.27-Rajamani was the Sub-Inspector of Police Incharge of the
\nVilathikulam Police Station. On 20.04.1997, on receipt of a message from the
\nGovernment Hospital, Vilathikulam, he went to the hospital and recorded the
\nstatement of P.W.1.  At 2.30 p.m. on the same day, he registered the complaint
\nunder Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 307 and 302 IPC in Crime No.115 of 1997.
\nThereafter he prepared Ex.P34-printed First Information Report and despatched
\nthe complaint and the FIR through one Chelliah, First Grade Constable-1119.
\nEx.P35 is the passport issued to the said Chelliah for handing over the
\ncomplaint and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate’s Court. The preliminary
\ninvestigation was done by one Rakkan, who was the Inspector-Incharge of the
\nVilathikulam Police Station. On 20.04.1997 the said Rakkan took up the case for
\ninvestigation. He visited the scene of occurrence at 2.45 p.m. and prepared
\nEx.P2-Observation Mahazar in the presence of Village Administrative Officer. He
\nalso prepared Ex.P39-Rough Sketch. Thereafter he conducted inquest over the body
\nof the deceased Udayar from 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Ex.P40 is the Inquest Report
\npertaining to the deceased Udayar. From 4.00 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., he conducted
\ninquest over the body of the deceased Kattamariappan in the presence of
\nPanchayatars and prepared Ex.P41-Inquest Report of Kattamariappan. From 4.45
\np.m. to 5.45 p.m., he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Mariappan
\nin the presence of Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P42-Inquest Report. Then he sent
\nthe three bodies for conducting post mortem. At 5.00 p.m., he recovered M.O.2-
\nblood-stained earth and M.O.3-ordinary earth from the place where the body of
\nthe deceased Udayar was lying, under Ex.P3-Athatchi. At 05.45 p.m., he recovered
\nM.O.4-blood-stained earth and M.O.5-ordinary earth from the place where the body
\nof the deceased Kattamariappan was lying, under Ex.P4-Athatchi. At 6.00 p.m., he
\nrecovered M.O.6-blood-stained car seat cover and M.O.7-ordinary car seat cover
\nunder Ex.P5-Athatchi. At 06.15 p.m., he recovered the unexploded country bombs
\nunder Ex.P7-Athatchi. At 6.45 p.m., he recovered the cloth pieces and nails
\nexploded from the bombs, under Ex.P6-Athatchi, in the presence of witnesses.
\nM.O.8 series are the pieces of materials exploded from the bombs. M.O.9 series
\nare the nails exploded from the bombs. On 21.04.1997, the Inspector Rakkan,
\nrecorded the statements of witnesses.  He also examined the photographer
\nMurugesan Pillai and received the photographs taken in the place of occurrence.
\nM.O.22 series are the photographs taken by the photographer on the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Thereafter the body of the deceased Udayar was handed over to the
\nVilathikulam Government hospital by P.W.18-Natarajan. Ex.P12 is the passport
\nissued to P.W.18 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, to
\nhandover the body to the relatives. The body of the deceased Kattamariappan was
\nhanded over to the hospital by P.W.19-Alagappan.  Ex.P14 is the passport issued
\nto P.W.19 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, to
\nhandover the body to the relatives. The body of the deceased Mariappan was
\nhanded over the hospital by P.W.20-Ravindran. Ex.P16 is the passport issued to
\nP.W.20 to handover the body to the hospital and after post mortem, to handover
\nthe body to the relatives. Post mortem of the bodies of Udayar and Mariappan
\nwere carried out by P.W.21-Dr.Rajmohan and post mortem of the body of
\nKattamariappan was carried out by P.W.22-Dr.Rosalin Thayammal. Ex.P24, Ex.P25
\nand Ex.P26 are the post-mortem certificates of the deceased Udayar, Mariappan
\nand Kattamariappan, respectively. In all the post mortem reports, the Doctor
\nopined that all the deceased died due to loss of blood on account of the
\ninjuries sustained and also due to the shock. After the post mortem of the
\ndeceased Udayar, M.Os.11 to 14 were recovered from the body by P.W.18.  After
\nthe post mortem of the deceased Kattamariappan, M.Os.15 to 17 were recovered
\nfrom the body by P.W.19. After the post mortem of the deceased Mariappan,
\nM.Os.18 to 21 were recovered from the body by P.W.20.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.29-Muthaiah, Inspector of
\nPolice on 26.04.1997. On 28.04.1997 at about 5.00 p.m., he arrested the accused
\nMuniasamy in the presence of witnesses Muthusamy and Athiappan. The accused
\nMuniasamy gave confession statement in the presence of P.W.14. Thereafter he
\nsent the accused Muniasamy to judicial custody. On 30.04.1997 he received an
\ninformation that the first accused-Velmurugan surrendered before the Judicial
\nMagistrate Court, Srivaikundam. On 05.05.1997 at 8.00 a.m., he arrested the
\naccused Pandi @ Vijayapandi in the Venkatachapuram Bus Stop at Kulathoor and he
\nwas sent to judicial custody. On 06.05.1997, P.W.29 went on medical leave. The
\nfirst accused gave confession statement in the presence of P.W.16. Ex.P9 is the
\nadmissible portion of the confession statement of the first accused-Velmurugan.
\nOn the basis of the confession statement, M.O.23-Vettaruval was recovered. On
\n08.05.1997, the accused Essakkimuthu surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate
\nCourt, Tirunelveli. A requisition was given by the Inspector to send the
\nmaterial objects for chemical examination under Ex.P29. P.W.25-Perumal was the
\nHead Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam at that time. He
\nreceived the request Ex.P29 to send the material objects for chemical
\nexamination from the Inspector. Ex.P27 is the letter from the Court to send the
\nmaterial objects for chemical examination. Ex.P32 and P33 are the Chemical
\nExamination Report and Serological Report, respectively. P.W.23-Karpagam
\nexamined the explosives and prepared Ex.P28-Chemical Examination Report. P.W.25-
\nPerumal examined the bombs on receipt of Ex.P29.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. On 08.06.1997, at 6.00 p.m., the accused Dhamodharan was arrested. He
\ngave confession statement. Ex.P45 is the admissible portion of the confession
\nstatement of the accused Dhamodharan. On the basis of that confession statement,
\na vettaruval measuring 59 cms was recovered under Ex.P44-Athatchi.  On
\n29.06.1997 the Inspector Jayabalan took up the case for further investigation
\nand now he retired and he was not able to walk.  Therefore, P.W.29 spoke on
\nbehalf of the Inspector Jayabalan. On 11.08.1997, the Inspector Jayabalan sent
\nthe file pertaining to this case to the District Collector for sanction. He also
\narrested the accused Peer Mohamed who was the accused in some other case. On
\n07.09.1997, he sent the accused Sudalai to judicial custody. On 11.09.1997, the
\naccused Varadarajan was arrested at 9.00 a.m. and he was sent to judicial
\ncustody. Then a requisition was given by the Inspector for conducting
\nidentification parade of the accused under Ex.P36. Ex.P37 is the letter from the
\nCourt for conducting identification parade. Thereafter, the identification
\nparade was conducted by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti. Ex.P38 is the
\nIdentification Parade Report. Thereafter P.W.29 completed the investigation and
\nfiled charge sheet against the accused, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326,
\n307, 302 r\/w 149 and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act on 26.09.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Before the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 29 and D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and
\nExs.P1 to P46 and D1 to D9 and M.Os.1 to 23 were marked.  On consideration of
\nthe evidence adduced on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 4
\nunder Section 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year;
\nconvicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 427 IPC and sentenced each of them to
\nundergo R.I. for one year; convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 324 IPC (6
\ncounts) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year for each count;
\nconvicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to
\nundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- each in default to
\nundergo 6 months R.I. each; convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 302 r\/w
\n149 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment for
\neach count and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- each in default to undergo 6 months
\nR.I. each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Challenging the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court,
\nthe present appeals have been filed by the appellants \/ accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. During the pendency of the trial, the accused Peer Mohamed,
\nEssakkidurai and Ponraj died. The accused 1 to 9 were tried and the Trial Court
\nacquitted the accused 5 to 9. The present appeals are filed by the accused 1 to\n<\/p>\n
4. The first accused-Velmurugan filed Crl.A.No.210 of 2008. The second-accused
\nDhamodharan filed Crl.A. No.313 of 2008. The third accused-Robin @ Robinson
\nfiled Crl.A.No.224 of 2008.  The fourth accused-Essakkimuthu filed Crl.A.No.
\n398\/2008.  Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are
\ntaken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Learned counsel for the appellant \/ first accused in Crl.A.No.210 of
\n2008 submitted that he is not pressing the appeal. He has also made an
\nendorsement to that effect. Therefore Crl.A.No.210 of 2008 is dismissed as not
\npressed.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Now we have to deal with the appeals pertaining to A2, A3 and A4.
\nP.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 7 are the children of the deceased Udayar. The first accused-
\nVelmurugan belongs to the community of P.W.1. The deceased Udayar is the leader
\nof the community. Though the first accused and the deceased Udayar belonged to
\nthe same community, the relationship between them was not cordial. The first
\naccused used to do rowdism and he was pulled up by P.W.1’s father. In the year
\n1996, a complaint was lodged against the first accused regarding damage of a
\npolitical party office. In that way the first accused was not happy with P.W.1’s
\nfather. The accused developed enmity towards the father of P.W.1. Further,
\nP.W.1’s brother and one Mayilraja who was supported by the first accused
\ncontested in the Panchayat Board election and P.W.1’s brother won in that
\nelection and so the first accused developed enmity towards the father of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The motive for the murder was spoken by P.Ws.1 to 5. At this juncture,
\nthe learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused argued that A1 only
\nhad enmity towards P.W.1’s father. The other accused cannot have any grudge over
\nP.W.1’s father. The enmity was spoken by P.Ws.7 and 8 also, apart from P.Ws.1 to
\n5 and the presence of the accused have also been spoken by P.Ws.1 to 6. P.Ws.1
\nto 6 were injured in the occurrence and they were treated by P.W.21-Dr.Rajmohan.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. On 20.04.1997, at about 1.50 p.m., P.W.1 was treated by P.W.21. P.W.21
\nexamined P.W.1 and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) A deep crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left forehead.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 1 x 1 cm skin depth on the left ear on the back side
\nof the head.\n<\/p>\n
3) On the left side of the chest and left side of the face – 10 Nos. abrasion
\ninjury.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions from the upper part of left thigh on the front side up to the leg.
\nEx.P17 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The Doctor examined P.W.3-Selvaraj and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Abrasions in the whole right hand with presence of ceramic particles and a
\ncrush injury of size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm  on the right front hand on the outside area.\n<\/p>\n
3) A crush injury of size 3x1x1 cm adjacent to 2 cms from the second wound and
\nit looked like a fracture.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions from the upper part of right thigh up to the leg with presence of
\nglass particles.  The injury was of the size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
5) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right chest.\n<\/p>\n
6) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm near the middle finger of the left hand.\n<\/p>\n
7) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left hand.\n<\/p>\n
8) An abrasion on the forehead of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm with presence of glass
\nparticles.\n<\/p>\n
9) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm over the right hand.\n<\/p>\n
10) An abrasion on the second finger of the right hand of size 1 x 1 cm.
\nEx.P18 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The Doctor examined P.W.4-Sathiyaraj and found the following
\ninjuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 2 abrasions of size 10 x 1 cm extending from left front hand till outside
\narea and similarly 4 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm nearer to it.\n<\/p>\n
2) A crush injury of size 3 x 1 cm on the left front hand 10 cms from the wrist
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
3) An abrasion of size 4 x 1 cm on the outside portion of the left wrist.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasions over the left area of the stomach.\n<\/p>\n
5) A cut injury of size 3 x 1 cm skin deep on the outside portion of upper left
\nthigh.\n<\/p>\n
6) Abrasions over left middle thigh on the outside portion of size 10 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
7) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the upper portion of right thigh on the
\noutside area.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P19 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. At 3.20 p.m. on that day, the Doctor examined P.W.5-Deivendran and
\nfound the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) Many abrasions found of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm from the upper portion of left hand
\ntill outside portion of the knee.\n<\/p>\n
2) 10 Nos. abrasions over the left front hand till outside portion of size 1\/2 x
\n1\/2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
3) A contusion of size 2 x 2 cm above the fourth finger and an abrasion of size
\n1\/2 x 1\/2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
4) An abrasion on the left back side of the head of size 1 x 1 cm.\n<\/p>\n
5) An abrasion of size 1\/2 x 1\/2 cm on the extreme left upper portion of the
\nhead.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P20 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. At 3.40 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.6-Ayyanar and found the
\nfollowing injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 20 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1 cm on the entire back portion till hip bone
\nwith blood.\n<\/p>\n
2) An abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the left cheek.\n<\/p>\n
3) Presence of a sound in the ear.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P21 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.6.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. At 3.50 p.m., the Doctor examined P.W.2-Sakthivel and found the
\nfollowing injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1) 10 Nos. abrasions of size 1 x 1\/2 cm x skin deep on the outside area of the
\nleft front hand.\n<\/p>\n
2) An abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm on the outside portion of right thigh.
\nEx.P22 is the Accident Register copy of P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. All of them reached the hospital within  short time after the
\noccurrence and they clearly spoke about the assault of P.W.1’s father in their
\nevidence. From the evidence it is clear that there was motive also on the part
\nof the other accused. Therefore the plea that there was no motive for the other
\naccused to attack P.W.1’s father is not of much weight.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. At this juncture, it is alleged on behalf of the defence that there is
\ndiscrepancy with regard to the weapon used in the occurrence. Learned counsel
\nfor the fourth accused vehemently argued that in the FIR it is stated that the
\naccused Mariappan was stabbed, but it is the case of the prosecution that the
\naccused Mariappan was cut.  The post mortem certificate would show that he was
\nstabbed and cut.  The Court can analyse the occurrence on the basis of the
\nevidence on record.  The car was stopped by throwing bombs and they were
\nexploded in the scene of occurrence. Unexploded bombs were also recovered from
\nthe scene of occurrence. Also, the material objects were examined by the
\nForensic Laboratory and the same was spoken to by the witnesses. The recovery of
\nthe particles present in the exploded bombs and the unexploded bombs would show
\nthe gravity of the offence in the scene of occurrence. When the bombs explode,
\ncertainly there would be panic and therefore, the injured witnesses ran away. In
\nsuch a condition, we cannot expect that they will give accurate and correct
\nparticulars regarding the overt act of the accused.  It is settled law that each
\nwitness cannot be expected to react in a same way. The post mortem certificates
\nalso would show that he was stabbed as well as cut, by the accused. So, this
\nsmall discrepancy between the FIR and the witnesses, will not go to the root of
\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that P.W.1 deposed
\nbefore the Doctor that he was attacked by throwing bombs and also pistol, but it
\nis the case of the prosecution that the victims were assaulted by knife and
\naruval and so, the prosecution’s version is liable to be rejected. For this the
\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there was a huge noise
\nin the scene of occurrence and also there was panic on everybody and in such a
\npanic condition, one cannot explain whether it is the sound of a rifle or a
\nbomb.  They are all villagers and they cannot be expected to say accurately in
\nsuch a panic situation. This small discrepancy is not a ground to reject the
\ncase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants \/
\naccused is that all the witnesses spoke differently about the time of reaching
\nthe hospital. It is true that all the witnesses gave slight variations regarding
\nthe time of reaching the hospital. The occurrence took place in the year 1997,
\nbut the evidence were recorded only in the year 2007. As rightly pointed out by
\nthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there bound to be some variations in
\nthe witnesses due to lapse of memory. The evidence are clear, cogent and
\nacceptable.  A careful perusal of the evidence would show that they are speaking
\ntruth. Therefore, these slight variations will not shake the case of the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is
\nthat P.Ws.2 to 5 spoke that there was no fence in the scene of occurrence, but
\non the other hand, Ex.P39-Sketch would show that there is a fence in the Reddiar
\nfield. No doubt, the sketch would show that there is a fence. P.W.1 admitted
\nthat due to the accident he lost his control over the vehicle and therefore he
\ndrove the vehicle into the land of Reddiar. As already pointed out, due to lapse
\nof memory, they are bound to commit some errors in their evidence. The sketch
\nwould show that the vehicle went into the land of another person and the
\nphotographs would reveal that the vehicle was damaged. So, the claim of the
\ndefence in this respect, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused vehemently
\nargued that there are no burn injuries due to the accident, and therefore the
\ncase of the prosecution is bound to fail. The injuries sustained by the
\nwitnesses have been clearly spoken to by P.W.21-Dr.Rajmohan. The Doctor was of
\nthe opinion that it is possible to sustain injuries in such an accident.
\nAdmittedly, it is seen from the evidence on record that the bombs used by the
\naccused are country bombs. A country bomb is different from a regular bomb.
\nEven the recovery of bombs would show that nails were obtained from the place of
\noccurrence. The photographs also would show that glass pieces were smashed.  The
\nevidence of the Doctor also would show that there were presence of ceramic
\nparticles over the wounds sustained by the victims. It is also evident from the
\npost mortem reports that there were glass particles over the bodies of the
\ndeceased. P.W.23 examined the bombs and found that there were nails, glass
\npieces and other chemical substances. These nails and glass pieces are used to
\ncause damage to the victims and because of the throwing of the bombs by the
\naccused, the victims sustained injuries. So, the stand of the defence that since
\nthere was no burn injuries the case of the prosecution is bound to fail, is not
\nacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. The next ground raised on the side of the defence is that P.W.6 spoke
\nonly about two accused and not the other accused. P.W.6 was examined on
\n27.07.2007 for chief examination and he was examined on 16.11.2007 for cross
\nexamination. In the chief examination, he asserted the presence of A1 and A2,
\nbut he claimed that other witnesses have also participated, but later on, he
\nturned hostile. He is not a relative to the deceased Udayar. Though he turned
\nhostile, his evidence need not be brushed aside. His evidence would disclose the
\novert act of A1 and A2 and the other accused who had involved in the offence.
\nSo, it is clear that all the accused had involved in the occurrence and their
\npresence had been established clearly. So, the claim on the side of the defence
\nin this respect, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants have submitted
\nthat P.W.1 had different versions about the number of accused persons, namely,
\n6, 15 and 12.  Evidence of P.W.1 would show that there were 6 named witnesses
\nand 15 unnamed witnesses. A thorough scanning of the evidence of P.W.1 would
\nshow that he gave different numbers due to tension. It is the case that his own
\nfather was murdered in front of his eyes. It is also clear from his evidence
\nthat he gave 6 names of the accused. So, the slight variations in the number of
\naccused persons, is not at all a ground to reject the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Further, it is the stand of the prosecution that P.W.1 was not having
\ndriving license to drive the vehicle, but he was driving the vehicle on the date
\nof occurrence. Non-possession of driving license is not a ground to reject the
\ncase of the prosecution. A person who is not having license can drive better
\nthan a person having license. The non-possession of driving license will attract
\nonly the Motor Vehicles Act.  Therefore the non-possession of driving license is
\nnot at all a ground to reject the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have argued that the name
\nof the third accused is Churchil Anantha Rabilper and not Robin and relied on
\nthe evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and also Ex.D1 to D5.  D.W.2-Dr.Thangamani was
\nworking in the AVM Hospital, Thoothukudi. He spoke about the treatment given by
\nthe hospital to the third accused. Ex.D1 is the certificate showing that one
\nSamuvel John studied courses in Ayurvedic, Siddha and Allopathy. Ex.D2 is the
\nTransfer Certificate issued to one Churchil Anantha Rabilper, S\/o Samuvel John.
\nEx.D3 is the pass book issued by Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank in the
\nname of Churchil Anantha Rabilper. Ex.D4 is the pass book issued by Canara Bank
\nin the name of Churchil Anantha Rabilper. Ex.D5 is the Date of Birth Certificate
\ngiven by Corporation of Chennai to one C.Allen James, S\/o Churchil Anantha
\nRabilper.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. Ex.D6 is the copy of Admission Register of the hospital. In that
\ndocument, the name was given as Robin. So, the third accused gave the name as
\nRobin and the same is admitted by D.W.2-the Doctor. The evidence of D.W.2
\ncoupled with Ex.D6 would go to show that the third accused was called also as
\nRobin. So, the plea that the name of the third accused is different, is not
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused stated that
\nthe second accused was roped in the case purposely and that on 20.01.1997, he
\nwas participating in a marriage function and he produced Ex.D8-Marriage
\nInvitation to that effect. Admittedly, the marriage invitation was given by his
\nbrother-in-law, but his brother-in-law was not asked to depose. Therefore, the
\ncontention of the learned Senior Counsel that the second accused was roped in
\nthe case purposely, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. Learned counsel for the appellants have stated that the First
\nInformation Report reached the Court belatedly. The occurrence took place on
\n20.04.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. The F.I.R. reached the Court on the next day 10’O
\nclock. The learned Trial Judge relied on the 161 statement to hold that there is
\nno delay, which is not correct. It is a holiday. The Investigating Officer spoke
\nthat Chelliah, First Grade Constable-1119, had given explanation for the delay.
\nThe evidence of the Investigating Officer would show that the said Chelliah gave
\nsatisfactory explanation for the delay in reaching the FIR to the Court. We are
\nof the considered view that the explanation given by the Investigating Officer
\nis correct.  Moreover, in this case, all the victims went to the hospital
\nimmediately after the occurrence and P.W.21-Doctor has also made entries with
\nregard to the timings of giving treatment. There is no reason for P.W.21 to make
\nfalse entries. The delay of the FIR reaching the Court is properly explained by
\nthe Investigating Officer. So, the ground relied on by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that the FIR reached the Court belatedly, falls to the ground.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. In view of all the reasons stated supra and a careful scanning of the
\nevidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of triple
\nmurder has been properly established by the prosecution in the manner known to
\nlaw and it has been amply supported by the evidence on record. The Trial Court
\nhas analysed the evidence on record carefully and arrived at the correct
\nconclusion in convicting the appellants \/ accused 2 to 4 and we find no reason
\nto differ with the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, the conviction and
\nsentences imposed on the appellants \/ accused 2 to 4 are liable to be confirmed
\nand accordingly they are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal(MD)Nos.224, 313 and
\n398 of 2008 are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
km<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
  Fast Track Court No.1,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal (MD)No.210 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal (MD)Nos. 224, 313 , 398 of 2008 S.Velmurugan .. Appellant\/A1 in Crl.A.210\/2008 Robin @ […]<\/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-183781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-06T01:05:59+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T01:05:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5474,\"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\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T01:05:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-06T01:05:59+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T01:05:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":5474,"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\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010","name":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T01:05:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velmurugan-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Velmurugan vs State Rep. By on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/183781","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=183781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}