{"id":204414,"date":"2008-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-05T15:26:43","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T09:56:43","slug":"elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :03\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.(MD)No.37 of 2001\n\nElango\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nThe State\nThrough Inspector of Police,\nRajapalayam South Police Station,\n(Crime No.215\/1999)\nVirudhunagar District.\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374  Cr.P.C against\nthe judgment dated 28.09.2000 made in S.C.No.80 of 2000 by the Principal\nSessions Judge, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputhur.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.K.Jegannathan\n\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.Senthur Pandian,\n\t\t     Additional Public Prosecutor\n\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nVirudhunagar at Srivilliputhur made in S.C.NO.80 of 2000, whereby the sole<br \/>\naccused\/appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried and found guilty as<br \/>\nper the charge and awarded life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal could be<br \/>\nstated thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta)P.Ws.1,2,3 and the deceased all belonged to Tiruvulluvar Nagar Weavers&#8217;<br \/>\nColony.  They belonged to Hindu Community.  The accused belonged to Christian<br \/>\nCommunity.  Both these communities had difference of opinion and also quarrel<br \/>\nover the construction of a temple in a public place.  On 25.04.1999, P.Ws.2 and<br \/>\n3 were chatting in front of their house. The brother of the accused was<br \/>\nproceeding on that way. It was passing in his mind that those ladies were<br \/>\nteasing him and he informed the same to the accused.  Immediately, the accused<br \/>\nproceeded to the house of P.W.3 and asked P.W.3 &#8220;why you were teasing my<br \/>\nbrother?&#8221;.  At that time, there was exchange of filthy language.  At about 7.00<br \/>\np.m, P.Ws.1,2 and 3 telling the deceased &#8220;why you should not ask the other party<br \/>\nin respect of teasing?&#8221;. At that time, the accused was actually coming on the<br \/>\nway.  There was a wordy altercation and scuffle between the accused and the<br \/>\ndeceased. In that process, the deceased assaulted the accused.  Thereafter, the<br \/>\ndeceased was proceeding to his house. At that time, the accused immediately took<br \/>\nan aruval, followed the deceased and uttered &#8220;you have assaulted me, so you<br \/>\ndie&#8221;.  So telling, he attacked him with the aruval on the different parts of the<br \/>\nbody.  Immediately, he ran away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb)The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, where<br \/>\nP.W.5, the doctor, who was on duty, medically treated the severely injured and<br \/>\nissued accident register, Ex.P.2.  On receipt of the intimation, P.W.9, the Sub<br \/>\nInspector of Police of the respondent police, proceeded to the Government<br \/>\nHospital, where he found the injured Venkatachalapathy not in a condition to<br \/>\nspeak.  Then, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.P.1. On<br \/>\nthe strength of the same, he registered a case in Crime No.215 of 1999 under<br \/>\nSection 307 IPC. Ex.P.10, the printed F.I.R., was sent to the concerned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate&#8217;s Court. The injured Venkatachalapathy was referred to Madurai Rajaji<br \/>\nGovernment Hospital for further treatment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc)On receipt of the copy of F.I.R., P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took<br \/>\nup the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection<br \/>\nin the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.5, the Observation mahazar, and<br \/>\nEx.P.11, the rough sketch. Further, he recovered the blood stained earth, M.O.2<br \/>\nand sample earth M.O.3, from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.<br \/>\nOn receipt of the intimation that the injured died on the way, when he was taken<br \/>\nto the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, P.W.10 altered the case to Section<br \/>\n302 IPC. Ex.P.12, the altered F.I.R. was despatched to the court. He proceeded<br \/>\nto the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the<br \/>\npresence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13, the inquest<br \/>\nreport.\n<\/p>\n<p>\td)The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for the purpose<br \/>\nof autopsy. P.W.7, the Doctor attached to the Madurai Medical College, on<br \/>\nreceipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased<br \/>\nand has issued Ex.P.4, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that<br \/>\nthe deceased would appear to have died out of shock and hemorrhage due to the<br \/>\ninjuries sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\te)Pending investigation,  the Investigator arrested the accused on<br \/>\n27.04.1999 and he gave a confessional statement voluntarily and the same was<br \/>\nrecorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.P.7. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, M.O.4, shirt<br \/>\nand M.O.5, lungi, which were recovered under a cover of Exs.P.8 &amp; 9<br \/>\nrespectively. The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects<br \/>\nrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and<br \/>\nalso from the accused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a<br \/>\nrequisition, Ex.P.14, given by the Investigating Officer to the concerned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate. Ex.P.16, the Chemical analyst&#8217;s report and Ex.P.17, the<br \/>\nSerologist&#8217;s report, were received. On completion of the investigation, the<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer filed the final report before the concerned court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges<br \/>\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits and 7 M.Os.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found<br \/>\nin the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as false.  No defence<br \/>\nwitness was examined. After hearing the arguments advanced and scrutinizing the<br \/>\nmaterials available, the lower court took the view that the prosecution has<br \/>\nproved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty and awarded the<br \/>\npunishment as referred to above, which is the subject of challenge before this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.K.Jegannathan, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel, inter-alia, would submit that the prosecution has examined<br \/>\nP.W.1, as eyewitness; that P.W.1 is the only eyewitness and P.W.2 saw the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant running away from the place of occurrence; that even as per<br \/>\nthe prosecution case, both the accused\/appellant and the P.Ws belonged to two<br \/>\ndifferent communities and they have got strained relationship in the past; that<br \/>\neven on the date of occurrence, there was exchange of filthy language between<br \/>\nthem and thus, a case has been foisted against the accused\/appellant; that the<br \/>\nwitnesses have spoken false; that the ocular testimony projected through these<br \/>\nwitnesses did not support the medical evidence; that the arrest, confessional<br \/>\nstatement and the recovery of M.Os from the accused, were all nothing, but<br \/>\nsubsequent introduction to support the prosecution case; that the evidence<br \/>\nadduced in that regard was shaky and hence the evidence should not have been<br \/>\nrelied on by the lower Court.  Thus, all put together would go to show that the<br \/>\nprosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, even as per<br \/>\nthe prosecution case, there was a wordy altercation between the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant and the deceased, in which the deceased assaulted the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant and thereafter, the deceased was proceeding to his house; that<br \/>\ndue to the sudden quarrel and on being provoked by the deceased, the accused<br \/>\ntook an aruval and cut him; that this was spoken to by the witnesses examined by<br \/>\nthe prosecution; that the confessional statement, which was recorded by the<br \/>\nInvestigator from the accused\/appellant and relied on by the prosecution and<br \/>\npointed out by the lower Court in the judgment, would also support the same and<br \/>\nthat the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder and<br \/>\nunder these circumstances, this legal aspect of the matter has got to be<br \/>\nconsidered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and<br \/>\nalso scrutinized the materials available.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.By adducing sufficient evidence through the medical person, who<br \/>\nconducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased and has also issued Ex.P.4, the<br \/>\npost-mortem certificate, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died out<br \/>\nof homicidal violence. This fact was also never questioned by the appellant at<br \/>\nany stage of proceedings. Hence, without any impediment whatsoever, it could be<br \/>\nsafely recorded so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused who  caused<br \/>\nthe death of the deceased by attacking him with M.O.1, aruval, the prosecution<br \/>\nto its advantages had the evidence of two witnesses. P.W.1 is the witness who<br \/>\nhas actually seen the entire occurrence and it was P.W.2 who found the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant running from the place of occurrence with bloodstained aruval.<br \/>\nThe evidence of P.W.1, despite cross-examination in full, remained unshaken.<br \/>\nThe evidence of P.W.1 stood fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to an<br \/>\nextent that it was the accused who participated in the crime. This ocular<br \/>\ntestimony stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence, which was projected<br \/>\nby the prosecution through the examination of P.W.7, the Doctor, who has<br \/>\nconducted post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Apart from that, yet another circumstance against the accused\/appellant,<br \/>\nwhich, in the opinion of the Court, was strong, was the recovery of M.O.1,<br \/>\naruval, the weapon of crime and the other material objects from the accused,<br \/>\npursuant to the confessional statement given by him and sufficient evidence was<br \/>\nalso adduced by the prosecution in that regard.  All put together would go to<br \/>\nshow that there was overwhelming evidence, pointing out the fact that it was the<br \/>\naccused who cut the deceased with aruval and caused his death.  Hence the court<br \/>\nis disagreed with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.So far as the second line of argument is concerned, the court is able<br \/>\nto see force in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant. The occurrence has taken place at about 7.00 p.m on 25.04.1999. Even<br \/>\nas per the evidence of the eye witnesses, there was a wordy altercation between<br \/>\nthe accused\/appellant and the deceased in respect of the complaint as to<br \/>\nteasing. At that time, the accused\/appellant was assaulted by the deceased and<br \/>\nafter that incident, the deceased was proceeding towards his house. Within a few<br \/>\nminutes, the accused, following the quarrel and sudden provocation, took the<br \/>\naruval, followed the deceased and attacked him and as a direct consequence, the<br \/>\ndeceased died. Thus, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would be<br \/>\nquite clear that the act of the accused was neither intentional nor preplanned,<br \/>\nbut due to the sudden provocation, he has acted so. Hence, it must come under<br \/>\nException 4 to Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the act of the accused would attract<br \/>\nthe penal provision of Section 304(I) IPC and awarding a punishment of seven<br \/>\nyears R.I. would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC<br \/>\nare set aside and instead, the accused\/appellant is convicted under Section<br \/>\n304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. The period of sentence<br \/>\nundergone by the accused\/appellant shall be given set off.  It is reported that<br \/>\nthe accused\/appellant is on bail.  Hence, the concerned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nshall take necessary steps to secure and commit him to prison to undergo the<br \/>\nremaing period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith the above modification the conviction and sentence, the appeal is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions,<br \/>\n  Virudhu Nagar, Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :03\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD)No.37 of 2001 Elango .. Appellant Vs. The State Through Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, (Crime No.215\/1999) Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent PRAYER [&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-204414","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>Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - 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\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T09:56:43+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\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T09:56:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1878,\"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\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T09:56:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 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":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - 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\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T09:56:43+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\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T09:56:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008"},"wordCount":1878,"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\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008","name":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T09:56:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elango-vs-the-state-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Elango vs The State on 3 March, 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\/204414","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=204414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}