{"id":203516,"date":"2008-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-05T19:01:54","modified_gmt":"2017-07-05T13:31:54","slug":"rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 06\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.278 of 2007\n\n\nRajamanikkam                ..    Appellant\n\nvs.\n\nInspector of Police,\nAranthangi and Taluk,\nPudukkottai District.        ..   Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 17.4.2007 made in S.C.No.57 of 2006 by the learned\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.\n\t\n!For appellant \t\t... Mr. K.Balasundharam\n\n^For respondent\t\t... Mr. C.Danieal Manoharan\n                            Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made
\n by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n
\tChallenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division,
\nPudukkottai dated 17.4.2007 made in S.C.No.57 of 2006 whereby the
\nappellant\/accused along with the second accused, stood charged, tried and found
\nguilty under Sections 302 r\/w 34 IPC and also 302 r\/w 201 IPC and awarded
\nimprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000\/- with a default sentence
\nof six months rigorous imprisonment for the first charge and three years
\nrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a default sentence of
\nthree months rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can
\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) PW.4 is the mother of the deceased Krishnamoorthy.  PW.6 is the father
\nof the second accused.  The marriage of the second accused and the said
\nKrishnamoorthy took place in the year 1995.  They had two children out of their
\nwedlock.  They were living at Merpalaikkadu.  The deceased Krishnamoorthy was
\nemployed in a Hotel Impala at Pudukkottai, which belonged to PW.7.  On weekly
\nholidays, he used to go to the village.  The first accused was a Homoeopathy
\nDoctor by profession.  The first accused and the second accused had illicit
\nintimacy.  PW.6 and others advised both of them not to behave so.  But, the
\nfirst accused and the second accused did not heed to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) On 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Krishnamoorthy, after
\ndoing the day’s work, left for his native place but he had to come back to work
\nin the hotel on 16.6.2004 but he did not come back.  Even there was no whisper
\nabout him.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) On 15.6.2004, during night hours PW.9, who is the brother-in-law of
\nthe deceased along with wife Suseela came to a tea shop, which belonged to
\nPW.10.  At that time, the first accused and Krishnamoorthy were there taking
\ntea.  The first accused asked the deceased Krishnamoorthy to  go with him.  But
\nKrishnamoorthy refused to go with him.  However, on his insistence, the deceased
\nKrishnamoorthy went along with the first accused by TVS Moped, which belonged to
\nthe first accused and they were not seen thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) On 16.6.2004, when PW.1, a native of Poovatrakkudi was going through
\nthe field, near his well situated in the filed, he found a naked dead body,
\nwhich was half burnt.  Immediately, he proceeded to Aranthangi Police Station
\nwhere the Sub Inspector of Police PW.18 was on duty.  He gave a report, which
\nwas marked as Ex.P.1.  On the strength of Ex.P.1, PW.18 registered a case in
\nCrime No.299\/2004 under Sections 302 r\/w 201 IPC. F.I.R. Ex.P.20 along with
\nEx.P.1 report was sent to the Court and to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) On receipt of copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P.20, PW.22 took up investigation,
\nproceeded to the spot and prepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.3 in the presence
\nof witnesses and arranged for taking photos of the deceased Krishnamoorthy as
\nwell as the place  and they were marked as MO.38 (Series) and MO.39(Series).  He
\nrecovered MO.1 blood stained earth,  half burnt pant pieces MO.2 (Series),
\nstained earth MO.3 and sample earth MO.4 and other material objects as marked by
\nthe prosecution were recovered from the spot.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Thereafter, PW.22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased
\nin the presence of panchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.23.
\nThereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem by Doctor PW.15, attached
\nto the Government Hospital, Aranthangi.  He has issued post mortem certificate
\nEx.P.14.  PW.15 has opined that the deceased died out of burn injuries
\nsustained.  Identity of the body was not known.  Hyoid bone and other parts were
\npreserved for finding the identity.  PW.22 caused necessary publications through
\nT.V., news papers and bit notices etc.,.  On 30.11.2004, PW.22 received an
\ninformation from PW.4 that the deceased Krishnamoorthy was not found and he was
\nmissing for 5 months.  Then, he proceeded to place and verified from PW.4.  He
\nhas also received photograph from her. All the photographs which were marked as
\nMO.38 (Series) and MO.39(Series) and photos which was marked as MO.11 (Series)
\nreceived from PW.4 were sent along with skull and other parts of the body for
\nthe purpose of super imposition.  The super imposition test was done as a result
\nof which, PW.19 has given her opinion under Ex.P.17 that it was the dead body
\nwas that of the said Krishnamoorthy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Pending investigation, on 29.3.2005 the first accused was arrested
\nand he gave a confessional statement in the presence of V.A.O. PW.11 and his
\nassistant and the same was recorded and the admissible part of that evidence was
\nmarked as Ex.P.7.  Pursuant to the confession, MO.21 TVS Moped and other
\nmaterials objects were recovered as  put-forth by the prosecution.  The second
\naccused was also arrested.  Both the accused were sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) All these Materials Objects were subjected to chemical analysis,
\nwhich resulted in  Chemical Analysis Report.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix) On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed a final
\nreport against the accused as per the charges.  The case was committed to the
\nCourt of Sessions.  Necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the
\nprosecution examined 22 witnesses and relied on 25 Exhibits and 39 Material
\nObjects.  On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating
\ncircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was
\nflatly denied on the part of the accused.  No defence witness was examined.  The
\ntrial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and on
\nconsidering the materials available on record, took the view that the
\nprosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and found the accused
\nguilty of the charge of murder and awarded punishment referred to above.
\nAggrieved over the same, the first accused has brought forth this appeal before
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.K.Balasundharam,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) In the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) PW.10 has turned hostile.  The only witness relied on by the
\nprosecution was PW.9, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased Krishnamoorthy
\nand the occurrence was taken place in the night hours of 15.6.2004.  According
\nto PW.9, the deceased was last seen in the company of the first accused.  Even
\naccording to PW.9, the deceased was found missing from 15.6.2004.  Had it been
\ntrue, immediately, he should have taken it to the notice of the police or
\ninformed to anybody else, which had not been done by PW.9.  PW.4 is the mother.
\nShe had also not given any complaint about   missing his son. Hence, the
\nevidence of PW.9 is improbable and unbelievable.  After a period of 5 months, a
\ncase was registered under Section 302 IPC.  All over the period, A.1 and A.2 was
\nvery well staying in the same place.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)  Insofar as the prosecution relying on the report given by the
\nexpert on superimposition test, there is no conclusion that it was the skull of
\nthe deceased Krishnamoorthy.  The prosecution has miserably failed to point out
\nthe nexus or the complicity of A.1 in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)  In the instant case, motive for the crime was illicit intimacy
\nbetween A.1 and A.2 but there was no one to speak about that fact.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) PW.22 has filed the final report in the case wherein he has stated
\nthat there was an earlier report.  He would state that only on suspicion, the
\naccused were arrested.  All those material objects were found after a long
\nperiod pursuant to the alleged confession.  The recovery of material objects and
\nthe alleged confession were all highly improbable and unbelievable.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) The trial court was completely mislead by the extraneous
\ncircumstances in bringing home the guilt of the accused.  Hence, the appellant
\nis entitled for acquittal in the hands of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a
\nthorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The gist of the prosecution was that on 15.6.2004, one half burnt dead
\nbody was found in the field of PW.1, who would give a complaint Ex.P.1 to the
\npolice and on the strength of which a case came to be registered for murder and
\ninvestigation was taken up.  The identity of the dead body could not be found.
\nHence, the investigator made wide publications in TVs, news papers etc.,
\nThereafter, he received an information that one Krishnamoorthy, the son of PW.4
\nwas found missing for 5 months.  The investigator probed into the matter and
\nverified the marriage photographs and other photos of the deceased from PW.4.
\nHe sent the skull and other parts of the body of the deceased along with photos
\nfor super imposition test as a result of which, it was clearly identified that
\nit was the skull of the  said Krishnamoorthy.  The prosecution was successful
\nenough to prove the fact that, the half burnt dead body was that of the said
\ndeceased Krishnamoorthy.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. According to the prosecution, there was illicit intimacy between the
\nsecond accused and the appellant.  On 15.6.2004, when the deceased
\nKrishnamoorthy was in his house, he was given an injunction to brought him under
\nunconscious and took him outside to the field of PW.1 and set him ablaze.  The
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer.  It rested on circumstantial
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Under these circumstances, in a given case like this, the prosecution
\nmust be able to prove the necessary circumstances.  The only one evidence
\navailable to the prosecution is the evidence of PW.9.  According to PW.9, he
\nwent to a tea shop along with his wife Suseela and at that time, he found the
\ndeceased Krishnamoorthy in the company of A.1.  At that time, though the first
\naccused called Krishnamoorthy to accompany him in the TVS Moped, the deceased
\nrefused to go with him but the accused compelled him and took with him.
\nThereafter, PW.9 did not see Krishnamoorthy.  The evidence of PW.9 is highly
\nimprobable and unacceptable for more reasons than one.  PW.9 has married the
\nsister of Krishnamoorthy and thus, he is brother-in-law of the deceased.  On the
\nnight hours of 15.6.2004, had it been really true that A.1 had compelled the
\nsaid Krishnamoorthy to accompany him and he went along with him, naturally, when
\nKrishnamoorthy was found missing from the next day morning, PW.9 would have
\ndefinitely questioned the first accused about the same.  It is not in dispute
\nthat the first accused staying in the same place.  PW.9 had never questioned the
\nfirst accused nor informed to PW.4, the mother of the deceased or any one about
\nthe last seen theory.  Neither PW.9 nor PW.4 approached the police for a number
\nof months as to the missing of the said deceased Krishnamoorthy.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The statement of PW.9 was recorded by the investigator on 4.1.2005 but
\nthe same had reached the Court only after a period of 2 months.  At this
\njuncture, had it been really true the deceased Krishnamoorthy was found missing
\nand PW.9 had really seen the deceased in the company of A.1, he would have
\ndefinitely brought to the notice of the police or would have questioned A.1.
\nBut he had not even come over for a period of 5 months, which by itself would
\nimprobablise that PW.9 could not have seen them together.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  In the instant case, if the evidence of PW.9 is not believed by the
\nCourt, the prosecution had no more evidence to offer.  Insofar as certain
\nrecoveries made pursuant to the alleged confession made by the first accused,
\nthe Court is of the considered opinion that mere recoveries, which were alleged
\nto have been recovered, would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
\naccused in a case like this since the evidence of PW.9 is highly improbable and
\nunbelievable.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. On the face of it, the prosecution has no more evidence to offer to
\nconnect the accused with the crime.  Though the prosecution is successful enough
\nto point out the fact that it was the dead body of the said Krishnamoorthy, the
\nprosecution was unable to prove the nexus of the crime with the appellant before
\nthe Court.  But, the lower Court without proper appreciation of the materials
\navailable on record,  has taken an erroneous view and found the appellant
\nguilty, which has got to be set right and that could be done only by upsetting
\nthe judgment of the lower Court and it is, accordingly, set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.  The appellant is
\nacquitted of the charges.  The appellant is directed to be released forth with
\nunless his presence is required in connection with any other case.  Fine amount,
\nif any, was paid by the appellant, the same shall be refunded to him.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
2.Inspector of Police,
\n  Aranthangi & Taluk,
\n  Pudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of
\n  the Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD) No.278 of 2007 Rajamanikkam .. Appellant vs. Inspector of Police, Aranthangi and Taluk, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal filed […]<\/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-203516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - 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\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2209,\"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\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - 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\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008"},"wordCount":2209,"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\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008","name":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T13:31:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamanikkam-vs-inspector-of-police-on-6-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajamanikkam vs Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/203516","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=203516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}