{"id":195070,"date":"2007-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007"},"modified":"2014-02-10T10:32:24","modified_gmt":"2014-02-10T05:02:24","slug":"kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                      DATE : 06.08.2007\n\n                           CORAM:\n\n    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n                   Crl. R.C. No.941 of 2005\n\n                              \nKittusamy                          \t\t..Revision Petitioner\n\n\n        Vs.\n\n\n1. The Inspector of Police\n   Alahgiyam Police Station\n   Dharapuram Taluk\n   Erode Dsitrict.\n   (Cr.No.28\/2001)\n\n2. Panneerselvi\n\n3. Manikandan                          \t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\nPrayer:\n\n\t  This  revision  has  been  preferred  against  the\njudgment  dated 25.2.2005 made in S.C.No.47 of 2004  on  the\nfile of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharapuram.\n\n\n\n\n  For Petitioner  : Mr.M.M.Sundresh\n\n  For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor (for R1)\n                    Mr.C.S.K.Sathish (for R2 to R3)\n\n                              \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      This  revision has been preferred against the judgment<\/p>\n
in  S.C.No.47 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Dharapuram, by the complainant.  The charge sheet was<\/p>\n
filed against A1 & A2 under Section 307 & 323 IPC.<\/p>\n
      2.The  learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram,  after<\/p>\n
furnishing  the copies to the accused under Section  207  of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.,  on  his appearance on summons, had  committed  the<\/p>\n
case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
     3.On appearance of the accused, the learned Trial Judge<\/p>\n
had  framed the charges under Section 307 & 323 IPC and when<\/p>\n
questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.   On the side  of<\/p>\n
the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1  to<\/p>\n
Ex.P.7  were marked. No material objects were marked  before<\/p>\n
the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.P.W.1 is an injured witness.  According to him,  due<\/p>\n
to  previous  enmity  in respect of bailing water  from  the<\/p>\n
common well on 28.3.2001 at about 11.00 pm he along with his<\/p>\n
brother  went to the land and when they were irrigating  the<\/p>\n
land,  the  accused came there and stopped the  motor.  When<\/p>\n
this  was questioned by P.W.1, A1 had assaulted him  on  the<\/p>\n
back  with stone and A2 also assaulted him on the back  with<\/p>\n
stone  and another accused Rani had assaulted with stone  on<\/p>\n
his   left   leg.    The  accused,  thereafter,   criminally<\/p>\n
intimidated  P.W.1 and had thrown him into the well.   P.W.1<\/p>\n
has further deposed that when he came out of the well he saw<\/p>\n
A2  beating P.W.1 with a stick and A2 assaulting P.W.2  with<\/p>\n
hands and the deceased Rani had been assaulting P.W.2 with a<\/p>\n
stone  on  the left cheek and that on hearing their distress<\/p>\n
call  neighbours  rushed to the place of occurrence  and  on<\/p>\n
seeing them, the accused took to their heels.   Both P.W.1 &<\/p>\n
P.W.2 were taken to government hospital at Dharapuram, where<\/p>\n
they  were treated as out patients.  Ex.P.1 is the complaint<\/p>\n
preferred by P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.P.W.2  is  the  brother  of  P.W.1.  He  would  also<\/p>\n
corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and would say that at  the<\/p>\n
time  of  occurrence A1 had assaulted P.W.1 with hands,  the<\/p>\n
deceased Rani had assaulted P.W.1 with stone on the left leg<\/p>\n
and  A2 had assaulted P.W.1 with stone on his back and  they<\/p>\n
have pushed P.W.1 into the well and before P.W.1 could claim<\/p>\n
up,  A2  had assaulted him (P.W.2) on his back with a  stick<\/p>\n
and  A2  had  assaulted him on the back with hands  and  the<\/p>\n
deceased Rani had assaulted him on the left cheek with stone<\/p>\n
causing  injuries  and  on  hearing  their  distress   call,<\/p>\n
witnesses  Subramaniam, Kathiresan & Manivel rushed  to  the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence and on seeing them, the accused ran away<\/p>\n
from  the place of occurrence.  Thereafter, P.W.1 and  P.W.2<\/p>\n
went  to  the Government Hospital at Dharapuram, where  they<\/p>\n
were  treated  and  on the next day P.W.1  had  preferred  a<\/p>\n
complaint with the police.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.P.W.3 is an eye witness to the occurrence.  According<\/p>\n
to him, on 28\/29.3.2001 at about 1.30 am, on hearing a noise<\/p>\n
near  the  well,  he rushed there and saw  A1,  A2  and  the<\/p>\n
deceased  Rani  attacking P.W.1.    According  to  him,  the<\/p>\n
overtact attributed to A1 is that he gave blows on the  back<\/p>\n
of  P.W.1  and  A2 gave a blow on the eye of P.W.1  and  the<\/p>\n
deceased  Rani pelted stone on the back of P.W.1  and  after<\/p>\n
criminally intimidating P.W.1, the accused pushed  him  into<\/p>\n
the  well   and A2 had assaulted P.W.2 with a stick  on  his<\/p>\n
back  and A1 had assaulted P.W.1 with hands on the back  and<\/p>\n
the  deceased  Rani had assaulted with stone and  on  seeing<\/p>\n
him, the accused took to their heels.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.P.W.5  is  the then Sub-Inspector of  Police,  Erode<\/p>\n
Taluk Police Station.  On information, he had registered the<\/p>\n
statement  of  P.W.1  on 29.3.2001 at  Government  Hospital,<\/p>\n
Dharapuram  and  registered a case  in  Erode  Taluk  Police<\/p>\n
Station  Cr.No.28  of  2001 under Section  323  &  324  IPC.<\/p>\n
Ex.P.5  is  the FIR.  He had visited the place of occurrence<\/p>\n
and  the  Head  Constable had prepared  observation  mahazar<\/p>\n
Ex.P.2  and also Ex.P.6-rough sketch.  He has also  examined<\/p>\n
the Head Constable and recorded his statement.<\/p>\n
      8.P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer in this case.  He<\/p>\n
had  altered  the  charges from Section 323  &  324  IPC  to<\/p>\n
Section 307 & 323 IPC.  Altered FIR is Ex.P.7.<\/p>\n
      9.P.W.5 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 on  2.50<\/p>\n
pm  on  29.3.2001  at  Government Hospital,  Dharapuram  and<\/p>\n
issued  Ex.P.3 copy of the accident register.  He  has  also<\/p>\n
examined  P.W.2 on 29.3.2001 at about 2.40 am and Ex.P.4  is<\/p>\n
the  copy  of the accident register relating to the injuries<\/p>\n
sustained by P.W.2.  The doctor has opined that the injuries<\/p>\n
are simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     10.P.W.8 after completing the formalities had filed the<\/p>\n
charge  sheet against the accused on 13.8.2002 under Section<\/p>\n
323 & 307 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.When  incriminating circumstances were put  to  the<\/p>\n
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny<\/p>\n
their complicity with the crime.  The accused have exhibited<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1  to Ex.D.5, documents relating to Cr.No.29  of  2001,<\/p>\n
the counter case filed by the accused against P.W.1 & P.W.2.<\/p>\n
After  scanning the evidence both oral and documentary,  the<\/p>\n
learned  trial  Judge  has come to the conclusion  that  the<\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against<\/p>\n
the  accused  beyond  any reasonable doubt  and  accordingly<\/p>\n
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled  against<\/p>\n
them,  which  necessitated the complainant-P.W.1  to  prefer<\/p>\n
this revision.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.Now the point for determination in this revision is<\/p>\n
whether  the findings of the learned trial Judge is full  of<\/p>\n
manifest  error or perverse in nature leading to miscarriage<\/p>\n
of justice to warrant any interference from this Court?<\/p>\n
      13.The  Point:   At the same time  of  occurrence  the<\/p>\n
accused  also  sustained injuries at the hands  of  P.W.1  &<\/p>\n
P.W.2 and A1 had preferred a counter case under Cr.No.29  of<\/p>\n
2001.   The  said  fact  was admitted by  the  Investigating<\/p>\n
Officers  in  this case viz., P.W.6 & P.W.7 in their  cross-<\/p>\n
examination.    The   charge  sheet,  FIR,   rough   sketch,<\/p>\n
observation  mahazar and the list of material objects  filed<\/p>\n
along  with  the  charge  sheet in  Cr.No.29  of  2001  were<\/p>\n
exhibited in this case on the side of the accused as  Ex.D.1<\/p>\n
to  Ex.D.5.   But  there  is  no explanation  given  by  the<\/p>\n
Investigating officer in this case   as to why the provision<\/p>\n
under  Section  588(A) of the PSO was not followed  in  this<\/p>\n
case.   The said complaint in Cr.No.29 of 2001 was preferred<\/p>\n
by  Panneer Selvi, A1 herein.  It is seen from Ex.D.2,  that<\/p>\n
case  was registered under Section 324 & 506(ii) IPC against<\/p>\n
Kittusamy, P.W.1 herein and Rangasamy-P.W.2 herein and  also<\/p>\n
against  one Chinnadurai.  P.W.6, the Investigating  Officer<\/p>\n
in  this case, would admit that in the cross-examination  he<\/p>\n
has  not  filed  any  wound certificate in  respect  of  the<\/p>\n
accused  for  the injuries they have sustained in  the  same<\/p>\n
occurrence.   If  the  prosecution  fails  to  explain   the<\/p>\n
injuries  of the accused then it is fatal to the prosecution<\/p>\n
case,  is  the dictum laid down in AIR 1976 SC 2363 (Lakshmi<\/p>\n
Singh  and  others etc.,   Vs.  Sate of Bihar), wherein  the<\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained  by<\/p>\n
the  accused at about the same time of occurrence or in  the<\/p>\n
course  of alteration.  The honourable Apex Court  has  held<\/p>\n
that  the non-explanation of the injuries sustained  by  the<\/p>\n
accused  would  amount to suppression  of  genesis  and  the<\/p>\n
origin  of the occurrence itself and it throws doubt on  the<\/p>\n
prosecution  case, which will inure to the  benefit  of  the<\/p>\n
accused.   The  exact observation in the above  said  dictum<\/p>\n
runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Particularly when the prosecution does  not
\n    give  any  explanation for the grievous and  other
\n    serious  injuries on the person of Dasrath  Singh.
\n    This  is  a  case  where it  is  not  possible  to
\n    disengage  the truth from falsehood, to  sift  the
\n    grain  from  the chaff.  The truth  and  falsehood
\n    are  so  inextricably mixed together  that  it  is
\n    difficult  to separate them.  Indeed if one  tries
\n    to  do so, it will amount to reconstructing a  new
\n    case  for the prosecution which cannot be done  in
\n    a                  criminal                  case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    ………………………………………
\n    ………………………………………….
\n    …………………………………
\n    Non-explanation of the injuries sustained  by  the
\n    accused at about the time of the occurrence or  in
\n    the  course  of  altercation is a  very  important
\n    circumstance  from which the Court  can  draw  the
\n    following inferences:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (1) that the prosecution has suppressed  the
\n    genesis  and the origin of the occurrence and  has
\n    thus not presented the true version;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (2)  that the witnesses who have denied  the
\n    presence  of  the injuries on the  person  of  the
\n    accused  are  lying on a most material  point  and
\n    therefore their evidence is unreliable;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3)  that in case there is a defence version
\n    which  explains the injuries on the person of  the
\n    accused  it  is rendered probable so as  to  throw
\n    doubt  on the prosecution case.  (AIR 1968  SC  12
\n    81 and AIER 1975 SC 1674 relied on).
\n    ………………………………………….
\n    ………………………………..
\n    ……….  The  omission  on  the  part  of   the
\n    prosecution to explain the injuries on the  person
\n    of  the  accused  assumes much greater  importance
\n    where  the  evidence  consists  of  interested  or
\n    where  the defence gives a version which  competes
\n    in   probability  with  that  of  the  prosecution
\n    case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Apart  from  the  above said flaw the prosecution  has  also<\/p>\n
suffered  from other infirmities like the statement  of  the<\/p>\n
injured P.W.1 and P.W.2 before the doctor, P.W.5, that  they<\/p>\n
have   been  assaulted  by  six  persons  at  the  time   of<\/p>\n
occurrence.    But  before  the  Court  they  would  confine<\/p>\n
themselves to three persons.  The evidence of P.W.2 will  go<\/p>\n
to show that he would not have witnessed the alleged assault<\/p>\n
made by the accused on P.W.1 because his evidence is to  the<\/p>\n
effect that even before P.W.1 could come out of the well  he<\/p>\n
had  seen  A1  & A2 assaulting P.W.1 with stone  and  stick.<\/p>\n
Further  P.W.1 before the doctor P.W.5 at the  time  of  his<\/p>\n
treatment has informed that six known persons have assaulted<\/p>\n
him  with aruval which is not the case of P.W.1.  In  Ex.P.4<\/p>\n
copy  of  the accident register, also the doctor  P.W.5  has<\/p>\n
mentioned  that  P.W.2 had informed  him,  at  the  time  of<\/p>\n
treatment,  that he was assaulted by six known persons  with<\/p>\n
aruval  causing  grievous injuries.    Further  no  material<\/p>\n
objects were also produced by the prosecution in this  case.<\/p>\n
Under  such  circumstances, I do not find any illegality  or<\/p>\n
manifest  error  or  perverseness in  the  findings  of  the<\/p>\n
learned  trial  Judge leading to miscarriage of  justice  to<\/p>\n
warrant any interference from this Court.  Point is answered<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.In  fine, the revision is dismissed confirming  the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.47 of 2004 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharapuram.<\/p>\n
ssv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Additional Sessions Judge
\n   \tDharapuram.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t-do-The District & Sessions Judge
\n   \tDharapuram.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Public Prosecutor
\n \tMadras High Court
\n   \tMadras.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Inspector of Police
\n   \tAlahgiyam Police Station
\n   \tDharapuram Taluk
\n\tErode.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 06.08.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl. R.C. No.941 of 2005 Kittusamy ..Revision Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police Alahgiyam Police Station Dharapuram Taluk Erode Dsitrict. (Cr.No.28\/2001) 2. Panneerselvi […]<\/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-195070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 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\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-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=\"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-10T05:02:24+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-10T05:02:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1862,\"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\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-10T05:02:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 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":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 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\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-10T05:02:24+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-10T05:02:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007"},"wordCount":1862,"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\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007","name":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-10T05:02:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kittusamy-revision-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-6-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kittusamy ..Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 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\/195070","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=195070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}