{"id":197379,"date":"2003-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003"},"modified":"2017-08-05T10:06:37","modified_gmt":"2017-08-05T04:36:37","slug":"dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCRL. APPEAL NO.1668 OF 2002\n\n\nDhanapal                               ..  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState\nby the Inspector of Police,\nThirupur South Police Station\nThirupur\n(Cr. No.160 of 2001)                    ..  Respondent\n\n\n        This Criminal  appeal  is  preferred  under  Section  374  of  Cr.P.C.\nagainst  the  judgment  of  the  learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track\nCourt No.4, Coimbatore at Thirupur in S.C.No.231 of 2001 dated 30.07.2002.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.N.Ramu\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The sole accused in a case of robbery, who stood charged, tried, found<br \/>\nguilty under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for eight years  with<br \/>\na fine of Rs.4000\/- in default 6 months RI has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be<br \/>\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        a) P.W.1 Kannapiran was the resident of  Tirupur.    On  13.3.2001  at<br \/>\nabout 3.30  p.m.    When  he  waited  at  Old  Bus stand, Tirupur for going to<br \/>\nMettupalayam, the appellant came there with Aruval  MO1,  threatened  him  and<br \/>\nsnatched  away  a cash of Rs.450\/- kept in his pocket and also snatched away a<br \/>\nCitizen watch MO2 worn by P.W.1 at that time.  P.W.1  showed  his  resistance.<br \/>\nBut the accused by showing Aruval uttered that rg;jk; nghl;lhy; bfhd;W tpLntd;<br \/>\nand ran  away from the place of occurrence with the robbed articles.  P.W.2 to<br \/>\n4 and 6, who were in the bus stand, witnessed the said occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        b) P.W.1 rushed to the Tirupur  South  Police  Station  and  lodged  a<br \/>\ncomplaint under Ex.P.1 before P.W.10 Sanmugaiyah, Inspector of Police.  On the<br \/>\nstrength of  which,  P.W.10  registered  a  case  at about 4.15 p.m.  in crime<br \/>\nNo.160 of 2001 under Section 397 IPC.  Express F.I.R.  Ex.P.1 0 was despatched<br \/>\nto the concerned court.  P.W.10 took up investigation, proceeded to  the  site<br \/>\nof occurrence, made an observation and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and<br \/>\nrough sketch Ex.P.11 in front of P.W.5 Balasubramanian and P.W.6 Thilagar.  He<br \/>\nexamined P.Ws.1  to  4,  6  and  7  and  recorded  their  statements.  He also<br \/>\nrecovered broken soda bottle pieces MO5 series under Ex.P.3 in  front  of  the<br \/>\nP.W&gt;5 and the other witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>        c)  On  14.3.2001  at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.10 arrested the appellant\/<br \/>\naccused, who was identified by P.W.1 near Selvam  Nagar  Bus  stand,  Tirupur.<br \/>\nThe  accused  has given voluntary confessional statement before P.W.10 and the<br \/>\nsame was recorded in front of P.Ws.8 and 9.   The  admissble  portion  of  the<br \/>\nconfessional statement  of the accused was marked as Ex.P.12.  Pursuant to the<br \/>\nconfessional statement given by the accused, M.O.2  Citizen  watch  and  M.O.4<br \/>\n(series)  cash of Rs.300\/- were recovered under Ex.P.13 in front of P.Ws.8 and\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  The appellant took P.W.1 0 to his house and produced M.O.1 Aruval and  the<br \/>\nsame was recovered under Ex.P.14 mahazar in front of P.Ws.8 and 9.  P.Ws.8 and<br \/>\n9 were examined by P.W.10 and their statements were recorded.  The accused was<br \/>\nsent  for judicial custody and the properties were also produced under Form 95<br \/>\nto the Court.  P.W.1 was reexamined by P.W.10.  He completed the investigation<br \/>\nand laid a  charge  sheet  against  the  accused  under  Section  397  IPC  on<br \/>\n21.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   In  order  to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 14  exhibits  and  5  M.Os.    On<br \/>\ncompletion  of  the  evidence  on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.  as to the incriminating circumstances<br \/>\nfound in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied  as<br \/>\nfalse.  No  defence  witnesses  were  examined.  On consideration of the rival<br \/>\nsubmissions made and careful scrutiny of the materials  available,  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  found the accused guilty under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment as referred to above.  Aggrieved appellant has brought forth this<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Advancing arguments  on  behalf  of  the  appellant,  the  learned<br \/>\nCounsel Mr.N.Ramu has made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  trial  court  without sufficient evidence has found the appellant<br \/>\nguilty.  The appellant\/accused was not known  to  P.W.1  or  any  one  of  the<br \/>\nwitnesses examined  by  the prosecution earlier to the occurrence.  Under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, identification parade should have been conducted.  The case  of<br \/>\nthe accused  was  that he was not involved in the alleged crime.  P.Ws.2 and 3<br \/>\nhave turned hostile.    There  were  discrepancies  in  the  evidence  of  the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses.   P.Ws.1,4  and  6  were examined as eyewitnesses.  The<br \/>\nevidence adduced  by  the  prosecution  as  to  the  arrest  and  confessional<br \/>\nstatement was  nothing but a tissue of falsehood.  Both the witnesses examined<br \/>\nin this regard, namely P.Ws.8 and 9,  have  turned  hostile,  and  hence,  the<br \/>\nprosecution  has  not  adduced any evidence in respect of arrest, confessional<br \/>\nstatement and the recovery of M.Os.  Under the stated  circumstances,  without<br \/>\nproper  appreciation  of  evidence,  the  trial  court has found the appellant<br \/>\nguilty under Section 397 IPC.    Hence,  the  appellant  is  entitled  for  an<br \/>\nacquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Strongly opposing all the contentions put forth by the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nside,  Mr.V.Jaya  Prakash  Narayan, the learned Government Advocate ( Criminal<br \/>\nside) would submit that the occurrence has taken place during day  time;  that<br \/>\nP.W.1 has clearly narrated the whole incident, which was fully corroborated by<br \/>\ntwo  eyewitnesses,  namely  P.Ws.4 and 6; that all of them have identified the<br \/>\nappellant that it was he who committed the said offence; that it is true  that<br \/>\nboth the  witnesses  examined  for the recovery of M.Os.  have turned hostile;<br \/>\nthat the  accused  was  arrested  the  next  day;  that  on  his  confessional<br \/>\nstatement,  the  subject matter of robbery, namely M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.2 Citizen<br \/>\nwatch and M.  O.4 (series)Rs.300\/- (Rs.450\/-  was  actually  snatched  by  the<br \/>\nappellant) were recovered from the accused; that they were produced before the<br \/>\ncourt  and the appellant was also produced before the Court; that the evidence<br \/>\nof P.Ws.1, 4 and 6 coupled with the r ecovery of the robbed articles  pursuant<br \/>\nto  the  confessional  statement  given by the accused would clearly prove the<br \/>\nprosecution case and the trial court found the appellant  guilty,  and  hence,<br \/>\nthe judgment of the trial court has got to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.    On   careful   appraisement   of  the  materials  available  and<br \/>\nconsideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is  unable  to  notice<br \/>\nany substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   The  gist  of  the prosecution case as stated above was that when<br \/>\nP.W.1 was waiting at old bus stand, Tirupur at about 3.30 p.m.  on  13.3.2001,<br \/>\nthe appellant came with MO1 Aruval, threatened him and snatched away a cash of<br \/>\nRs.450\/-,  which  P.W.1  kept  in his pocket and M.O.2 citizen watch from him,<br \/>\ndespite his resistance.  The prosecution in  order  to  prove  the  crime  has<br \/>\nexamined  P.W.1, the owner of the said properties and from whom, the same were<br \/>\nrobbed and P.Ws.2,4 and 6.  It is true that P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned  hostile,<br \/>\nbut P.Ws.4 and 6, who were nearby in the bus stand, have categorically deposed<br \/>\nthat the crime was committed by the appellant, and thus, the evidence of P.W.1<br \/>\nwas fully  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.4  and  6.  All the three<br \/>\neyewitnesses have clearly identified the appellant before the Court.    It  is<br \/>\npertinent  to  point out that the accused\/appellant was arrested the very next<br \/>\nday and he was also identified by P.W.1.  Since the occurrence has taken place<br \/>\nin a day time and the nature of occurrence was like that P.W.1 and  the  other<br \/>\ntwo  witnesses  cannot  forget  the identity of the accused, they were able to<br \/>\nidentify the accused before the Court clearly.  Thus, the  contention  of  the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  side  that the accused\/appellant was not known to them previously<br \/>\nand no identification parade was conducted cannot be countenanced.   The  very<br \/>\nnext  day  to  the  occurrence, namely on 14.3.2001, the appellant\/accused was<br \/>\narrested and M.O.2 Citizen watch and  M.O.4  (Series)  Rs.300\/-  part  of  the<br \/>\nrobbed  amount,  namely,  Rs.450\/- were recovered from the accused pursuant to<br \/>\nthe confessional statement given by him and  they  were  produced  before  the<br \/>\nCourt along  with  the  accused.  Hence, it would be abundantly clear that the<br \/>\narrest and the recovery of M.Os.  on  the  very  next  day  would  clearly  be<br \/>\npointing  to the guilt of the accused when coupled with the evidence put forth<br \/>\nby the prosecution through P.Ws.1,4 and 6.  Hence, this  Court  is  unable  to<br \/>\nnotice any  merit  in  this  appeal.  This court is of the view that the trial<br \/>\ncourt was perfectly correct in recording  a  conviction  against  the  accused<br \/>\nunder Section 397 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Coming  to  the question of sentence, the trial court has awarded<br \/>\npunishment of 8 years and a fine of Rs.4000\/- in default 6 months  RI.    This<br \/>\nCourt  is  of the view that awarding punishment of seven years RI along with a<br \/>\nfine of Rs.500\/- in default two months RI would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  the sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused\/appellant<br \/>\nunder Section 397 IPC is reduced to seven years along with a fine of  Rs.500\/-<br \/>\nin default  two  months RI.  With the above modification, this criminal appeal<br \/>\nis dismissed.  In other respect, the judgment of the trial court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\nvvk<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Addl.  Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4,<br \/>\nCoimbatore at Tirupur\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Dy.  Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt.  Advocate(Cri.  Side)<br \/>\nHigh Court, Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  The Inspector of Police, Tirupur South Police Station<br \/>\nTirupur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM CRL. APPEAL NO.1668 OF 2002 Dhanapal .. Appellant -Vs- State by the Inspector of Police, Thirupur South Police Station Thirupur (Cr. No.160 of 2001) .. Respondent This Criminal appeal [&hellip;]<\/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-197379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-05T04:36:37+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T04:36:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1543,\"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\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T04:36:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-05T04:36:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T04:36:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003"},"wordCount":1543,"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\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003","name":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T04:36:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanapal-vs-state-on-7-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhanapal vs State on 7 August, 2003"}]},{"@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\/197379","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=197379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}