{"id":194615,"date":"2007-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-15T02:58:11","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T21:28:11","slug":"durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.128 of 2005\nCrl.A.(MD) No.131 of 2005\n\n\n1.Durai                     ..    Appellant in Crl.A.\n                                  No.128 of 2005\n\n2.Durai alias Sudalai        ..    1st appellant in\n                                  Crl.A.No.131 of 2005\n\n3.Ramakrishnan\n  Durai                     ..    2nd appellant in\n                                  Crl.A.No.131 of 2005\n                    vs.\n\nState represented by\nInspector of Police,\nThatchanallur\nTirunelveli District.\nCrime No.1516 of 2003        ..   Respondent in\n                                  both the Appeals\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C against the Judgment\nof conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005 made in S.C.No.42 of 2004 on the\nfile of the 1st Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli\nDistrict.\n\n!Mr.V.Kathirvelu  \t: For appellant in\n                    \t  Crl.A.(MD)No.128 of 2005\n\nMr.R.Anand       \t: For 1st appellant in\n                          Crl.A.(MD)No.131 of 2005\n\nMr.R.Appavurathnam\t: For 2nd appellant in\n                    \t  in Crl.A.(MD)No.131 of 2005\n\n\n^Mr.P.N.Pandidurai\nAddl.Public Prosecutor : For respondent in\n\t\t\t both the Appeals\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern both the Criminal Appeal Nos.128 of 2005 and
\n131 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The appellants, who are  accused Nos. 1 to 3, stood charged, tried for
\nthe offences under Sections 120(b), 341 and 302 r\/w 109 IPC and found guilty
\nunder Sections 341 and 302 IPC and awarded one month simple imprisonment under
\nSection 341 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and the sentence to
\nrun concurrently in a case in S.C.No.42 of 2004 by judgment dated   28.02.2005
\nby the Sessions Division, First Additional District Court, have brought-forth
\nthese appeals seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.128 of 2005 has been brought-forth by the third accused
\nwhile Criminal Appeal (MD) NO.131 of 2005 has been brought-forth by accused No.1
\nand 2.  The fourth accused in the said Sessions Case has been acquitted of all
\nthe charges levelled against her.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) PW.1 is the wife of Sekar since deceased in the incident.  Husband of
\nthe fourth accused was murdered.  There was accusation against the said Sekar on
\nthat count.  A-4 was aggrieved over the said Sekar and hatched up a conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) On 28.10.2003 at 6.00 p.m., when PW.5 and PW.6 were coming for washing
\ntheir clothes towards, a newly Pillaiyar Temple, being constructed, they heard a
\nnoise and they found that A-4 was instructing to A-1 to A-3 to finish the said
\nSekar as he had killed her husband, for which, they assured her to finish him
\nof.  PW.5 and PW.6, in turn, informed the same to PW.7.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) On 29.10.2003, PW.1 and her husband Sekar went to Keeizhapattam for
\nseeing a bride for her cousin.   At about 4.30 p.m., they reached a workshop of
\nPW.8, after a while both them were returning to their house by bicycle and at
\nabout 6.30 p.m., when they were coming near “Theneerkulam Water Tank” all these
\nthree accused armed with Aruval waylaid and pushed them down from the bicycle.
\nImmediately, A-1 cut the said Sekar on the neck, A-2 cut on the face and A-3 cut
\non the chest and when PW-1 intervened, they threatened her and she escaped with
\na grip of fear and proceeded to the village to inform to PW.2 and PW.3.   At
\nthat time, when PW.11 was on patrol duty at Annasalai of Thatchanallur, he was
\ninformed by a third party that one person was lying in a pool of blood
\nstruggling for his life with serious injuries near the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) On coming to know about the same, PW.11 reached over the place and
\nfound the injured with severe injuries and he asked about his name and his
\nfather’s name and phoned over to the respondent police.  Immediately, he took
\nthe injured in an auto of PW.4, to the Tirunelveli Medical College and Hospital,
\nwhere PW.12 was the Doctor on duty at 7.10 p.m.,.  He medically examined the
\ninjured Sekar and noted the injuries sustained by the injured Sekar and prepared
\nWound Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.4.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) In the mean time, PW.1 to PW.3 came to the place of occurrence and
\nthey were informed that the injured was taken to the Highground Hospital and
\nthey returned to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) Thereafter, an intimation was sent to the respondent police from the
\nhospital and accordingly, PW.19, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the
\nTirunelveli Government Hospital and also recorded the statement from PW.1 and
\nthe same was marked as Ex.P.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) Apart from that, on receipt of death intimation of the injured Sekar,
\nwhich was marked as Ex.P.5, PW.19, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case
\nin Crime No.1516\/2003 under Section 342, 302 and 120 (b) IPC.  The F.I.R. is
\nEx.P.14, which was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h) On 29.10.2003, PW.21, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy
\nof the First Information Report, took up investigation in the crime and
\nproceeded to the scene of occurrence, made inspection and  prepared an
\nObservation Mahazar Ex.P.16 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.17 in the presence of
\nwitnesses and he recovered the material objects found in the place of the
\noccurrence.  Thereafter, on 30.10.2003, he went to the Government Hospital and
\nconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an Inquest
\nReport, which was marked as Ex.P.20.  Following the same, the dead body of the
\ndeceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)  On receipt of the requisition, PW.13 the Doctor, attached to the
\nGovernment Hospital, Tirunelveli conducted autopsy on the dead body of the
\ndeceased and found injuries.  The doctor issued    post-mortem Certificate,
\nwhich was marked as Ex.P.6 wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to
\nhave died of shock and haemorrhage due to cumulative effect of heavy cut
\ninjuries in the region of face, head, neck and both upper limbs.\n<\/p>\n
\t(j) Pending investigation, the accused were arrested on 20.10.2003.  All
\nthese three accused came forward to give confessional statements in the presence
\nof witnesses and the same was recorded separately and the admissible portion of
\nthe confessional statements were marked as Ex.P.20, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22
\nrespectively.  Pursuant to the admissible portion of the statements, A-1
\nproduced MO.10, A-2 produced MO.11 and A-3 produced MO.13 and they were
\nrecovered under Mahazars Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12 an Ex.P.13 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t(k) On completion of investigation, final report was filed against the
\naccused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary
\ncharges were framed against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the
\nprosecution marched 21 witnesses, marked 22 Exhibits and 12 MOs.  On completion
\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned
\nunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the
\nevidence of the witnesses.  The accused denied them as false.  No defence
\nwitness was examined.  The trial Court, after hearing the arguments on either
\nside and on scrutiny of the materials available before it, found the accused 1
\nto 3 guilty and awarded punishments referred to above and the fourth accused was
\nacquitted of the charges and hence, these appeals at the instance of the accused
\n1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Learned counsel appearing for the first accused\/1st appellant in
\nCrl.A.No.131 of 2005, inter alia submit that, in the instant case PW.1 was the
\nonly eye witness and even according to the prosecution, PW.1 could not have seen
\nthe occurrence at all and hence her evidence should have been rejected.  If PW.1
\nhad actually scene the occurrence and, that too, in an occurrence in which her
\nhusband was brutally attacked, she would have gone to the police station or
\nshould have taken the injured to the hospital but she had not done so.  It is
\npertinent to note that PW.1 went to her native place, which is 1. Kms far away
\nfrom the scene of occurrence, by boarding a bus and though she went across the
\npolice station either in the course of going to her native place or going to
\nthe hospital, she had not informed the same to the police.  Even PW.2 and PW.3
\nwho were informed of the crime, though came across police station, in the course
\nof going to hospital, no one had entered the police station and informed the
\nsame.  This strong circumstance itself doubts the evidence of PW.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Added further the learned counsel that according to PW.1, the distance
\nbetween the police station and the place of occurrence was only 4 feet,
\naccording to the Investigating Officer, the distance is 3\/4th KM and according
\nto F.I.R, the distance is    1. KM.  All would raise a doubt that whether the
\noccurrence had taken place at all in that area at that time as put-forth by the
\nprosecution.  When the occurrence had taken place in a busy locality, it would
\nhave been witnessed by a number of persons.  If it be so, no independent witness
\nwas examined.  Apart from that, the trial Court was not prepared to accept the
\nevidence of the same witness in respect of the conspiracy.  In the instant case,
\nconspiracy was also connected to the motive.  When the trial Court had rejected
\nthe evidence of PW.1 as to the conspiracy, the entire evidence edifies the case
\nof the prosecution as failed and hence, the trial Court should not have accepted
\nthe evidence of PW.1 and on the basis of the same, should not have found the
\naccused guilty.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Added further the learned counsel that, Ex.P.4 is the Wound
\nCertificate.  As could be seen that, it was the Constable PW.11, who had
\nadmitted the deceased Sekar in the Hospital.  According to PW.11 Constable, when
\nhe was in patrol at Annasalai of Thatchanallur, in the evening on the date of
\noccurrence, he was informed of the occurrence by a third person and then, PW.11
\nwent to the scene of occurrence and took the deceased Sekar to the Highground
\nHospital and he informed to the Doctor about the occurrence.  The person who
\ninformed about the incident to PW.11, should have been examined but he was not
\nexamined in the instant case. These are nothing but a drama enacted for the
\npurpose of prosecution case, which should have been rejected outrightly by the
\ntrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Added further the learned counsel that it is also highly doubtful
\nwhether the F.I.R would have come into existence as put-forth by the
\nprosecution.  The person who informed about the occurrence to PW.11 was not
\nexamined.  Even according to PW.11, he informed the incident to PW.19, the Sub
\nInspector of Police, who was coming on the way,  when PW.11 was proceeding to
\nthe Hospital.  If it be so, a case could have been registered immediately after
\nthe information was given by PW.11 but the case was not registered.  All would
\ngo to show that the case came to be registered only after arrival of PW.1 to
\nPW.3 and with all embellishments, the case registered against A1 to A4 on the
\nbasis of the complaint given by PW.1 as if she had witnessed the incident.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Added further the learned counsel that A1 to A3 had no motive.  The
\nlower Court rejected the case of conspiracy and if it be so, the only person who
\nhad got the real motive was A-4 because according to her, her husband was killed
\nby the deceased Sekar and she was acquitted.  In such circumstances, the trial
\nCourt should have rejected the prosecution case outrightly as there was no
\nmotive to the occurrence.  Thus, A-1 is entitled for acquittal in the hands of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  Advancing his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the third
\naccused, would submit that, the name of the third accused does not find place in
\nthe F.I.R. and even according to PW.1, A-3 caused injury on the left side of the
\nchest with Aruval but there was no corresponding injury either in Accident
\nRegister Copy Ex.P.4 or in the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.6 and further PW.1
\nhas not correctly accounted for the injuries sustained by the deceased and thus,
\nPW.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all or A-3 could not have
\nparticipated in the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Added further the learned counsel that no injury was attributed
\nagainst A-3 and even as per the post-mortem Certificate, injuries sustained on
\nthe head, neck, face and arms were fatal.  As could be seen, A-3 had inflicted
\ninjury on the left chest, which was not fatal and this point has got to be
\nconsidered by this Court.  Added further the learned counsel that A-3 had no
\nmotive to cause the death of the deceased Sekar.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Advancing his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the second
\naccused, would submit that all the blood stained weapons and Material Objects
\nwere not subjected to chemical analysis, which would be fatal to the prosecution
\ncase.  Insofar as A-2 is concerned, he had no motive to commit such crime and
\nthe prosecution has failed to prove the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Added further the learned counsel that under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A-2
\nhad stated that he was taken from his house at 2.00 a.m. and that his part of
\nstatement was not free from force before the Court.  Under the circumstances, A-
\n2 is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this  Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
\nthe State on the above contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rival submissions made
\nand also had a thorough scrutiny of the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that one Sekar, the
\nhusband of PW.1 sustained injuries in the occurrence took place at the time and
\nat the place as put-forth by the prosecution and the injured was taken to the
\nHighground hospital, where he was admitted by PW.12 Doctor, following which, he
\nsuccumbed to injuries and the case came to be registered under the penal
\nprovisions of murder and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and the
\nDoctor, who conducted autopsy opined that he died out of shock and haemorrhage
\ndue to injuries sustained on the neck, face and arms and the prosecution has
\nproved that the said Sekar died out of homicidal violence.  The accused have
\nalso not disputed the cause of death of the deceased either before the trial
\nCourt or before this Court.  On the medical evidence, this Court holds that the
\ndeceased died on account of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In order to substantiate the accusation made against these appellants,
\nthe prosecution has examined only one eye witness viz., PW.1.  It i also true,
\nshe is the wife of the deceased Sekar.  It is a well  settled proposition of law
\nthat merely on the ground relationship, the evidence of eye witness, who is a
\nrelative cannot be discarded but where the eye-witness is a close relative of
\nthe deceased, the court has to exercise great care and caution and on careful
\nscrutiny of the evidence, this Court thoroughly satisfied with the evidence of
\nPW.1 and the evidence of PW.1 has inspired the confidence of the Court.  PW.1
\nhas categorically narrated that on the date of occurrence at 4.30 p.m., both of
\nthem left their house  for seeing a bride for her cousin and they went to a
\nworkshop of PW.8, after a while both them were returning to their house, at that
\ntime, all these three accused were waylaid and pushed them down from the cycle.
\nImmediately, A1- cut the said Sekar on the neck, A-2 cut on the face and A-3 cut
\non the chest and  when PW-1 intervened, they threatened her and she escaped with
\na grip of fear and proceeded to the village and informed to PW.2 and PW.3 and
\ntook them to the spot.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellants
\nthat PW.1 could not have seen the occurrence, if considered, it remains only for
\nthe purpose of rejection.  At the place of occurrence, PW.1 and her husband
\nSekar were only two persons.  The place of occurrence was a road leading to the
\nmain road from Tirunelveli to Thatchnallur.  The contents what is contained in
\nthe Rough Sketch was never disputed; on one side of the road was Kanmoi and
\nother side was agricultural fields.  It would be quite clear that at the time of
\noccurrence PW.1 and her husband were waylaid and the accused attacked the
\ndeceased with deadly weapons and when she intervened she was also threatened.
\nIt is pertinent to note that she was a woman folk, she was unarmed and was
\nthreatened, under the given circumstances, one would not naturally expect a
\nwoman to be remained at the place of occurrence when she was under a grip of
\nfear and terror seeing the attack made by the accused with deadly weapons so
\nnaturally she escaped from the place of occurrence and went to bring her
\nrelatives to the spot, which was 1. kms distance from their village.  At this
\njuncture, it is pertinent to note the evidence of PW.8, which says that PW.1 had
\naccompanied her husband the deceased Sekar.  In his evidence PW.8 says that the
\ndeceased Sekar came inside his workshop and he informed him that his wife was
\nwaiting outside and after a while, he came out of the shop and took her with
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The contention of the learned counsel  that immediately after the
\noccurrence she should have gone to the police station, which was situated on the
\nway and even PW.2 and PW.3 had not gone to the police station cannot be
\ncountenanced for the simple reason that already she was under a grip of fear and
\nterror and nobody was to help her and hence she went to her village to bring her
\nrelatives to the spot and accordingly, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 came to the spot but
\nthey were informed that the injured was taken to the hospital and immediately,
\nthey rushed to the hospital.  In his evidence of PW.11 Constable, he has deposed
\nthat on the date of occurrence when he was on patrol duty, was informed by a
\nthird person that one person with serious injuries was lying in a pool of blood
\nat the place of occurrence.  Immediately, he came to the spot, saw the injured
\nin a serious condition and asked his name and his father’s name and he took him
\nto the hospital. The injured said his name as Sekar and his father’s name
\nalternatively as Anthony, Rajamani. Ex.P.4 the A.R.Copy, which was prepared by
\nPW.12 Doctor, who examined the injured in the hospital at the time of admitting,
\nalso finds the name of the injured and name of his father as deposed by PW.11.
\nNaturally, the wound Certificate Ex.P.4 is without any embellishments.
\nThereafter, PW.1 brought PW.2 and PW.3 to the place of occurrence and
\nimmediately, they returned to the hospital where the injured was admitted and
\nthe Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement from PW.1, which is the basis
\nfor the whole case and the case case came to be registered straight away for the
\noffence u\/s.302 IPC since the said Sekar already died.  In the instant case, the
\nevidence of PW.1 viewing from in any corner, cannot be seen with any doubt and
\nthe way in which she has narrated the entire evidence in a graphical manner
\ncannot be narrated by a person who had not seen the occurrence.  Thus, the
\ncontention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellants has got to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. With regard to the contention, put-forth by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony,
\ncannot be countenanced.  According to PW.1, the first accused attacked the
\ndeceased Sekar on the neck, the second accused on the face and the third accused
\non the chest.  Corresponding injuries are found in the Accident Register Copy
\nEx.P.4 as well as in the   post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.6.  With regard to the
\ncontention that PW.1 did not account for all other injuries, it is pertinent to
\nnote that in a given situation when her husband was attacked by the three
\naccused armed with aruvals and her husband was unarmed, no reasonable man or
\nprudent man would expect her to count the attack and injuries sustained.  She
\nhas naturally spoken about the attack and the injuries sustained by the
\ndeceased.  The medical evidence canvassed by PW.12 and the post-mortem
\ncertificate would clearly in support of the prosecution case.  The evidence of
\nPW.1 has inspired the confidence of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Added further the learned counsel for the appellants that the arrest
\nof the three accused and their confessional statements Exs.P.20, 21 and 22
\nrespectively and pursuant to their confession, recovery of MOs.10, 11 and 12 are
\nsubsequent introductions in the case and the Material Objects recovered were not
\nsubjected to chemical analysis, which is fatal to the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. It is a flaw committed by the Investigating Officer.  In a given case
\nlike this, the Investigating Officer must have sent the Material objects for
\nchemicals analysis but he had failed to do so.  At the same time, the Court is
\nof the considered opinion that, this part of non-examination of the Material
\nObjects by the medical evidence itself will not be fatal to the prosecution
\ncase.  Since, in the instant case, the prosecution has rested its case not only
\non circumstantial evidence but also on the direct evidence through PW.1, which
\nhas inspired the confidence of the Court as narrated above.  In the
\ninvestigation process, the prosecution has proved that the accused had waylaid
\nthe deceased and attacked him with aruvals and caused his death.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Coming to the question of act of the accused, the contention put-forth
\nby the learned counsel for the third accused that the accused had no motive and
\nthe third accused inflicted injury on the chest and this injury is not fatal,
\nhas got to be considered by this Court.  The Court is of the considered opinion
\nthat, in the instant case, all the three accused waylaid the deceased, armed
\nwith aruval attacked him in a common intention  to cause death and thus, they
\nshared the act of committing the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The question of grievous injury or simple injury, fatal or non-fatal,
\nvital or not vital organs will not arise in this case, when all the three
\naccused, who were the appellants herein gathered together and shared the common
\nintention of causing death and so caused the death of the deceased Sekar.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. The trial Court has perfectly correct in finding the three accused
\nguilty and awarding the punishments referred to above.   The  Court without
\ndisturbing the judgment of the trial Court either on facts or legal proposition
\ncan confirm the same and accordingly confirmed.  Both the appeal fail and the
\nsame are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The 1st Additional District Judge,
\n  Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
2.Inspector of Police,
\nThatchanallur
\nTirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
(Crime No.1516 of 2003)\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of
\n  the Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/03\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.A.(MD) No.128 of 2005 Crl.A.(MD) No.131 of 2005 1.Durai .. Appellant in Crl.A. No.128 of 2005 2.Durai alias Sudalai .. 1st […]<\/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-194615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDurai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 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\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-14T21:28:11+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T21:28:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3686,\"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\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T21:28:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 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":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 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\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-14T21:28:11+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T21:28:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007"},"wordCount":3686,"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\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007","name":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T21:28:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durai-vs-state-represented-by-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Durai vs State Represented By on 1 March, 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\/194615","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=194615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}