{"id":205707,"date":"2003-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003"},"modified":"2017-03-09T11:23:57","modified_gmt":"2017-03-09T05:53:57","slug":"karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 31\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN\n\nC.A.NO.245 OF 2000\n\n\n1.Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai\n2.Muthuramalingam\n3.Murugan, S\/o.Krishnathevar\n4.Maruthu @ Nallamarudhu\n5.Murugan @ Shongan\n6.Meenakshi Sundaram @ Meenakshi                        ..Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nKeeraithurai Police Station\nMadurai\nCrime No.334\/1997                                               ..Respondent\n\n        Prayer:  Criminal appeal against the judgment dated 08.02.2000  passed\nby  the learned First Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nMadurai in S.C.No.506 of 1997.\n\n!For Appellants :Mr.V.Gopinath, SC for\n1,2,3,5 and 6 :Mr.L.Mahendran\nFor Appellant 4 :Mr.S.Ashok Kumar\n\n^For Respondent :Mr.I.Subramanian, PP\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the court was delivered by
\nJustice R.Balasubramanian)
\n        Accused 1 to 6 in S.C.No.506\/1997 on the file of the First  Additional
\nDistrict  Judge  Cum  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai are the appellants in
\nthis appeal.  They stand convicted at the end of the trial  in  that  sessions
\ncase for offences under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 I.P.C., for
\nwhich they stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of
\nmurder  and  to  pay  a fine of Rs.10 0\/-, carrying a default sentence for the
\noffence under section 148 I.P.C.  They are before this court challenging their
\nconviction.  A1 to A3, A5 and A6  are  represented  by  Mr.V.Gopinath  learned
\nsenior counsel  and  A4  is represented by Mr.S.Ashok Kumar.  Mr.I.Subramanian
\nlearned Public Prosecutor defended the State.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The case of the prosecution is that, being members of an  unlawful
\nassembly, at 8.00 a.m on 23.04.1997, A1, A2, A3 and A5 fatally attacked on the
\nvarious  parts  of  the  body of the deceased in this case namely, a female by
\nname Leelavathi and caused her death.  A4 and A6 were stated to be present  as
\nmembers of the said unlawful assembly, each armed with a weapon in their hand.
\nIn  establishing the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 as prime eye
\nwitnesses to the occurrence.  P.Ws.6 and 7 are the other  two  witnesses,  who
\nspeak about seeing the accused moving away from the scene after committing the
\ncrime.  P.W.1  is  the  husband of the deceased.  In the election held for the
\nMadurai Corporation, Leelavathi contested in Ward No.59 opposed by  A1’s  wife
\nValli  and  some  other  candidates  sponsored by political parties as well as
\nindividuals.  There was a hot contest between A1’s wife and  the  deceased  in
\nthis case.   Ultimately  Leelavathi  was  declared  as elected.  P.W.18 is the
\nElection Officer, who speaks about the  election  held  for  Ward  No.59;  the
\ncontestants and  the  ultimate winner in that election.  When P.W.18 was about
\nto declare the results, A1, A2 and others objected on some  grounds  that  the
\nresult of  Leelavathi should not be declared.  However P.W.18, after complying
\nwith the procedural law, announced the  result  declaring  Leelavathi  as  the
\nelected candidate.   When the counting was going on, P.Ws.2, 3 and others were
\nalso there, besides P.W.1.  After announcing the results, P.W.1, the  deceased
\nand their  supporters  went  home.    At  8.00 p.m on that day, A1, A2 and his
\nsupporters went to the house of P.W.1, which was at No.2, Rajan Street,  Nadar
\nCompound,  Villapuram,  where  they  raised  slogans  against  the  successful
\ncandidate.  P.Ws.2, 3 a nd some more were there in the house of P.W.1 at  that
\ntime.   A1,  A2  and  their  supporters  left  the house challenging as to how
\nLeelavathi would function as a counsellor.  P.Ws.2, 3  and  others,  who  were
\nthere, pacified  A1,  A2 and their supporters and asked them to go.  There was
\nno water supply for  Villapuram  area.    After  Leelavathi  became  the  ward
\ncounsellor,  she  brought  water  to  Villapuram  by having the pipeline laid.
\nHaving lost in the election  and  not  able  to  tolerate  Leelavathi  gaining
\npopularity in  the  area, the accused developed a hatred towards her.  At 8.30
\na.m on 23.04.1997, P.Ws.1 to 3 were standing in Villapuram Main  Road  in  the
\njunction  of  Anna  Second Street and they were deliberating about the ensuing
\nMay Day festival.  Leelavathi was also coming from the east  towards  west  to
\nbuy provision  in  a shop in that road.  She was standing opposite to the shop
\nof one Sermakani.  All the accused, each armed with a weapon, also  came  from
\nfurther east.    Then the victim Leelavathi was assaulted by A2 twice followed
\nby A1, A3 and A5 attacking him.  A4 and A6, each armed, standing guard at  the
\nscene of occurrence, saw to that that none neared the place of attack.  P.Ws.1
\nto  3,  by  shouting, ran towards the place where Leelavathi was under attack.
\nAfter completing the attack, all the accused ran towards east with the  weapon
\nin their hands.   Leelavathi fell down dead.  P.W.1 reached the police station
\nand gave the complaint\/Ex.p.1 before  P.W.17,  the  Sub-Inspector  of  Police.
\nM.Os.1  to  3  are  the personal wearing apparels of Leelavathi, which she was
\nwearing at that time.  M.O.4 is the weapon of offence  in  the  hands  of  A2.
\nM.O.5  is  the weapon of offence in the hands of A1 and M.O.6 is the weapon of
\noffence in the hands of A3.  P.W.1 returned to the scene of  occurrence  after
\ngiving the  complaint.    He  identified  A3  to A6 in the test identification
\nparade held by the Judicial Magistrate.    Regarding  the  occurrence  proper,
\nP.Ws.2 and 3 had given evidence in total corroboration to the oral evidence of
\nP.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   P.W.17 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police
\nStation, before whom at 10.00 a.m on 23.04.1997, P.W.1 appeared and  gave  the
\ncomplaint, which  he reduced into writing.  After reading it over to P.W.1, he
\ntook his signature in it.  He registered the said complaint as Ex.P.1  in  his
\npolice station crime No.334\/1997 for offences under sections 147, 148, 324 and
\n302 I.P.C.    Ex.P.26  is  the  printed  first  information  report,  which he
\nprepared.  As the regular Inspector of Police  had  been  transferred  to  the
\nPolice   Training  School,  he  informed  P.W.19,  the  Inspector  of  Police,
\nTheppakulam, who was in charge  of  the  Investigating  Police  Station,  over
\ntelephone.   P.W.17  also sent the material records to the court as well as to
\nthe higher officials.  P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer,  who  by  reaching
\nthe  Investigating  Police  Station  at 10.30 a.m on 23.04.1997, collected the
\nmaterial records and commenced the investigation.  He  reached  the  scene  of
\noccurrence  at 10.45 a.m and in the presence of P.W.8 and another, he prepared
\nEx.P.8, the observation mahazar  and  Ex.P.27,  the  rough  sketch.    Through
\nP.W.15, he  caused  photographs  of  the  dead  body  to  be  taken.    P.W.15
\naccordingly took photographs of the dead body and M.    O.25  series  are  the
\nphotographs and  the negatives.  In the presence of P.W.8 and another at 11.15
\na.m., P.W.19 recovered blood stained earth\/M.O.7 and sample earth\/M.O.8  under
\nEx.P.9.  As the deceased was a sitting counsellor during the relevant time and
\nanticipating  law  and  order  problem, he did not conduct inquest at the spot
\nitself and sent the dead body to the Government hospital for being kept in the
\nmortuary through P.W.12, the police constable.  Accordingly P.W.12 accompanied
\nthe dead body along with Ex.P.6\/requisition given by P.W.19  and  handed  over
\nthe same to Doctor Kodandapani, who was on duty there.  On receipt of the dead
\nbody, the said doctor consigned it to the mortuary.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  P.W.19 conducted inquest over the dead body in the mortuary at the
\nGovernment  Rajaji Hospital, Madurai from 12.30 p.m onwards in the presence of
\npanchayatdars and witnesses.  During inquest he examined  P.Ws.1  to  3.    He
\ncompleted  the  inquest at 2.15 p.m and prepared Ex.P.2 8, the inquest report.
\nHe sent Ex.P.2\/requisition for post mortem to the hospital through P.W.16, the
\npolice constable.    P.W.16  accordingly  went  to  the  hospital   with   the
\nrequisition for  post mortem and he was present throughout post mortem.  After
\npost mortem, he removed the gold neck chain and a silver  metti\/M.Os.1  and  2
\nfrom  the  dead  body  and  handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.
\nP.W.5 speaks about the receipt of the dead body for being kept in the mortuary
\nand attended to by Dr.Kodandapani.  Ex.P.7 is the accident register issued  by
\nDr.Kodandapani on receipt of the dead body.  P.W.5 is the doctor, who did post
\nmortem   on  the  dead  body  on  receipt  of  the  requisition  sent  by  the
\nInvestigating Officer.  He did post mortem with the assistance of  Dr.Ramasamy
\nat  2.35 p.m on 23.04.1997 and during post mortem he found various symptoms as
\nnoted in Ex.P.3, the post mortem report.  Ex.P.4 is the final opinion given by
\nhim after receipt of the viscera report.  The doctor is of  the  opinion  that
\nthe  deceased  would  appear  to  have  died  of  shock and haemorrhage due to
\nexternal injuries 1 to  3  and  it’s  corresponding  internal  injuries  (neck
\nvessels  and spinal cord) and the cumulative effect of all the other injuries.
\nThe symptoms noted by the doctor as reflected in the post mortem report are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Antemortem injuries:  1) A transversely oblique  cut  injury  on  the
\nright  side  mandible to the right side neck measuring 20 x 3 cms x bone deep.
\nOn dissection, the wound found cutting the underlying mandible  partially  and
\nthe muscles, vessels, nerves and lower aspect of the body of the C4 vertebrae.\n<\/p>\n
        2) Another transversely oblique cut injury 3 cms below wound No.1, 1 6
\nx 3 cms x bone deep from the lower part of chin to the right side of the neck.
\nOn dissection the wound found cutting the underlying muscles, nerves, vessels,
\nC5 vertebrae and the spinal cord.\n<\/p>\n
        3)  A  transversely  oblique  cut injury measuring 10 x 2.5 cms x bone
\ndeep on the right side neck 2 cms below wound No.2 and  4  cms  right  of  the
\nmid-line.   On  dissection,  the  wound  found cutting the intervertebral disc
\nbetween the C5 and C6 vertebrae and the spinal cord.\n<\/p>\n
        4) Two cut injuries right ear pinna 2 x = cm x full thickness 2.5 cm x
\n= cm x full thickness 1 cm apart.\n<\/p>\n
        5) A vertically oblique cut injury right shoulder outer aspect 4.5  cm
\nx 2 cm x muscle deep 3 cms below the acromion process.\n<\/p>\n
        6) A vertically oblique cut injury on the back of right shoulder 3 x 1
\ncms x muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
        7)  A cut injury right upper arm back 5 cms below shoulder joint 6 x 2
\ncms x muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
        8) A transversely oblique cut injury back  of  right  forearm  15  cms
\nbelow elbow joint 4 cms x = cm x bone deep.\n<\/p>\n
        9)  A  transversely oblique cut injury outer aspect of right forearm 6
\ncms above wrist joint 3 cms x 1 cm x bone deep skin flapping upwards.\n<\/p>\n
        10) A transversely oblique cut injury on the  inner  aspect  of  right
\nwrist  6 cms x 3 cm x bone deep cutting the underlying bones, muscles, vessels
\nand nerves; skin flapping upwards.\n<\/p>\n
        11) A transversely oblique cut  injury  back  of  right  hand  at  the
\nmatacarpo phalangeal joint 5 x 1.5 cms x cutting the metacarpal bone.\n<\/p>\n
        12)  Cut  injury  right index, middle ring and little finger posterior
\naspect 2.5  x  1  cm  x  bone  deep  cutting  the  underlying  middle  phalanx
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
        13) A transversely oblique cut injury back of left forearm 8 cms below
\nelbow joint, measuring 6 cms x 2 cm x cutting the underlying muscles, vessels,
\nnerves and both bones; skin flapping upwards.\n<\/p>\n
        14)  A transversely oblique cut injury left wrist inner aspect 3.5 x 2
\ncm x bone deep cutting carpal bones.\n<\/p>\n
        15) A transversely oblique  cut  injury  back  of  left  hand  on  the
\nmetacarpal  phalangeal  joint  5  x  2  cms x bone deep cutting the underlying
\nmetacarpal bones (3, 4 & 5).\n<\/p>\n
        16) A transversely oblique cut injury base of left thumb 4 cms x 1  cm
\nx bone deep cutting the underlying bone partially.\n<\/p>\n
        Margins of all the cut injuries are clean cut.\n<\/p>\n
        Other findings:  Hyoid bone  intact.  Peritoneal & pleural cavities
\nempty.  Pericardium  15 ml straw colour fluid.  Heart  normal size  chamber
\n empty.  Coronaries  patent.  Lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys  cut section
\npale.  Stomach   50  ml  of brown colour fluid.  No specific smell.  Mucosa
\npale.  Small intestine  25 ml of bile stained  fluid.    No  specific  smell.
\nMucosa  pale.  Uterus  normal size.  Cut section  empty.  Brain cut section
\n pale.”\n<\/p>\n
The  doctor is of the opinion that injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death in
\nthe ordinary course of event and injuries  2  and  3  would  definitely  cause
\ndeath.  Rest of the injuries, in a cumulative way, would cause death and death
\nwould have  occurred 6 to 8 hours prior to autopsy.  The injuries noted on the
\ndead body could have been caused by the use of weapons like M.Os.4 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  P.W.19 continued the investigation further by examining  witnesses
\nand recording  their  statements.    He  recovered M.Os.1 to 3 produced by the
\naccompanying post mortem constable before him after post mortem.  Between 7.00
\nand 8.00 a.m on 24.04.1997 in the house of P.W.1 he examined P.Ws.1 to  3  and
\nrecorded their  statements.   P.Ws.6 and 7 were also present there and he also
\nrecorded their statements by examining them.  Then he went in  search  of  the
\naccused.   On  information,  he  arrested A1 at 10.30 a.m on 24.04.1997 in the
\npresence of P.W.9 and another.  At that time A1 gave  a  voluntary  confession
\nstatement,  the  admissible  portion  of  which is Ex.P.10, pursuant to which,
\nunder Ex.P.1 1, M.O.5 came to  be  recovered  in  the  presence  of  the  same
\nwitnesses.  The arrested accused was brought to the police station and kept in
\nthe lock  up.  He went to apprehend the rest of the accused and at 4.00 p.m on
\nthe same day, he arrested A3 and A5 in the presence of P.W.11 and another  and
\nexamined each  one  of them.  A3 gave a voluntary confession statement at that
\ntime, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.14, pursuant to  which
\nunder Ex.P.15,  M.O.6  came  to be recovered.  A5 also, on examination, gave a
\nvoluntary confession statement.  Then the arrested accused were brought to the
\npolice station.  P.W.19 again went in search of the other accused.    At  9.00
\np.m on that day, he arrested A6 in the presence of the same witnesses and then
\nbrought him  to the police station for lock up.  On 25.04.1997 he sent A1, A3,
\nA5 and A6 for judicial remand.  The case properties were  sent  to  the  court
\nwith a  requisition  to  subject the same for chemical examination.  P.W.13 is
\nthe Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt  of  the  case  properties
\nalong with  Ex.P.16\/requisition  given  by the Investigating Officer.  He also
\ngave evidence that along  with  Exs.    P.17  and  P.18  the  respective  case
\nproperties were sent to the laboratory for chemical examination.  Exs.P.19 and
\nP.20 are  the  chemical  examiner’s  report  and  serologist’s report.  P.W.19
\nexamined P.W.18 on 26.04.1997 and recorded his statement.  On  27.04.1997,  on
\nprior information,  he  arrested A2 in the presence of P.W.10 and another.  At
\nthat time A2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion  of
\nwhich is  Ex.P.12.    Pursuant  to  Ex.P.12,  M.O.4 came to be recovered under
\nEx.P.13 attested by the same witnesses.  The arrested  accused  and  the  case
\nproperty were  brought  to  the police station.  Later on the accused was sent
\nfor judicial remand and M.O.4 was sent to the court.    P.W.19  continued  his
\nexamination by  examining  witnesses  and recording their statements.  At 2.30
\np.m on 28.04.1997 he arrested A4 and brought him to the police station at 5.00
\np.m.  He was  sent  for  judicial  remand.    P.W.19  gave  a  requisition  on
\n02.05.1997  to  the court to record the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 under section
\n164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was returned.  On  05.05.1997  he
\ngave  another application to the court to record the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3,
\n6 and 7 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  He was succeeded
\nby P.W.20.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   P.W.20,  on  taking  over   the   investigation,   verified   the
\ninvestigation already  done  by  P.W.19.    In accordance with the requisition
\ngiven to the court to record the statement of P.Ws.1  to  3,  6  and  7  under
\nsection  164  of  the  Code of Criminal Procedure, he produced those witnesses
\nbefore court on 09.05.1997, on which day  they  were  examined.    He  gave  a
\nrequisition  to  the  court on 16.05.1997 to arrange for a test identification
\nparade to enable P.Ws.1 to 3 to identify A3 to A6.   P.W.14  is  the  Judicial
\nMagistrate,  who  had  recorded  the  statement  of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 under
\nsection 164 of the C ode of Criminal Procedure.  He also  conducted  the  test
\nidentification parade  on  27.05.1997 to identify A3 to A6 by P.Ws.1 to 3.  He
\nconducted the test identification parade after complying with  all  the  legal
\nformalities  and  during the test identification parade, P.Ws.1 to 3 correctly
\nidentified thrice A3 to A6.  Ex.P.24 is the report submitted by him  regarding
\nthe test  identification  parade conducted as referred to above.  P.Ws.6 and 7
\nhad given evidence before court stating that on the  morning  of  the  day  of
\noccurrence,  they  saw  all the six accused running away towards east with the
\nweapon of offence in their hand s and  their  shirts  and  dhotis  were  blood
\nstained.   Then  on  proceeding  towards  west,  they  saw  the  dead  body of
\nLeelavathi and then went to their house.  They have been examined in the house
\nof P.W.1 by P.W.19 on the next day.  P.W.20  examined  further  witnesses  and
\nrecorded their  statements.  After completing the investigation on all aspects
\nand after complying with all the legal formalities, he filed the final  report
\nin  court  on 20.06 .1997 against the accused for offences under sections 147,
\n148 and 30 2 read with section 149 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  When the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available
\nagainst each one of them, they  denied  the  entire  materials  as  false  and
\ncontrary to  facts.   On the side of the defence, three witnesses have come to
\nbe examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 besides marking Exs.  D.1  to  D.7.    D.W.1  would
\nstate  that  he  is  working  as  a  lecturer  in Victoria Tutorial College in
\nAviniyapuram, Madurai.  He knows A4.  He also knows all the accused.  A4 is  a
\ngraduate.  One  Manivannan is his lawyer.  He used to meet him in his chambers
\nas well as in court.  In the ground floor of the court building, the court  of
\nJudicial  Magistrate  No.5  is  towards  north  while  the  court  of Judicial
\nMagistrate No.6 is towards south.  These two court halls are  separated  by  a
\ncommon passage.   Only in that passage the under trial prisoners would be made
\nto sit.  The under trial prisoners would be  brought  before  court  by  about
\n11.00 a.m and the prisoners would be called for remand extension only by about
\n1.00 p.m.   Even after that, they would come and sit outside the verandah till
\nthe vehicle comes to take them back to the prison.  The van used to come  only
\nat 4.00  p.m.    D.W.2  is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine in the
\nMadras Medical College Hospital.  He would give evidence about injuries  1,  2
\nand 3  as  noted in Ex.P.3, the post mortem report and it’s effect.  According
\nto him, injury No.1 would cause instantaneous death.  He would also state that
\neach one of the injury independently as well as cumulatively would cause death
\ninstantaneously.  After receipt of any  one  of  the  three  injuries,  it  is
\nimpossible for  the  injured  to  survive.   After receipt of injury No.1, the
\ninjured could have stood to the ground  only  for  a  few  seconds  and  after
\nreceipt of injuries 2 and 3, it would not be possible for the injured to stand
\nany more.  After receipt of injuries 1 and 2, it would not be possible for the
\ninjured to turn his neck.  Injuries 8 and 16 found on the dead body could have
\nbeen  caused  on  the victim when he was resisting the onslaught by projecting
\nthe hands.  After receipt of injuries 2 and 3 as noted  in  Ex.P.3,  the  post
\nmortem report, it would be impossible for the injured to voluntarily raise the
\narms.  After receipt of injuries 1 to 3, there is no chance for the injured to
\nraise the voice.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   D.W.3  had been examined to show that A2 during the relevant time
\nwas in his company far away  from  the  scene  in  connection  with  a  temple
\nfestival.   Exs.D.1 to D.5 are the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 recorded
\nunder  section  164  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  by  the  Judicial
\nMagistrate.   Ex.D.6  is  the  invitation,  which  shows that in memory of the
\ndeceased in this case, on her first  death  anniversary,  there  was  a  blood
\ndonation camp.    Ex.D.7  is shown to be a wall poster to show that the temple
\nKumbabishekam was held as spoken to by D.W.3 .\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Mr.V.Gopinath learned senior counsel appearing  for  some  of  the
\nconvicted  accused  would  contend that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not be eye witnesses
\nand likewise P.Ws.6 and 7 also could not have seen  the  accused  moving  away
\nfrom the  scene  of  occurrence.   In elaborating this submission, the learned
\nsenior counsel would state that since P.Ws.2 and 3 claim that they know A3 and
\nif really they were present along with P.  W.1 at the time of occurrence, then
\ndefinitely they would have given the name of A3 to P.W.1.  A3’s  name  is  not
\nfound in  Ex.P.1.    Therefore this belies the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 as eye
\nwitnesses to the occurrence.  P.W.1 is the resident of the same area in  which
\nall the  accused  are shown to reside.  P.W.19 had given evidence to the above
\neffect.  This means, P.W.1 must be knowing all the accused.   But  however  he
\nhad  given the names of A1 and A2 alone in the complaint and had described the
\nrest of the accused as known persons and that he do not know the names and the
\nplace to which they belong.  After seeing the incident, the conduct of  P.Ws.6
\nand  7, as spoken to by them, especially when they are not strangers to P.Ws.1
\nto 3, is not that of usual eye witnesses.  Therefore their  evidence  must  be
\nexcluded from  consideration.    The statement of P.Ws.6 to 11 recorded by the
\nInvestigating Officer had reached the court only on 21.07.1997 and this  would
\nhave an  impact  on the evidentiary value of these witnesses.  The case of the
\nprosecution so far as it is directed against A3 to A6 is hardly convincing and
\nthey appear to have been implicated due to political rivalry.  The evidence of
\nP.Ws.1 to 3 against A1 and A2 also do not appear to be natural  and  therefore
\nthey must be disbelieved.  The learned senior counsel would also state that as
\nfar  as  A5  is  concerned,  he  was  a juvenile on the date of occurrence and
\ntherefore the lower court is duty bound, when the said fact is brought to it’s
\nnotice, to hold an enquiry on that issue and come to a conclusion of it’s own.
\nBut however in this case such an exercise has not been done.    Mr.S.    Ashok
\nKumar  learned  counsel appearing for A4 would adopt the arguments advanced by
\nthe learned senior counsel.  Mr.I.Subramanian learned senior counsel and State
\nPublic Prosecutor would defend the case  by  stating  that,  the  sequence  of
\nevents as spoken to by the witnesses, in and by which A3 to A6 were brought on
\nrecord  as accused in the crime, bristles with truthfulness on the face of it.
\nThe delay in sending the statements of P.Ws.6 to 11 to the court may not  have
\nany  impact  in  the  prosecution case at all in view of the fact that all the
\naccused, except A2 and A4, have come to be arrested on the  next  day  of  the
\noccurrence itself  based on the statements of witnesses.  Therefore there is a
\nring of truth in the prosecution case as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 and
\nthere are no compelling circumstances available on record  to  disbelieve  the
\nstrong evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on
\neither side, we perused the entire materials available on record.  Even at the
\noutset,  we  would like to take the point raised by the learned senior counsel
\nthat A5 was a  juvenile  on  the  date  of  occurrence  as  the  first  issue.
\nMr.I.Subramanian  learned  State  Public  Prosecutor  produced  before  us  an
\nunreported order dated 18.02.1999 in Crl.R.C.  No.612\/1998 passed by a learned
\nsingle Judge of this court.  The revision petitioner in that case is A5 in the
\npresent case.  A perusal of the said order shows that even before the case was
\ncommitted before the Court of  Sessions,  the  issue  was  raised  before  the
\ncommittal  Magistrate  himself and the committal Magistrate, after considering
\nthe medical records namely, Radiologist’s report, had found that issue against
\nhim on 05.12.1997 itself.  Not satisfied with that  decision  passed  at  that
\nstage,  A5 after the case was committed before the Court of Sessions, took out
\nan application in Crl.M.P.No.80\/1998 on 24.12.1997 to decide the issue  of  he
\nbeing  a juvenile stating that the procedure contemplated by the then Juvenile
\nJustice Act should be followed.  The learned Sessions Judge,  by  order  dated
\n20.04.1998  dismissed  that application and the revision before this court was
\nagainst that order.  The learned single Judge while dismissing that  revision,
\naffirmed  the  order  of  the learned Sessions Judge holding that A5 was not a
\njuvenile.  Inasmuch as at two stages the issue of A5 being a juvenile had been
\nfound against him and the said order of this court having not been  challenged
\nin  a manner known to law, in our considered opinion, the said issue cannot be
\nre-agitated once again in this appeal.  Accordingly we reject the argument  of
\nMr.V.Gopinath  learned senior counsel that A5 was definitely a juvenile on the
\ndate of occurrence and therefore he ought not to have been  tried  along  with
\nthe adult accused.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  cause of death in this case is established to be one due to
\nhomicidal violence.  Ex.P.3 is the post mortem report and Ex.P.4 is the  final
\nopinion, which  establish  our above conclusion.  The defence is not disputing
\nthe same.  The case of the prosecution is that, it is  the  accused,  who  are
\nresponsible  for causing the fatal attack on the victim (A1 to A3 and A5 while
\nA4 and A6 were standing guard).  To substantiate their case,  the  prosecution
\nhad examined P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7.  In our considered opinion, the evidence of
\nthe  above  witnesses  can be broadly classified into two groups namely, those
\nwho have actually witnessed the occurrence and those who have seen the accused
\nmoving away from the scene of occurrence after the crime.    Under  the  first
\ncategory, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would come and under the second category
\nthe evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 would come.  By examining P.W.18, the prosecution
\nhad established that the deceased, in the election held for counsellors of the
\nMadurai Corporation,  was opposed by A1’s wife by name Valli.  The evidence of
\nocular witnesses also show that besides the deceased and A1’s wife, there were
\na few more politically sponsored candidates as well as individuals.    However
\nas  already  stated,  the evidence of P.W.18, the election officer, would show
\nthat the deceased was the successful candidate for Ward  No.59  defeating  her
\nclose rival  namely,  Valli  (A1’s wife).  The case of the prosecution is also
\nthat, only in the backdrop of political rivalry, the occurrence in question is
\nshown to have taken place.  From the evidence of P.W.18, it appears that  when
\nhe  was  about  to  declare  the  results of the winning candidate namely, the
\ndeceased, some objections were raised at the behest of the defeated  candidate
\nnamely, Valli.    But  overruling  those objections, the result was announced.
\nThe further case of the prosecution is that, even after that, there were  some
\nbickerings  between the two groups and even on the night on which the election
\nresult was announced, A1 and A2, with their supporters, went to the  house  of
\nthe  deceased and challenged her as to how she would perform her duties as the
\ncounsellor.  The case of the prosecution is that, P.Ws.1 to 3, besides  a  few
\nmore, were there in the house of P.W.1 at that time and their evidence on that
\naspect is  clear  and  cogent.    The occurrence proper is shown to have taken
\nplace at about 8.00 or 8.30 a.m on 23.04.1997.  It is true that P.Ws.1 to 3, 6
\nand 7 belong to the same political faction namely CPI(M).  But simply  because
\nthey  belong  to  the  same  group,  it need not necessarily follow that their
\nevidence must be discarded on that sole ground, if their evidence is found  to
\nbe otherwise trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  P.W.1  is  the  husband  of the deceased.  A1 and A2 are brothers
\nwhile A3 is the brother of Valli, who is A1’s wife.  Rest of the  accused  are
\nalso shown to be either related to A1 and A2 or their friends.  The occurrence
\nhad  taken place, according to the prosecution, in Villapuram main road, which
\nruns east-west.    On  either  side  of  the  said  road,   there   are   some
\nconstructions, which are either shops or godown.  Ex.P.27 is the plan.  Serial
\nNo.3 in that plan is the provision store belonging to one Sermakani.  The plan
\nalso shows  the  residence  of  the deceased as Serial No.21.  P.W.1 had given
\nevidence to show that he resides in the building shown as serial No.21,  which
\nis a row of buildings owned by one Nadar.  The case of the prosecution is that
\nP.  Ws.1 to 3 were at the junction of Anna Second Road branching towards south
\nfrom  Villapuram  main  road  planning as to how the ensuing May Day should be
\ncelebrated.  The place where P.Ws.1 to 3 were standing is on the western  side
\nof the  east-west  road.  All of them saw the deceased coming from east to buy
\nsome provisions from the shop of Sermakani and  they  also  saw  each  of  the
\naccused armed  with  a  weapon  coming  from  further  east towards west.  The
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 consistently and cogently show that all  the  accused,
\non nearing the victim, except A4 and A6, indiscriminately attacked Leelavathi,
\nsince  deceased,  with  the weapon of offence in their hands, resulting in her
\ninstantaneous death.  On a perusal of the oral evidence of  P.Ws.1  to  3,  we
\nfind that the involvement of A1 to A3 and A5 in inflicting various injuries on
\nthe person of Leelavathi stands established beyond the pale of controversy.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Then  we  applied  our mind to the other set of evidence namely,
\nP.Ws.6 and 7, who would state that they were also proceeding in the same  road
\nfrom  east  to  west and when they were on that road, they saw all the accused
\ncoming in the opposite direction (going  towards  east)  with  the  weapon  of
\noffence in  their  hands  and their clothes were blood stained.  Therefore the
\nevidence of these two sets  of  witnesses  namely,  P.Ws.1  to  3  seeing  the
\noccurrence  proper  itself and the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 seeing the accused
\nmoving away after committing the crime, are heavily relied upon by  the  State
\nto sustain  their  case.  As already stated, prima facie the evidence of these
\ntwo sets of witnesses establish beyond doubt the  occurrence  proper  and  the
\naccused moving away from the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   Let  us  now  apply  our mind to the various points urged by the
\nlearned senior counsel for the accused requesting us to  disbelieve  the  oral
\nevidence of  the  two sets of witnesses referred to above.  It is true that in
\nEx.P.1, P.W.1 had mentioned the names of A1 and A2 by name and  described  the
\nothers  as  “known  persons”,  whose names and place of residence “not known”.
\nFrom the evidence of P.W.19, the Investigating Officer, it had come  to  light
\nthat  all the accused are residents of the same area where P.W.1 also resides,
\nofcourse in two different blocks.  From this, an  argument  is  advanced  that
\nP.W.1 must be knowing the names of all the six accused and if that position is
\naccepted,  then  there  is no reason as to why he cannot give the names of all
\nthe accused except A1 and A2.  This, according to the defence, would only show
\nthat A3 to A6 were not in the picture at all.  P.Ws.2 and  3  no  doubt  admit
\nthat they  know  A3  as  well.  The prosecution case is that, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
\ntogether when they saw the crime.  There is nothing on  record  to  show  that
\nP.Ws.2 and 3 knew that P.W.1 was not aware about the names of all the accused,
\nin particular,  the  name  of  A3.   P.W.1 had categorically stated that after
\nseeing the occurrence he did not ask P.Ws.2 and 3 about the  identity  of  the
\nassailants nor  did  they  give  him  any  information.   P.Ws.2 and 3 had not
\naccompanied P.W.1 to the police station.  P.W.17, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
\nwould state that P.W.1 alone appeared before him an d  lodged  the  complaint.
\nTherefore  it is possible to visualize that P.Ws.2 and 3 would have been under
\nthe impression that P.W.1 must be knowing the name of A3 as well when he  went
\nto the police station and that is why they did not inform him the names of the
\nassailants.   It may also be possible to visualize that when P.W.1 went to the
\npolice station, P.Ws.2 and 3 would not have had an inkling that P.W.1 may  not
\nbe in  a position to give all the names.  P.W.1 had stated in a natural manner
\nthat he came to know the identity of A3 only when he came  back  after  giving
\nthe complaint\/Ex.P.1  to the police.  The involvement of A4 to A6 by names and
\naddresses was not also within the personal knowledge of P.W.1  when  he  would
\nstate  that  the said information was furnished to him on 24.04.1997 by P.Ws.6
\nand 7 when they came to his house to offer condolences.  Therefore we  do  not
\nfind  anything  unusual or any serious legal infirmity in P.W.1 not giving the
\nname of either A3 in Ex.P.1 and the names of A4 to A6 as  affecting  his  very
\nevidence.   From  a  perusal  of  the evidence of P.W.1, it is not possible to
\nconclude that he knew the names of A3 to A6 also personally when  he  went  to
\nthe police  station to lodge the information.  For the reason, already stated,
\nwe hold that the failure on the part of P.Ws.2 and  3  in  not  disclosing  to
\nP.W.1,  when  he left for the police station, that the name of A3 appear to be
\nin the run of events and they cannot be found fault with  for  not  disclosing
\nsuch an  information  to  P.W.1.  Consequently we hold that the failure on the
\npart of P.Ws.2 and 3 to say so to P.W.1 would not  affect  their  evidence  in
\ntoto.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  inquest  in this case had been done by P.W.19 between 12.15
\nand 2.30 p.m on 23.04.1997 in the hospital.  The involvement of A3 by name had
\ncome to the knowledge of P.W.1 as spoken to by  him  only  during  inquest  as
\nbrought to  his notice by P.Ws.2 and 3.  Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 shows
\nthat he had come to know about A3’s involvement by name during inquest itself.
\nA perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 would show that he may not be  knowing  the
\nname  of  A3  at  the time when inquest was done and infact we may go one step
\nfurther to say that P.W.2’s evidence would show  that  he  came  to  know  the
\ninvolvement of A3 by name only on 24.04.1997 when he, along with P.W.3, was in
\nthe house  of  P.W.1 in offering condolences, at which point of time, P.  Ws.6
\nand 7 disclosed the involvement of the rest of the accused.  But  inasmuch  as
\nP.W.1  had  stated  that  after giving the complaint he came to know about the
\ninvolvement of A3 by name from P.Ws.2 and 3, which answer had been elicited by
\nthe defence in his evidence in cross, a duty is cast  upon  them  to  confront
\nP.Ws.2  and  3 on this aspect namely, as to whether they gave this information
\nto P.W.1 or not.  We have already found that the evidence  of  P.W.2  may  not
\nthrow any  light  on  this  aspect.  But however the defence had not chosen to
\ncross examine P.W.3 at all as to whether he gave  that  information  to  P.W.1
\ni.e., about  the  involvement  of  A3 by name in this case.  Therefore we hold
\nthat the evidence of P.W.1 that he came to know about the involvement of A3 by
\nname only during inquest stands un-controverted in any manner  known  to  law.
\nThe  inquest  report and the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 had been received by the
\nin charge Magistrate on  24.04.1997  itself,  as  spoken  to  by  P.W.13,  the
\nMagisterial Clerk.   Therefore without any hesitation we have to conclude even
\nat this stage that the involvement of A3 by name had come to the notice of the
\nInvestigating Agency within  a  few  hours  after  registering  the  complaint
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  next phase of the prosecution case is the involvement of A4
\nto A6.  Their involvement is spoken to by P.Ws.6 and 7.  It may be  true  that
\nthey are  comrades  of  P.Ws.1 to 3.  Their evidence shows that when they were
\ngoing from east to  west  at  Villapuram  Main  Road  (  the  road  where  the
\noccurrence  is  shown to have taken place), they saw all the accused coming in
\nfront of them with the weapon of offence in their hands.  Their evidence  also
\nshows that  their  clothes  were  blood  stained.  They proceeded further west
\nwhere they found the dead body of Leelavathi lying near the provision store of
\nSermakani.  Their evidence further shows that as they neared the dead body,  a
\nhuge  crowd  had  already gathered there and everyone was in a state of shock.
\nTheir evidence also shows that the entire atmosphere was tense  and  therefore
\nwhen  they  saw that, both of them went home without talking anything with the
\npersons, who were present at the scene of occurrence.  From the fact that they
\ndid not do anything at that stage,  it  cannot  be  said  that  they  are  not
\nwitnesses to  the  fact  spoken  to  by  them.   Their evidence is natural and
\nconvincing when they saw hundred’s of people gathered around the dead body and
\nthey have also seen P.Ws.1 to 3 there, though it would have been open to  them
\nto  go  nearer  to P.Ws.1 to 3 and console P.W.1 on the death of his wife, yet
\nfrom the very fact that they did not do the same, would  not  by  itself  mean
\nthat  they  would not have witnessed the accused moving away from the scene of
\noccurrence.  Their evidence also shows that they went to the house of P.W.1 on
\nthe morning of 24.04.1997 to offer condolences and at  that  time  they  found
\nP.Ws.1 to  3  there.    Admittedly  P.Ws.6  and 7 are not eye witnesses to the
\noccurrence.  Therefore their evidence that on reaching the house of  P.W.1  to
\noffer condolences on the morning of 2 4.04.1997, they made enquiries as to how
\nthe  occurrence  took  place,  would not mean, in our considered opinion, that
\nthey have not seen the accused moving  away  from  the  scene  of  occurrence.
\nThere  is  nothing wrong in they making preliminary enquiries from the persons
\npresent there as to how the occurrence took place.  Only in the course of such
\nconversation, they have disclosed the identity of A3 to A6 as persons involved
\nin the crime, besides the two mentioned in the complaint.  Their  evidence  is
\nalso  that they disclosed the said information to the police officer when they
\nwere examined in the house of P.W.1.  P.W.19’s evidence would show that in the
\nmor ning of 24.04.1997 he went to the house of P.W.1 in the course of  further
\ninvestigation  and  while  examining  P.Ws.1  to 3, he found P.Ws.6 and 7 also
\npresent there and he examined them.  It may be true that he had admitted  that
\nhis  case  diary  will  not  show  where  exactly he examined P.Ws.6 and 7 and
\nrecorded their statements.  None-the-less, in our opinion, the said absence of
\nentry in the case diary cannot belie the oral evidence of  P.Ws.1  to  3  that
\nP.Ws.6  and  7  brought to their knowledge at that time the involvement of the
\nrest of the accused by name and a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.6 and  7  do
\nshow that they said so before the Investigating Officer.  The fact that P.Ws.6
\nand  7  came to be examined on 24.0 4.1997 itself as spoken to by them as well
\nas by the Investigating Officer stands  strengthened  by  the  arrest  of  the
\nrespective  accused,  whose  involvement in the crime by name surfaced for the
\nfirst time on the morning of 24.04.1997.  A3, A5 and A6 came to be arrested in
\nthe late part of the evening on the same day while A4 had come to be  arrested
\non 28.04.1997.    The  arrest  of A3, A5 and A6 on 24.04.1997 itself and their
\nremand would only show that the statements of P.W.6 and P.   W.7  recorded  on
\n24.04.1997 alone  ought to have been the basis for the said arrest.  Therefore
\nthe arrest of the respective accused as referred to above in  close  proximity
\nto  the  examination  of  P.Ws.6 and 7 on 24.04.1997 would only strengthen our
\nconclusion that P.Ws.6 and 7 should  have  been  definitely  examined  on  the
\nmorning  of 24.04.1997 as spoken to by not only themselves but also by P.W.19,
\nthe Investigating Officer.  It may be noticed that A4 came to be  arrested  on
\n28.04.1997 .    The arrest of A3 to A6 as referred to above and their judicial
\nremand made by the court would go a long way in favour of the  prosecution  to
\ndefend  the  criticism  of  the defence made about the delayed receipts of the
\nstatements of those witnesses by court.  in respect of certain  statements  of
\nthese witnesses.    The  evidence of P.W.13, the Magisterial Clerk, would show
\nthat the statements of P.Ws.6 to 11 recorded during investigation had  reached
\nthe court  only  on  21.07.1997.    As already stated, the strong facet of the
\nprosecution case is the arrest of A3 to A6 on the two dates referred to  above
\nand this thwarts all possible criticisms by the defence attacking the evidence
\nof  P.Ws.6  and  7  on  the ground that their statements had reached the court
\nalmost three months after it was shown to have been recorded.    Therefore  we
\nhave  no  hesitation  to  conclude  that  the  evidence  of P.Ws.1 to 3 as eye
\nwitnesses to the occurrence and the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, as  persons  who
\nhad  seen  the accused moving away from the scene of occurrence, establish the
\nprosecution case beyond doubt.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  A faint argument is  advanced  before  this  court  that  due  to
\npolitical rivalry and pressure, A3 to A6 have been brought before court as the
\naccused,  for which we do not find even a semblance of material to sustain the
\nsaid argument.  The evidence of P.Ws.1  to  3,  as  already  referred  to,  is
\nnatural  and  convincing  and  from  the mere fact that none tried to save the
\nvictim from being assaulted till her death,  would  not  by  itself  discredit
\ntheir evidence  on  the  occurrence  proper.    How  a  person,  on seeing the
\ndastardly crime, would respond to the situation, would vary from individual to
\nindividual and it can never be uniform.  Therefore as a  matter  of  universal
\nrule, it cannot be said that simply because eye witnesses did not raise to the
\noccasion  to  save  the  victim,  it should be necessarily concluded that they
\ncannot be eye witnesses.  Though in the evidence of P.W.19, the  Investigating
\nOfficer,  it  had  come  to  light  that  all  the  accused  are  residents of
\nVillapuram, the place where P.W.1  is  also  residing,  we  do  not  find  any
\nmaterial  from  which it can even be inferred that P.W.1 knows all the accused
\nby name and  their  residence.    If  really  the  prosecution  is  bent  upon
\nfabricating  the case, then nothing would have prevented P.W.1 from giving the
\nnames of all the six accused at the first instance itself.   The  truthfulness
\nof  the  prosecution case lies in the manner in which the complaint came to be
\nlodged with the contents found therein.    The  case  of  the  prosecution  as
\ndisclosed  in  Ex.P.1 is found to be carried forward throughout the trial in a
\nconsistent manner.  In Ex.P.1 it is disclosed that besides A1 and A2, two  out
\nof the  remaining  four  accused  also joined in attacking the victim.  In the
\noral evidence before court, P.Ws.1 to 3 consistently speak about  A1,  A2,  A3
\nand A5  as  persons, who inflicted injuries on the victim.  Therefore there is
\ndefinite consistency on this aspect before court when compared the  same  with
\nthe averments  contained  in Ex.P.1.  Equally there is definite consistency in
\nthe prosecution case when we compare the averments contained in Ex.P.1 and the
\noral evidence before court regarding the overt acts attributed to A4  and  A6.
\nThroughout,  the prosecution had stuck to the version that A4 and A6 were only
\npresent armed and they did not attack the victim.  It may be true  that  there
\nis  a  little improvement in the oral evidence of P.W.1 when he deposed before
\ncourt that A4 and A6 while standing  guard  near  the  scene  also  criminally
\nintimidated the  nearby  persons  from  going  near the place of attack.  This
\ntrivial improvement in the oral evidence of P.W.1 about the role played by  A4
\nand A6, when compared with Ex.P.1, is not of such a serious nature which would
\naffect the  very  substratum  of  the  prosecution  case.    We  find that the
\ncomplaint had come to be given within a short time.    It  is  true  that  the
\ncomplaint  came to be given after 1-1\/2 hours from the time of occurrence when
\nthe police station is hardly at a distance of half a kilometre from the scene.
\nBut it must be seen that the victim is none-else than the wife  of  P.W.1  and
\nthat  too  when  she  had suffered innumerable cut injuries on her body, it is
\nnothing but natural that P.W.1 would have taken some time  to  regain  himself
\nand then  decided  to  give the complaint.  He would also state that he walked
\nall his way to the police station and gave the complaint.  Therefore we do not
\nfind any deliberate delay on the part of P.W.1 in lodging the information.  In
\nfact if really  the  prosecution  gained  anything  by  giving  the  complaint
\nbelatedly,  then  we  see  no  reason  at  all  as to why P.W.1 could not have
\nmentioned the name of A3 also in the complaint, since P.Ws.2 and  3  know  the
\ninvolvement of  A3.    This  only  shows  that after regaining himself, P.W.1,
\nwithout any further deliberation in his mind, straight away went to the police
\nstation to lodge the information.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  In addition to the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as eye  witnesses
\nto the occurrence, which establish the involvement of A1 to A3 by name and the
\nothers  as  “known  persons”  and  the  oral  evidence  of P.Ws.6 and 7, which
\nestablish the involvement of A4 and A6, the prosecution had  also  taken  care
\nfor  holding a test identification parade to enable P.Ws.1 to 3 to identify A3
\nto A6.  This appears to have been done obviously because in Ex.P.1 the name of
\nA1 and A2 alone have been mentioned and the names of rest of the accused  have
\nnot been given.  When there is direct evidence of eye witnesses, who can speak
\nabout  the  involvement  of  the  various  accused,  the  holding  of the test
\nidentification parade would be only redundant.  But  as  already  stated,  the
\nprosecution   wanted   to  be  abundantly  cautious  and  therefore  the  test
\nidentification parade had been conducted.  We perused the evidence of  P.W.14,
\nthe Judicial  Magistrate,  who  conducted  the  test identification parade.  A
\nreading of his evidence does not show any vitiating material in his  evidence,
\nwhich  would discredit the test identification parade conducted by him and the
\nreport submitted.  His evidence and report show that P.Ws.1 to 3  consistently
\nand  correctly identified A3 to A6 on all the three occasions when each one of
\nthem were called separately by the Magistrate to identify the various accused.
\nAn attempt has been made by the defence that all the accused were shown to the
\nwitnesses before hand and therefore the test identification parade  is  of  no
\nuse.   Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
\n2002 S.C.C (Crl.) Pg.1698 (Dana Yadav Vs.   State  of  Bihar)  held  that  the
\npurpose  of  conducting the test identification parade is not to rely upon the
\nmaterials collected during  the  test  identification  parade  as  substantive
\nevidence  but it is only with a view to test the memory of the witnesses about
\nthey seeing the involvement of the accused in the crime.  Therefore as already
\nstated, looking from any angle, the conducting of test  identification  parade
\nis  definitely  redundant,  since  the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as one block of
\nevidence and the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 as  the  other  block  of  evidence,
\ndefinitely  establish  beyond the pale of controversy the involvement of A1 to
\nA6 in the crime.  D.W.1 had been examined to show that there is a  possibility
\nof the accused being shown to the witnesses.  His evidence is only on surmises
\nand conjectures.    His  evidence at best shows that the accused, when brought
\nbefore court for remand,  would  be  asked  to  wait  in  the  common  passage
\nseparating court  hall  No.5  and  court  hall  No.6.  There is no material on
\nrecord to show that during those times the  witnesses  in  the  case  on  hand
\nbefore the  remand  court  and  the  accused  were  shown  to  them.  Then the
\nprosecution relies upon the oral evidence of D.W.3 coupled  with  Ex.D.7,  the
\nwall  poster,  to show that A2 was with him at a place far away from the scene
\nof occurrence on the crucial date.  Again, on going through  the  evidence  of
\nD.W.3,  we do not find that A2 had established his plea of alibi by being at a
\ndifferent place from the place of occurrence.   D.W.2  had  been  examined  to
\nspeak  about  the  position  of the victim after she received injuries 1 to 3.
\nAgain it is only an opinion evidence.  How a  human  body  would  react  after
\nreceiving injury after injury, though theoretically may be said in one way but
\nyet in  reality it can never be so.  It is therefore not possible to visualise
\nthat after receiving injuries 1 to 3 the victim  would  not  have  been  in  a
\nposition to raise her arms, which alone would have resulted in injuries to her
\narms.   Therefore  we  are  not  impressed  with the oral evidence of D.W.2 to
\nconclude that after receiving injuries 1 to 3, the victim would not have  been
\nin a position to raise either her voice or resist further onslaught.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  One other aspect which remains to be answered in this case is the
\nplea of  alibi set up by A1.  His case is that from 19.04.1997 till 23.04.1997
\nhe was taking treatment under Doctor Ravindran, which disabled him from moving
\nout.  He has not taken any positive stand at any stage of the proceeding  that
\nhe was  an  inpatient in any hospital under the care of Dr.Ravindran.  P.W.19,
\nthe Investigating Officer, would  state  in  his  evidence  that  his  enquiry
\nrevealed that A1 was taking treatment under Dr.Ravindran.  By taking treatment
\nalone  it cannot be said that A1 has been immobilised in any particular place.
\nWhen he sets up a plea of alibi, a burden is cast upon him  to  establish  the
\nsame.   He  has not chosen to discharge the said burden in any manner known to
\nlaw either by examining  Dr.Ravindran  or  bringing  in  any  other  material.
\nTherefore his case of alibi stands only at the stage of suggestion and nothing
\nmore than that.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   For all the reasons stated above, we have no doubt at all in our
\nmind that the conviction of all the six accused in this case is  supported  by
\nlegal  materials  warranting  no interference in the judgment under challenge.
\nAccordingly while sustaining the judgment under challenge,  the  appeal  fails
\nand it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The First Additional District Judge Cum Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, Madurai\n<\/p>\n
2.-Do-Through the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai\n<\/p>\n
3.The District Collector, Madurai\n<\/p>\n
4.The Director General of Police, Chennai\n<\/p>\n
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras\n<\/p>\n
6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai\n<\/p>\n
7.The Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai P.S., Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN C.A.NO.245 OF 2000 1.Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai 2.Muthuramalingam 3.Murugan, S\/o.Krishnathevar 4.Maruthu @ Nallamarudhu 5.Murugan @ Shongan 6.Meenakshi Sundaram @ Meenakshi […]<\/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-205707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKarumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - 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\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-09T05:53:57+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=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T05:53:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":8712,\"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\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T05:53:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - 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\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-09T05:53:57+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":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T05:53:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003"},"wordCount":8712,"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\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003","name":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T05:53:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karumalaiyan-annadurai-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-31-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karumalaiyan @ Annadurai vs State By Inspector Of Police on 31 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205707","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=205707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}