{"id":204421,"date":"2010-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-23T16:03:10","modified_gmt":"2014-09-23T10:33:10","slug":"g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.87 of 2009\n\nG.Chinnathambi\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\nVs\n\nState by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nThogamalai Police Station,\nKarur District\n(Crime No.79\/2007)\t\t\t\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\tThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2)  Cr.P.C.\nagainst the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the\nappellant by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur made in\nS.C.No.4 of 2008, dated 30.07.2008.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.Daniel Manoharan\n\t\t     Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tChallenge is made to the Judgment of the Court of Sessions, Karur made in
\nS.C.No.4 of 2008, whereby the appellant\/sole accused stood charged under Section
\n376 and 302 I.P.C., tried and found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded
\nlife imprisonment along with fine and default sentence, but, he was acquitted
\nfor the charge under Section 376 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case can
\nbe stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.  P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1.
\nP.W.1 and her husband borrowed money from different persons and they were put to
\nliability.  On the date of occurrence, P.W.1 and her deceased husband were
\nproceeding to Thogaimalai.  On the way they were intercepted by the
\naccused\/appellant and he invited them to stay in his house and they prepared to
\nstay in his house.  During the night hours, the accused\/appellant had sexual
\nintercourse with P.W.1 with force, which came to the knowledge of the deceased.
\nImmediately, the deceased questioned the conduct of the accused and further
\ninformed that the matter will be placed before the panchayat.  At that time,
\nthey were naturally standing near a well and the accused took a stick and
\nattacked him and P.W.1’s husband died and thereafter, when he fell down,
\nimmediately the accused pushed the body into the well.  It was witnessed by
\nP.W.1.  She shouted and the others came there.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where P.W.13, the
\nInspector of Police, was on duty.  She gave a complaint Ex.P.1 on 22.02.2007 at
\n10.00 A.M. On the strength of the same, a case came to be registered by P.W.13,
\nin Crime No.79 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.20, the Express FIR, was
\ndespatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate’s Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Thereafter, on the medical examination, the F.I.R. was altered into
\nSections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.  Ex.P.23, the Alteration Report
\nwas also despatched to the Court.  P.W.13, took up the investigation, proceeded
\nto the place of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses
\nand prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P.21, the rough sketch.
\nThen, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.  He conducted
\ninquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and
\npanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report.\n<\/p>\n
\td)On 23.02.2007, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital,
\nfor the purpose of autopsy.  P.W.6, the Doctor, attached to Kulithalai
\nGovernment Hospital, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the
\ndead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.11, the post-mortem certificate,
\nwherein he has narrated the injuries and has opined that the deceased would
\nappear to have died of Asphyxia due to drowning about 36 to 40 hours prior to
\npostmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\te)Pending investigation, the Investigator arrested the Accused on
\n23.02.2007 in the presence of the witnesses and he made a confessional statement
\nvoluntarily. The same was recorded, the admissible part of which was marked as
\nEx.P.5. Pursuant to which, M.O.1, Stick was recovered in the presence of the
\nwitnesses under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.6.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)Then the Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the Judicial
\nMagistrate to record the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C.,
\nwhich was also recorded.  All the material objects were sent for chemical
\nanalysis pursuant to a requisition given by the Investigating Officer to the
\nconcerned Judicial Magistrate. Ex.P.33, the Chemical analyst’s report and
\nEx.P.37, the Serologist’s report were received. On completion of the
\ninvestigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report before the
\nconcerned court, which in turn has committed the case to the court of sessions
\nand necessary charges were framed and the case was taken up for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.41 and M.Os.1 to\n<\/p>\n
8.  On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused
\nwas questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances
\nfound in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as false. No
\ndefence witness was examined.  The lower court, after hearing the arguments of
\nthe counsel, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case of murder
\nand found him guilty and awarded sentence as referred to above but acquitted the
\naccused against the charge of rape.  Under these circumstances, this criminal
\nappeal has arisen before this court at the instance of the accused appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that in the instant case there was only one eye witness, which was
\nunbelievable and unreliable.  According to the prosecution, the occurrence has
\ntaken place at 10.00 P.M. on 21.02.2007.  According to P.W.1, when she was
\naccompanied by her husband and were proceeding to Thogamalai, they were
\nintercepted by the appellant\/accused and he invited them to his house.
\nAccordingly, they went to his house and while they stayed over night hours and
\nfell asleep, at that time, the accused committed sexual intercourse with P.W.1
\nby compelling her and it came to the knowledge of her husband.  The deceased
\ninformed the accused that he would place the matter before Panchayat.  Aggrieved
\nover the same, the accused has caused the death of her husband.  But the
\nevidence of P.W.1 is highly unreliable for more than one. According to P.W.1,
\nthe occurrence took place in the night hours and she was raped forcibly by the
\naccused\/appellant. But the trial Court has not accepted the charge of rape.
\nUnder the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 should be brushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Added further, the learned counsel for the appellant\/accused that
\naccording to P.W.1 they took food at 9.00 P.M. and the occurrence took place at
\n10.00 P.M. But the postmortem certificate and the doctor’s evidence would
\nclearly indicate that there was 750 ml liquid containing fully digested food
\nparticles found in the intestine.  If really they took the rice food at 9.00
\nP.M., the food could not have been digested.  That would clearly show that the
\noccurrence could not have taken place as put forth by P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further, the learned counsel for the appellant\/accused that P.W.1
\nhas categorically admitted that they indebted to so many and it was the
\ncircumstance that impelled the deceased to commit suicide by felling into the
\nwell, for which the accused\/appellant cannot be found liable.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Added further, the learned counsel for the appellant\/accused that at
\nthat time of occurrence, 50 persons were present. When there were independent
\nwitnesses, the prosecution should have examined atleast a few of them, but,
\nfailed to do so.  Added further, though the occurrence took place at 10.00 P.M.
\non 21.02.2007, the body was taken from the well only in the next day morning and
\nthen she lodged the complaint at 10.00 A.M., and thus there is a delay of 10
\nhours. Apart from that, the complaint was sent to the Magistrate after a long
\nlapse of time.  It would clearly show the fact that the case was registered as
\nput forth by P.W.13, the Inspector of Police and thus the prosecution has
\nmiserably failed to prove the case and the accused\/appellant is entitled for
\nacquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made,
\nand also scrutinized the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.It is not in controversy that the husband of P.W.1 died out of Asphyxia
\ndue to drowning and this fact has been proved by the prosecution by examining
\nP.W.6, the postmortem doctor and through the contents of the postmortem
\ncertificate. The cause of death as putforth by the prosecution is never disputed
\nby the accused either before the trial Court or before this Court. Hence, it has
\ngot to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In order to substantiate, it was the accused who attacked him with
\nstick on his head and thereafter, pushed the body of the husband of P.W.1 into
\nthe well, the prosecution has examined one eye witness viz., P.W.1. The learned
\ncounsel for the appellant was much commenting on the evidence of P.W.1 as
\nnarrated above.  The evidence of P.W.1 would show that they belonged to
\nPerumalpatti Village and they got indebted during the relevant time.  Hence, on
\nthe date of occurrence, P.W.1 accompanied by her husband went to the house of
\nher sister and coming back to Thogamalai and it was the accused who intercepted
\nand invited them to his house. Accordingly they went to the house of the
\naccused\/appellant and stayed over that night.  On that day, according to P.W.1,
\nshe was raped by the accused.  But the trial Court was unable to believe that,
\nsince the evidence is lacking in that regard.  But P.W.1 has categorically
\nstated that when she raised alarm, the deceased woke up and immediately and
\nquestioned the conduct of the accused\/appellant. At that time, the deceased also
\ninformed the accused\/appellant that he would place the matter before panchayat.
\nOn hearing the same, the accused had got much worried and took a stick and
\nattacked him on the back of the head. Now, correspondingly, the Court is able to
\nsee a contusion on the head of the deceased, which was also noticed by the
\ndoctor.  P.W.1 has added further that it was the accused, who threw the body of
\nher husband into the well and water was available in the well. According to
\nP.W.1 after draining the water, the body was taken out.  The doctor was of the
\nopinion that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to drowning.  Under the said
\ncircumstance, this Court is unable to see any reason as to why P.W.1 should
\nthrow such an accusation against the accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.It is true that P.W.1 and her husband indebted to somany, but it is not
\nthe case of the accused that he also lent money to or demanded the money from
\nthe deceased. Under the said circumstances, without any reason and without
\nwitnessing such incident, P.W.1 could not have come over with such a complaint
\nas found under Ex.P.1. So, there is no necessity to doubt the evidence of P.W.1.
\nThough it is true that there were 50 persons in the place of occurrence, it is
\npertinent to point out that the occurrence took place during night hours, and
\nonly after the occurrence when she raised alarm, the other people have gathered.
\nHence, no body was there in that night hours at the time of occurrence. The
\nmedical opinion supports the ocular testimony of P.W.1.  That apart, the accused
\nwas arrested and he has given a confessional statement, following which the
\nstick has been recovered. In the instant case, he has not only attacked the
\ndeceased on his head, but also pushed him into the well as a result of which the
\nhusband of P.W.1 died and thus it would be quite clear that the
\nappellant\/accused outraged P.W.1’s modesty and when she raised alarm, the
\nhusband of P.W.1 came there and questioned the conduct of the appellant.
\nFurther, he informed that the matter would be placed before the panchayat. On
\nhearing the words, the accused has got angry. When P.W.1 raised cry as to the
\nconduct of the appellant\/accused, the accused has not only attacked the
\ndeceased, but also threw the body into the well and caused the death.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there
\nwas a delay in lodging the complaint.  Delay in lodging the complaint cannot be
\na reason to suspect the evidence of P.W.1.  The occurrence had taken place
\nduring the night hours.  The body of the deceased was taken out from the well
\nonly in the morning.  Thereafter, she went to the police Station and lodged the
\ncomplaint narrating the entire incident.  It is true that there is some delay,
\nand because of the delay in lodging the complaint by itself, the Court is unable
\nto doubt the case of the prosecution or veracity of evidence of P.W.1.  Under
\nthe circumstances,  the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused
\nfrom the evidence of P.W.1.  It is true that P.W.1 was the only eyewitness who
\nspoke the prosecution case. The Indian Evidence Act does not look for quantity
\nof evidence, but only quality of evidence.  The sole and uncorroborated
\ntestimony of evidence can be accepted, provided it should inspire the confidence
\nof the Court.  In the circumstances, P.W.1 along with her husband was invited by
\nthe accused\/appellant to his house where the incident has taken place.  There is
\nno reason for P.W.1 to give complaint accusing the appellant\/accused.  No reason
\nwas brought to the notice of the Court by the appellant as to why P.W.1 should
\ncome with such complaint or give evidence against the accused\/appellant. Under
\nthe circumstances, it can be well stated that the prosecution has brought home
\nthe guilt of the accused and the trial Court was perfectly correct in finding
\nhim guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarding life
\nimprisonment, which, in the considered opinion of the Court, does not require
\ninterference either legally or factually.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence
\nimposed on the appellant by the trial Court are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
sj\/rj2<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge,
\n  Theni.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Bodi Taluk Police Station,
\n  Theni District<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.A.(MD) No.87 of 2009 G.Chinnathambi .. Appellant Vs State by The Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District (Crime No.79\/2007) .. Respondent This […]<\/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-204421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - 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\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-23T10:33:10+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-23T10:33:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2360,\"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\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\",\"name\":\"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-23T10:33:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - 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\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-23T10:33:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-23T10:33:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010"},"wordCount":2360,"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\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010","name":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-23T10:33:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-chinnathambi-vs-state-by-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Chinnathambi vs State By on 23 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/204421","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=204421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}