{"id":204711,"date":"2002-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002"},"modified":"2018-11-27T05:57:18","modified_gmt":"2018-11-27T00:27:18","slug":"paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/11\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nCriminal Appeal No.329 of 1998\n\nPaulsamy                                       .. Appellant\n\n-vs-\n\nState: rep. by the Inspector\nof Police, Karivalam Vanthanallur\nPolice Station, Thirunelveli Dist.              .. Respondent\n\n        Appeal against the judgment  of  the  learned  I  Additional  Sessions\nJudge, Thirunelveli, made in S.C.No.360 of 1996 dated 23.3.1998.\n\n!For Appellants :       Mr.R.Sankarasubbu\n\n^For Respondent :       Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nF.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)<\/p>\n
                The  sole  accused  is  the  appellant before us, who has been
\nproceeded against for the alleged offence on 7.12.95 at 7.00 p.m.  when he  is
\nstated to have caused the death of one Shanmugam.  The appellant, hereinafter,
\nwill be referred to as ‘the accused’.  He was convicted and sentenced for life
\nimprisonment  under  Section 302 I.P.C., as against which, he has come forward
\nwith this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The brief facts relating to the occurrence  was  that  the
\ndeceased and the accused are neighbours.  They belong to the same place called
\nAzhagunachiyarpuram.   About  six  months prior to the date of occurrence, the
\nbrother of the accused, one Lingasamy is stated to have eloped with  the  wife
\nof P.W.1.   Pursuant to which, a panchayat was convened, in which, the wife of
\nP.W.1 was restored to the matrimonial company  of  P.W.1.    On  the  date  of
\noccurrence, that is, on 7.12.95, at 7.0 0 a.m.  when the mother of the accused
\nwas  fetching  water  at  the water pump near her residence, the deceased also
\nstated to have went there to fetch water.  A quarrel ensued between the mother
\nof the accused and the deceased.  P.W.1 is stated to have pacified the quarrel
\nand brought back the deceased, who is his father.  While so, on the same  day,
\naround  7.00  p.m.,  when  P.W.1,  P.W.2 and one other maternal uncle of P.W.1
\nalong with the deceased were talking in front of their house, when  P.W.1  was
\nadvising the deceased not to fight with the family of the accused, the accused
\nappeared  there along with M.O.1, aruval, and by saying that he will close the
\ndeceased, cut the deceased.  When the deceased attempted to ward off the  cut,
\nhis hands  were cut by the assault.  The accused, thereafter, cut the deceased
\non his neck, on the right flank and also at the back of the  deceased.    When
\nthe  witnesses  shouted  on  seeing the attack on the deceased, the accused is
\nstated to have ran away towards west.  When the deceased was checked,  he  was
\nfound to  be  dead.    Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Karivalam Vanthanallur police
\nstation and gave  Ex.P.1  complaint,  which  was  registered  by  P.W.10,  the
\nSub-Inspector of  Police,  at  8.30  p.m.   P.W.10 registered the complaint as
\nCrime No.427 of 1995 under Section 302 I.P.C.  and  prepared  Ex.P.12,  F.I.R.
\nand forwarded the same to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  P.W.11, who was the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the
\ninformation  about  the  registration  of the crime, took up investigation and
\nvisited the place of occurrence at 10.00 p.m.  and prepared  a  rough  sketch,
\nEx.P.13.   Thereafter,  he  also  prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and
\nconducted the inquest between 11.30 and 2.00 a.m.  of 7\/8.12.95.   Ex.P.16  is
\nthe inquest report.  He also examined the witnesses at the place and recovered
\nM.O.2,  the blood-stained earth and M.O.3, the sample earth along with a white
\ntowel, M.O.4 under Ex.P.3.  He arrested the accused on 8.12.95  at  7.00  p.m.
\nin the presence of P.W.4 and based on the admissible portion of the statement,
\nEx.P.4,  given  by  the  accused, who took the police party to a water tank at
\nKarivalam Vanthanallur around 7.45 p.m., where near a bush, M.O.1, the aruval,
\nwas recovered along with M.O.5, the blood stained shirt, which were  recovered
\nby P.W.11  under Ex.P.5.  In between, P.W.11 sent the body of the deceased for
\nconducting necessary post-mortem along with a requisition.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  P.W.6, the Civil Assistant Surgeon,  Government  Hospital,
\nSankarankoil,  conducted  autopsy  on  the  body of the deceased and noted the
\nfollowing injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  A cut injury of transverse 10 cm.  x 4 cm.  x 6 cm.  over  back  of  neck.
\n1\/2 cm.   below  the  hairline  tailing off on the right side.  The underlying
\nmuscles and vessels are cut.  The cut passed through  ‘C.3’  vertebra,  spinal
\ncord and  vertebral  arteries  are  cut correspondingly, 100 gms.  Blood clots
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
2.  A cut injury 12 cm.  x 10 cm.  x 6 cm.  oblique, starting from the ‘  C.7’
\nvertebral  level  over  the  back of chest, running downwards and outwards and
\nends in a point 2 cm.  below the inferior angle of scapula.    The  underlying
\nmuscles and scapula are cut.\n<\/p>\n
3.  A stab wedge  shaped  1\/2 cm.  x 2 cm.  x 1 cm.  outer aspect of lower 1\/3
\nof right upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
4.  A cut incised wound 4 cm.  x 1 cm.  x 2 cm.  vertical  starting  from  the
\nroot of middle finger upto the centre of right palm.\n<\/p>\n
5.  A cut incised wound starting 6 cm.  x 3 cm.  x 3 cm.  over lower 1\/3 rd of
\nulnar border of left forearm muscles are cut correspondingly.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor  issued  Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate.  He has opined in his
\nreport that the deceased would appear to have died of  shock  and  haemorrhage
\ndue to injury No.1.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   P.W.11,  continuing  with his investigation, examined the
\ndoctor on 13.12.95 and after examining  the  other  witnesses,  submitted  his
\nfinal report on 29.2.96.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
\non the incriminating  circumstances  appearing  against  him,  he  denied  his
\ninvolvement in the murder of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   In  the  case on hand, by virtue of the medical evidence,
\nEx.P.7 and that of the oral evidence of P.W.6, the doctor  who  conducted  the
\nautopsy  on  the  body  of the deceased, there can be no two opinions that the
\ndeceased died of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  When we come to the question  of  the  complicity  of  the
\naccused  to the death of the deceased, when the evidence of P.W.1 is examined,
\nwe find that he has narrated the whole occurrence, which took  place  at  7.00
\np.m.   on  7.12.95,  in a natural manner and nothing was brought out by way of
\ncross-examination to dislodge the said version of P.W.1.  In fact, P.W.2  also
\nsupports the  version of P.W.1 without any deviation.  Though it was attempted
\nto point out that P.W.2, at the time of incident, went  inside  the  house  to
\nfetch  a  stick  and  therefore,  he  could not have witnessed the incident, a
\nreading of P.W.2’s evidence on the  whole  sufficiently  demonstrate  that  on
\nseeing  the  accused inflicting the cut injuries on the deceased, P.W.2 wanted
\nto save the deceased and in that view, he went inside the  house  to  fetch  a
\nstick  and by the time he could fetch the stick, the accused ran away from the
\nplace of occurrence.  Therefore, we are unable to  accept  the  stand  of  the
\naccused that P.W.2 could not have witnessed the incident.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   As regards the contention that P.W.1 himself has admitted
\nin his evidence that the accused was present in the police station on the very
\ndate of the incident at 11.00 p.m.  and therefore, the arrest of  the  accused
\ncould  not  have  been  made  on  8.12.95,  we will have to hold that when the
\nevidence of P.W.1, who was the eye witness to the occurrence,  was  convincing
\nand  nothing  was  brought  out  insofar  as  that part of the evidence, which
\nestablished the involvement of the accused insofar as the  infliction  of  the
\ncut  injuries on the deceased, merely because certain infirmities were pointed
\nout with regard to the arrest of the accused as to whether it was  on  8.12.95
\nor  the  accused  could have been detained on that day itself, that is, on the
\ndate of occurrence, pales into insignificance.  In fact, we  do  not  want  to
\ngive  any  importance  to  the arrest of the accused and the followed recovery
\nunder Ex.P.4.  When we go by the version of P.W.1 supported  by  P.W.2  ,  who
\nhave  witnessed  the  occurrence,  which evidence sufficiently established the
\ninvolvement of the accused  in  the  injuries  inflicted  upon  the  deceased,
\nwithout any scope for ambiguity, by relying upon that very evidence itself, we
\nhold  that  the accused and the accused alone was responsible in regard to the
\ninjuries inflicted upon the deceased.  When we consider the evidence of P.W.6,
\nthe doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of  the  deceased,  we  find
\nthat  he has categorically stated that the first injury caused on the deceased
\nwas sufficient enough to cause the death of the deceased  and  that  the  said
\ninjury could  have  been  caused  by  M.O.1.   In such circumstances, when the
\nevidence on record clinchingly establish the death of  the  deceased  and  the
\ncomplicity  of  the  accused  to  the  death of the deceased, we are unable to
\naccept the stand of the accused that he had nothing to do with the offence.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  filed  a
\npetition  in  Crl.M.P.No.12059 of 2002 seeking permission of this Court to let
\nin additional evidence in order to show that the accused was  a  juvenile  and
\ntherefore,  was  entitled  to  the  protection under the Juvenile Justice Act,
\n1986.  Section 2(e) of the said Act  defines  a  ‘delinquent  Juvenile’  as  a
\njuvenile  who  has  been  found  to have committed an offence and Section 2(h)
\ndefines a ‘juvenile’ to mean a boy who has not attained  the  age  of  sixteen
\nyears or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years.  Therefore, if
\nthe accused wants to invoke the benefits conferred under the provisions of the
\nJuvenile  Justice  Act,  1986  ,  he  should satisfy that he was a ‘delinquent
\njuvenile’ and a ‘  juvenile’  as  defined  under  the  aforesaid  Act.    When
\nadmittedly  the accused was 19 years old and even as per the birth certificate
\nproduced by him, his date of birth was 9.8.76, the accused was far  beyond  16
\nyears on  the  date  of occurrence, that is, on 7.12.95.  Moreover, throughout
\nthe proceedings before the trial Court, the accused never questioned  his  age
\nor took up the stand that he could be treated as a juvenile and tried as such;
\non  the  contrary,  when  he  was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has
\nadmitted his age to be of 22 years.  Therefore, we do not find any  scope  for
\ninvoking the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Under  the above circumstances, we do not find any scope
\nfor interfering with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.   The
\nappeal is,  accordingly, dismissed.  Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.12059 of 2002 is
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes
\nsra<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.-do- Thro’ The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil..\n<\/p>\n
4.-do- Thro’ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Inspector of Police, Karivalam Vanthanallur Police Station,  Tirunelveli
\nDistrict.\n<\/p>\n
6.The District Collector, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Director of General of Police, Madras-4.\n<\/p>\n
8.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.\n<\/p>\n
9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/11\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Criminal Appeal No.329 of 1998 Paulsamy .. Appellant -vs- State: rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karivalam Vanthanallur Police Station, […]<\/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-204711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPaulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - 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\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-27T00:27:18+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-27T00:27:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1781,\"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\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-27T00:27:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - 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\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-27T00:27:18+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-27T00:27:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002"},"wordCount":1781,"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\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002","name":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-27T00:27:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-on-25-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paulsamy vs State: Rep. By The Inspector on 25 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/204711","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=204711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}