{"id":188049,"date":"2007-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-08T23:21:07","modified_gmt":"2018-07-08T17:51:07","slug":"murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1276 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nMurugan & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState through Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2005<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.10.2004
\npassed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in
\nCriminal Appeal No.115 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal
\npreferred by the appellants herein against a judgment of conviction and
\nsentence dated 10.2.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions
\nJudge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathpuram convicting the
\naccused No.7 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing
\nhim to undergo life imprisonment and accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 under
\nSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo one
\nyear’s rigorous imprisonment was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and the accused on
\n10.7.1973 in regard to drawing of water from a well.  Accused were said to
\nhave been bearing grudge towards the deceased as a criminal case was
\ninstituted against them at Kumuthi Police Station.  On 4.8.1993, at about
\n6.15 pm, a procession of villagers was taken out for celebrating a festival
\nknown as “Mulaipari” festival.  It started at village Keelamathupatti.  When
\nthe procession reached near the village known as Gandaru, with a view to
\ncommit murder of PW-5, Nagarajan and other persons, the accused persons
\nwho were 11 in number allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with
\nweapons like knife, cycle chains and sticks in their hands.  Accused No.1,
\nSubramanian, and accused No.3, Selvaraj, are said to have instigated others
\nto commit murder of PW-5 Nagarajan consequent whereupon accused No.4,
\nRamu, attacked him  with a stick causing a fracture on his right hand.  When
\ndeceased Kannan tried to obstruct him from doing so, accused No.4, Ramu,
\ninstructed accused No.2, Selvaraj, to kill him also.  Consequently, accused
\nNo.2, Selvaraj, caught hold of the hands of Kannan, whereas accused No.6
\ncaught hold of his shoulders.  Taking advantage of the said situation, the
\nappellant No.1 herein (accused No.7 – Murugan) is said to have stabbed him
\nwith a knife on his chest.  Appellant No.1 is said to have caused an injury on
\nPW-1, Chithiraichamy, also with his knife, whereas accused No.8 attacked
\nPW-1 with cycle chain and caused an injury on his head thereby.  Appellant
\nNo.3- Selvaraj, (accused No.9) is said to have attacked PW-3, Kathirvel,
\nwith a knife on his nose and head whereas accused No.10, Boomi, attacked
\nPW-3 with a cycle chain and caused injuries to him.  PW-2, Murugesan was
\nalso attacked with a stick.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tA First Information Report was lodged immediately after the said
\noccurrence.  Out of 11 accused, however, only accused No.7 and 8 to 10,
\nwere convicted and sentenced in the manner, as noticed hereinbefore,
\nwhereas others were acquitted.  An appeal preferred thereagainst by the
\nappellants herein has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr. Naphade, learned senior counsel, in support of the appeal, would,
\ninter alia, submit :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tAppellant No.1 having inflicted only one blow with a knife on
\nthe deceased, the offence, if any, committed by him falls under
\nSection 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under
\nSection 302 thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tAppellant No.2 (accused No.8), having examined defence
\nwitnesses to prove his plea of alibi, the learned Sessions Judge,
\nas also the High Court, committed a serious error in recording a
\njudgment of conviction against him.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection our attention has been drawn to the following
\npurported findings of the learned Sessions Judge :
\n“The 8th accused has not committed the offence
\npunishable under Section 324 IPC”.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tAll the other accused having caused only simple injuries,
\nsentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment is on the higher
\nside.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMr. V. Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nState, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty one
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe nature of evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence
\nwhereupon strong reliance has been placed by both the learned Sessions
\nJudge as also the High Court being identical in nature, we would notice the
\ndeposition of PW-1, Chithiraichamy, only.  He spoke about the incident
\nwhich took place on 4th August, 1993.  A complaint was made to him by a
\nwoman named Malathi.  She was reprimanded by him stating that there
\nshould not quarrel over drawing of water.  She was sent back to her home.
\nMalathi was the daughter of the accused No.2.  While the deceased and the
\ninjured persons including the said PW-1 had been participating in the said
\nprocession, accused No.1 to 3 came and gave an exhortation to cut and kill
\nNagrajan.  Accused No.4, Ramu, is said to have assaulted in his right
\nforearm.  The deceased Kannan intervened.  He asked them not to do so,
\nwhereupon accused No.2 gave an exhortation to kill him, pursuant whereto
\naccused No.6, Challaiah caught hold of both his shoulders as a result
\nwhereof, he could not make a move.  Appellant No.1, Murugan, stabbed him
\non the left side of his chest.  While PW-1 asked the assailants not to do so,
\nAppellant No.1 attempted to stab him also on his neck with a knife but as he
\nturned his neck on the right side, a laceration was caused on the right side of
\nhis neck.  Accused No.8 also attacked him with a cycle chain on his head.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tHe wanted to cause an injury to appellant No.2 (accused No.8) with a
\nsmall knife but he was prevented from doing so by one Palaniammal as a
\nresult whereof Palaniammal suffered a laceration in his right hand.
\nAppellant No.3, Sathiah (accused No.9) stabbed Kathirvelu in his hand with
\na knife as a result whereof he received an injury.  Accused No.10, Boomi,
\nassaulted Kathirvelu with a cycle chain on his head resulting in causing
\nbleeding injury on his head and the right side nose.  Accused No.11
\nRamamoorthi (accused No.4) assaulted witness Murugasan with a stick on
\nhis right upper arm whereupon all persons shouted whereafter the accused
\nran away.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tHe, not only, thus, described the incident in great details but also
\nidentified the material objects which were seized at the instance of the
\naccused persons being the weapons of offence.  Evidence of PW-2 and other
\nwitnesses are also on the same vein.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAppellants had a motive.  They came in a group.  All of them were
\narmed.  Both parties are related to each other.  An occurrence had taken
\nplace which took place on 10th July, 1993 giving rise to initiation of a
\ncriminal case.  They, with a view to take revenge, caused murder of
\nNagarajan and injuries on some of the prosecution witnesses.  The
\nprosecution witnesses were injured witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tNo cogent argument has been advanced by Mr. Naphade so as to
\nenable him to hold that of the said witnesses are not trustworthy.  They have
\nbeen believed by the courts below.  Nothing has been pointed out to us as to
\nwhy we should differ with the said findings.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIntention on the part of a person to commit murder must be gathered
\nfrom the backdrop of events and the circumstances attending thereto.
\n\tA similar question came up for consideration before this Court in
\nVirsa Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a> [1958 AIR SC 465], wherein this Court, upon
\na detailed analyses of the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian
\nPenal Code opined that in order to attract “thirdly” contained Section 300 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, it must be established :\n<\/p>\n
“To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the
\nfollowing facts before it can bring a case under
\nSection 300 “thirdly”;\n<\/p>\n
 \tFirst, it must establish, quite objectively,
\nthat a bodily injury is present;\n<\/p>\n
 \tSecondly, the nature of the injury must be
\nproved; These are purely objective investigations.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThirdly, it must be proved that there was an
\nintention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that
\nis to say, that it was not accidental or
\nunintentional, or that some other kind of injury
\nwas intended.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOnce these three elements are proved to be
\npresent, the enquiry proceeds further and, <\/p>\n
 \tFourthly, it must be proved that the injury of
\nthe type just described made up of the three
\nelements set out above is sufficient to cause death
\nin the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
\nenquiry is purely objective and inferential and has
\nnothing to do with the intention of the offender.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOnce the aforementioned factors are established, absence of any
\nknowledge that an act of that kind would likely to cause death become
\nimmaterial.  The intention to cause the bodily injury, if proved, the rest of
\nthe enquiry would be purely objective and the only question is whether as a
\nmatter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary
\ncourse of nature to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
12\tThe medical evidence, emanating from the deposition of PW-12, Dr.,
\nMeenakshisundaram, reveals :\n<\/p>\n
“I found the following external injuries on the
\nbody.  (1) A cut injury measuring 1 x > x 3” on
\nthe left side chest.  It was in the outer aspect of the
\n6th left side rib bone between the middle of the
\ncollar bone.  On opening the wound, the wound
\nhas injured the intercostals muscles and blood
\nvessels in the middle rib bones.  It has punctured
\nthe left ventricle.  The injury was slanting and
\nupwards and forwards.  It has pierced the left
\nventricle.  There was 1= litres of colour changed
\nblood in the thorasic cavity.  The internal injuries
\nwere as follows :\n<\/p>\n
There was no fracture of the head and rib bones.\n<\/p>\n
Heart was empty and pale and was weighing 250
\ngrams.  The left ventricle was punctured.  The
\nlungs was pale and was weighing 500 grams, and
\nwas wet when pressed.  Abdomen was normal
\nstomach was containing digested food.  Liver
\nweighed 1450 grams and was pale and was wet
\nwhen pressed.  Spleen was also wet when pressed
\nand weighed 165 grams, and was pale.  Kidneys
\nwere pale and moist on pressure.  Intestines empty.
\nBladder empty.  There was no fracture on the
\npelvis.  Hyoid bone was intact and the skull was
\nalso intact.  Skull membranes were intact.  Brain
\nwas pale and weighed 1450 grams.  There was no
\nintra-cranial haemorrhage in the brain and was
\nweighing 1250 grams.  There was no fracture in
\nthe spinal chord.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\tInfliction of a single injury by itself is not a relevant factor to hold that
\nthe assailant had no intention to cause murder of the deceased.  What is
\nimportant in a case of this nature is to consider the entire circumstances to
\narrive at one conclusion or the other.  When a group of people come with an
\nintention to assault particular person(s), with dangerous weapon, the same
\nwould attract to principles laid down in Virsa Singh (supra).  Prosecution
\nwitnesses testified in regard to their intention.
\n\tVirsa Singh’s case has been followed by this Court in Anil v. State of
\nHaryana<\/a> [2007 (7) SCALE 56].\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWe, therefore, are unable to accede to the submissions of Mr.
\nNaphade that appellant No.1 had no intention to cause death of Nagarajan.
\n\tAlthough, in this case, there was enough material to convict other
\nappellants for commission of an offence under Section 302\/34 of the Indian
\nPenal Code, unfortunately, the appellants, other than the first appellant, have
\nbeen only convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.  As the
\nState did not prefer any appeal thereagainst, this Court is unable to alter the
\njudgment of conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe learned Trial Judge appears to have committed more than one
\nmistake in his judgment.  He, while analysing the evidence of DW-1, who
\nwas examined on behalf of appellant No.2 (accused No.8) to prove alibi on
\nhis part, although came to the conclusion that the said evidence was not
\nacceptable, as indicated hereinbefore, arrived at the finding that the 8th
\naccused has not committed the offence under Section 324 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.  Evidently, a typographical error has crept in as otherwise he
\ncould not have convicted him along with appellants No.3 and 4 for
\ncommission of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.  We
\nmay also notice that whereas in the beginning of the judgment, he recorded
\nthe sentence imposed upon appellants No.2 to 4 to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for three years, in the operative part of the judgment, he
\ndirected that they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
\nyear only.  We have, however, no option but to hold that the later part of the
\njudgment should be taken to be correct.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tSo far as the purported plea of alibi of appellant No.2 is concerned, a
\nclear finding has been arrived at that DW-1 has manipulated Exhibit D-3 just
\nto help the said accused.  The High Court also agreed with the said view.
\n\tWe do not see any reason to differ with the views of the learned
\nSessions Judge as also the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tFor the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal.  It is dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1276 of 2005 PETITIONER: Murugan & Ors RESPONDENT: State through Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh […]<\/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-188049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMurugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 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\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-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=\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-08T17:51:07+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\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T17:51:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2136,\"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\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T17:51:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 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":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 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\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-08T17:51:07+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\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T17:51:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007"},"wordCount":2136,"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\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007","name":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T17:51:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-ors-vs-state-through-inspector-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugan & Ors vs State Through Inspector Of … on 4 December, 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\/188049","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=188049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}