{"id":183884,"date":"2001-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001"},"modified":"2018-10-13T21:43:54","modified_gmt":"2018-10-13T16:13:54","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variva<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 453  of  1991\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, S.N.Variva\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tRani Padmini, a dainty film actress of the South and
\nher mother Indira Kumari were butchered on an ill-fated
\nmorning fifteen years ago, in their own flat at Anna Nagar
\nin Madras (now Chennai). Their driver, watchman and cook
\nwere later caught and charge-sheeted by the police for the
\nsaid double murder.  The trial court convicted all the
\nthree persons and sentenced them to death.  But a Division
\nBench of the High Court of Madras acquitted two of them
\n(the watchman and the cook) while altering the sentence of
\nthe driver to imprisonment for life after confirming the
\nconviction. That person (A-1 Jebaraj) moved this Court for
\nspecial leave to appeal but that special leave petition was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The State of Tamil Nadu filed appeals against the
\nacquittal of the two persons (the watchman A-2 Lakshmi
\nNarasimhan and the cook A-3 Ganeshan) but the latter was
\nnot traced out in spite of repeated searches made for
\neffecting the service of notice on him. Finally this Court
\ndismissed the appeal filed against A-3 Ganeshan on
\n5.4.1999. Thus the appeal by special leave filed by the
\nState as against the watchman (A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan @
\nKutty) is now surviving.\n<\/p>\n
The dreadful end of the gamboling cine artist and her
\nmother happened in the following manner, as per the
\nprosecution version: The mother and the daughter, while
\nliving in their apartment at Anna Nagar, Chennai, wanted to
\nemploy a driver, a watchman and a cook.\t They advertised it
\nin the newspaper.  A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan responded to the
\nadvertisement and he was eventually appointed as the
\nwatchman of the residential apartment of the two ladies.
\nWithin a few days A-1 Jebaraj was appointed as driver and
\nlater A-3 Ganeshan was employed as a cook.  The deceased
\nwere apparently wealthy and they had cash and jewellery in
\ngood quantity.\tThey negotiated for purchase of a house for
\nabout fifteen lakhs of rupees. When A-1 Jebaraj overheard
\nthe said dialogue he presumed that the ladies could be
\nhaving the cash with them to buy the house.  Then a wicked
\nidea burgeoned in his mind that he should grab the said
\ncash in whatever manner possible. He thought of killing the
\ntwo ladies as an easier measure for collecting the cash and
\njewellery.  A-1 Jebaraj disclosed this idea to A-2 Lakshmi
\nNarasimhan @ Kutty and A-3 Ganeshan and sought their help
\nto achieve the target.\tAll the three conspired together
\nand orchestrated a plan to carry out the operation of
\nmurdering the unarmed ladies and to share the booty among
\nthemselves after accomplishing the murder.  A-1 Jebaraj
\npurchased three knives and kept one with him and gave the
\nother two to his co-conspirators.\n<\/p>\n
On the morning of 15.10.1986 the three accused jointly
\nexecuted the designed scheme of killing both the ladies.
\nFirst they killed the mother and when the daughter ran to
\nsee what was happening to her mother she saw the very
\npersons they employed for their security and help turned
\nout to be their slayers. They pounced on the damsel and
\nkilled her too by stabbing her with knives. The killers
\nremoved quite a number of movables from the house though
\nthey failed to trace out the huge cash stashed away by the
\nwealthy victims.\n<\/p>\n
A-1 Jebaraj was arrested on 24.10.1986, A-2 Lakshmi
\nNarasimhan was arrested on 3.11.1986.  As A-3 Ganeshan
\ndisappeared to unreachable places the police had to cast
\nthe net far wide and tenaciously persisted to catch him.
\nThough delayed the police ultimately succeeded in 1988 to
\nnab that absconding culprit. Many articles, including
\nvaluables, were recovered at the behest of the arrested
\npersons.  The confession of A-2 was recorded by a judicial
\nmagistrate on 24.11.1986. A-3 also confessed to the
\nmagistrate which also was recorded purportedly in terms of
\nSection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However,
\nboth of them retracted from the confessions during the
\ntrial of the case.  Nevertheless, the Sessions Judge relied
\non those confessions, among other evidence, and reached the
\nconclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
\nthree accused beyond all reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court
\nwhile acquitting A-2 (Lakshmi Narasimhan) found that the
\njudicial confession was fraught with flaws and hence they
\ndid not rely on the confession.\t According to the Division
\nBench, the materials brought on record by the prosecution
\nfor corroborating the confessions were not acceptable and
\nthe extra judicial confessions attributed to A-1 and spoken
\nto by PW-30 was frowned at by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Shri S. Balakrishnan, Senior Advocate who argued for
\nthe State contended that the High Court approached
\nprosecution evidence in a very pedantic manner and laboured
\nto find out the drawbacks in investigation and wrongly
\nsidestepped the confessions made by the accused persons.
\nThe reasonings advanced by the Division Bench, according to
\nthe learned senior counsel, are totally unsustainable if
\nnot flippant. According to the learned counsel, the  extra
\njudicial confession spoken to by PW-30 should have been
\nacted on.  He contended that acquittal of the appellant
\nresulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
Shri K. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for A-2 Lakshmi
\nNarasimhan addressed elaborate arguments garnering as much
\nforce as possible.  He pleaded for maintaining the order of
\nacquittal.  He cautioned us by citing judicial precedents
\nthat the approach of a court while dealing with an appeal
\nagainst acquittal was always different from an appeal
\nagainst conviction. Learned counsel took pains to convince
\nus that apart from the inherent weakness of extra judicial
\nconfessions by the very nature of that evidence, the
\ntestimony of PW-30 itself would show that the confession
\nspoken to by him as attributed to A-1 is a very fragile
\npiece of evidence. He also argued that recovery of the
\narticles did not connect the second  accused, particularly
\nin the light of the evidence of the independent witnesses
\nexamined by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
There seems to be no dispute regarding the fact that
\nIndira Kumari and her daughter Rani Padmini were murdered
\nin their apartment and quite possibly on the morning of
\n15.10.1986.  We are skipping that aspect because
\nprosecution has successfully proved the involvement of A-1
\nJebaraj with the murders of the two ladies as he was
\nconvicted and sentenced for it by two courts after
\nconcurrently holding that the prosecution has proved the
\ncase against him beyond all doubt and that verdict became
\nfinal.\tHence the only question now, in this appeal, is
\nwhether A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan had also joined A-1 Jebaraj
\nin murdering the two ladies.\n<\/p>\n
If the confession recorded by the judicial magistrate
\nas  from A-2 cannot, for any reason whatsoever, be used by
\nus, it would be an exercise in futility for the State to
\nendeavour for reversal of the order of acquittal with the
\nhelp of the remaining evidence. So we would first consider
\nand decide whether we can rely on that confession.\n<\/p>\n
The judicial magistrate who recorded the confession of
\nthe second accused in Ext.P-66 had written down the
\nstatement running into several pages containing very many
\nvivid details. The narration included how A-2 started
\nworking as a watchman in the house of the deceased, how A-1
\nJebaraj injected the idea of taking away the huge amount of
\ncash kept with the deceased, how the three accused jointly
\nprepared the plan to kill the two ladies to pave the way
\nfor burglary and how they executed their designed scheme,
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Judges of the High Court declined to  act on
\nthe said confession mainly for two reasons.  First is that
\nthe confession was retracted by the maker thereof and
\nsecond is that the recovery of articles was made prior to
\nthe confession. We may state at the outset itself that
\nboth reasons are too insufficient for over-ruling the
\nconfession.\n<\/p>\n
It is not the law that once a confession was retracted
\nthe court should presume that the confession is tainted.
\nAs a matter of practical knowledge we can say that non-
\nretracted confession is a rarity in criminal cases. To
\nretract from confession is the right of the confessor and
\nall the accused against whom confessions were produced by
\nthe prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It
\nwould be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on
\nthe mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The
\ncourt has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the
\nconfession by looking at all aspects. The twin test of a
\nconfession is to ascertain whether it was voluntary and
\ntrue. Once those tests are found to be positive the next
\nendeavour is to see whether there is any other reason which
\nstands in the way of acting on it. Even for that,
\nretraction of the confession is not the ground to throw the
\nconfession overboard.\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to understand how a judicial confession
\nwould  become bad by reason of the fact that articles
\nbelonging to the victims were  recovered prior to the
\nmaking of the confession. That aspect, instead of vitiating
\nthe confession, could be a factor in favour of the
\nvoluntariness of the confession. When the culprit finds
\nthat the articles concealed by him are all disintered it is
\npossible that he might feel that there is no use in
\nconcealing the facts any more. Then he may desire to make a
\nclean breast of everything to any person or authorities.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, Shri K. Vishwanathan pointed out
\nthat A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan was in police custody for a
\nlong time i.e. from 3.11.1986 to 17.11.1986.  Learned
\ncounsel contended on its premise that A-2 would have been
\npressurised, if not tortured, by the police to make the
\nconfession before the magistrate. This contention is made
\nby overlooking certain broad facts. During the time A-2 was
\nin police custody he was produced before the magistrate on
\nthree different occasions (5th, 11th and 17th of November
\n1986).\tOn none of those occasions did A-2 tell the
\nmagistrate that he wanted to make a confession. If there
\nwas any pressure on him to make a confession it would have
\nbeen during the time when he was in police custody.  Why
\nthe police did not do on any of those three occasions when
\nhe was produced before the magistrate from police custody
\nwould tell heavily against the said contention of
\nMr. Vishwanathan.\n<\/p>\n
From 17.11.1986 onwards A-2 was not in police custody
\nas the magistrate remanded him to judicial custody.  It
\nmust be remembered that the confession was made by him only
\non 24th November 1986.\tBefore recording the confession the
\nmagistrate asked him repeatedly whether he wished to make
\nthe confession on his own or whether he was pressurised by
\nthe police, etc.  In this context it must be pointed out
\nthat the defence counsel have not pointed any finger on the
\nmagisterial procedure adopted as precautionary measures
\nbefore the confession was recorded.  Of course a very frail
\npoint has been raised that the magistrate did not inform
\nA-2 at the initial stage that he was a magistrate.
\nExt.P.66 shows that A-2 was well aware that he was in the
\ncourt of a magistrate. We perused the preliminary questions
\nand answers recorded by the magistrate.\t There is no scope
\nfor any contention that A-2 was unaware that the person who
\nrecorded the confession was a magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Vishwanathan then contended that A-2 in his
\nconfession did not own that he also stabbed at least one of
\nthe two deceased.  That does not matter much, because a
\nreading of the confession as a whole leaves no doubt that
\nA-2 has admitted the full length role played by him in
\nassociation with the other two assailants for murdering the
\ntwo ladies.  Hence the very fact that he did not say in so
\nmany words that he also inflicted one stab injury on the
\ndeceased is of no consequence. In a way this aspect is a
\nfurther assurance to us that his confession was not what
\nthe police wanted him to say to the magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
There is no reason to think that A-2 had been
\nprevailed upon by any extraneous influence to make the
\nconfession. The judicial magistrate who heard the
\nconfession certified that in his opinion the accused made
\nthe confession voluntarily. That satisfaction could be
\ndisrupted only if there are sturdy reasons.  Even regarding
\nthe truthfulness of the version given by the accused in the
\nconfession it is open to the court to ascertain whether
\nthere are other materials to lend assurance to the court
\nabout the truth of it.\n<\/p>\n
One of the items of evidence put forward by the
\nprosecution for lending such assurance is the judicial
\nconfession made by the third accused before the magistrate
\non 8.6.1988.  Though the trial court acted on it as
\nvoluntary the High Court had declined to do so. Learned
\ncounsel for second accused contended that the High Court
\nrejected the confession made by the third accused and
\nacquitted the third accused which remains undisturbed,
\nthough for other reasons. Hence he argued that it is not
\nproper for the Supreme Court to act on the confession made
\nby the third accused for the purpose of corroborating the
\nconfession of the second accused.  We feel that the said
\ncontention has some force.  Hence we refrain from using any
\npart of the confession made by the third accused for the
\npurpose of corroboration of the confession made by the
\nsecond accused.\n<\/p>\n
The extra judicial confession made by first accused to
\nPW-30 is another material which has been advanced by the
\nlearned senior counsel for the State for using it as a
\ncorroborative piece.  But that extra judicial confession is
\nstudded with many infirmities, the most important among
\nthem is that PW-30 admitted that while making the extra
\njudicial confession A-1 was in a highly inebriated
\ncondition.  As we have no other material to gauge the level
\nof his inebriation at a time he made his confession to
\nPW-30 we choose the safer course of not using that
\nconfession as a piece of corroboration for the confession
\nmade by the second accused.\n<\/p>\n
But there are quite a number of other circumstances
\nwhich would lend assurance to the court about the facts
\ncontained in the judicial confession made by the second
\naccused. The very fact that he was working as a watchman
\nemployed by the ladies remains undisputed. If so, his
\ndisappearance from the scene on 16.10.1986 onwards and his
\nabsconding till 3.11.1986 are circumstances effectively
\ncorroborating the confession. A large number of articles
\nbelonging to the deceased were recovered at his instance.
\nHis finger impression was found on the door of the kitchen
\nof the house. If the finger impression of the cook was
\nfound on the door of the kitchen we would have declined to
\nuse it as a piece of corroboration in the present case,
\nbecause of the role which a cook has to perform in the
\nculinary wing of the house. But the place of a watchman of
\nthe house is normally outside the house, if not outside the
\ngate of the compound itself.  How could the finger
\nimpression of the watchman get affixed inside the kitchen.
\nIn the absence of any explanation as to how the finger
\nimpression of A-2 had appeared on the door of the kitchen
\nof the house we can safely treat that also as an
\nincriminating circumstance against that accused.
\nShri Vishwanathan, learned counsel contended that
\nPW-30, who is cited to support the evidence of recovery of
\narticles from A-2, had in fact pointed out A-1 in the court
\nas a person from whom the articles were recovered. It seems
\nthat High Court was also persuaded to give weight to the
\nsaid contention.  In our perception the said contention has
\nno force at all.  PW-33 who attested the Memo prepared by
\nthe investigating officer at the time of recovery cannot be
\ngiven any special credence while he disowned the very
\ndocument he attested. Perhaps PW-33 would have committed a
\nmistake in the court when he stretched his index finger at
\nthe accused, if it was not a mistake committed by the court
\nitself while writing down the deposition.  It had escaped
\nthe notice of the Public Prosecutor.  Otherwise we have no
\nreason to think that the Public Prosecutor would have
\nomitted to correct it, if not to declare the witness as
\nhostile. As a matter of fact A-1 could not have been
\npresent at all when MO.41 was recovered by the
\ninvestigating officer. At any rate, we are not inclined to
\ngive much importance to an accidental error committed
\neither by PW-33 or by the court regarding mentioning A-1
\ninstead of A-2 as the person connected with MO.41.  We
\ncannot overlook the sturdy evidence of the investigating
\nofficer who effected the recovery and that evidence is
\nsupported by the document contemporaneously prepared by him
\nand proved in the case.\n<\/p>\n
The upshot of the above discussion is that the High
\nCourt has gone seriously wrong in interfering with the
\nconviction passed by the trial court regarding A-2.  We are
\nof the definite opinion that the High Court should not have
\nsidelined Ext.P-66 judicial confession.
\nIn the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the
\norder of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the
\norder of conviction passed by the trial court.\tHowever, we
\nthink that the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life is
\nsufficient to be imposed on A-2 for the offence under
\nSection 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence we
\nsentence him so.  We direct the trial court to take prompt
\nsteps to get second accused (Lakshmi Narasimhan @ Kutty)
\nand put him back in jail for undergoing the sentence
\nimposed on him now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variva CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 453 of 1991 PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: KUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/08\/2001 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variva JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Rani Padmini, a dainty film […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-13T16:13:54+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-13T16:13:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2956,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-13T16:13:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-13T16:13:54+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-13T16:13:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001"},"wordCount":2956,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-13T16:13:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-kutty-lakshmi-narasimhan-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan on 10 August, 2001"}]},{"@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\/183884","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=183884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}