{"id":209143,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-22T15:53:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-22T10:23:07","slug":"pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.128 of 2004\n\n1.Pooluthevar\n\n2.Marutha Vinayagam\n\n3.Viswanathan\n\n4.Selva Vinayagam\n\n5.Murugan\t\t        . . . Appellants\/\n\t\t      \t  \t      Accused 1 to 5\n\nVs.\n\nThe State rep. by\nthe Inspector of Police,\nMurappanadu Police Station,\nThoothukudi District.\n(Crime No.11 of 1996)\t       . . . Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t     Complainant\n\t Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the\njudgment dated 28.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.278 of 1999 by the Additional\nSessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.\n\n!For appellants   ...Mr.R.Anand\n^For respondent   ...Mr.Siva Ayyappan,\n    \t  \t     Government Advocate,\n\t\t       (Criminal side)\n\t  \t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.278 of 1999 by the
\nAdditional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin are now under challenge
\nin the present criminal appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The epitome of the prosecution case is that the complainant by name
\nMurugan is a resident of Vallanadu and now he is the union chairman of the
\nKarungulam and at the time of occurrence, he served as maestri in M.K.M. Chamber
\nand he knows all the accused.  The primary work of the complainant is to get
\nsoil from other places to the said chamber.  The second accused viz., Maruth
\nVinayagam has been known to the complainant with regard to selling of soil.  On
\n21.01.1996 at about 8.00  a.m. the complainant has gone to Chennalpatti Village
\nfor taking soil through the lorries bearing Registration No.TN-72-9732 & MDD-
\n9732. The second accused is the owner of the Manikandan Rice Mill.  Near the
\nsaid Rice Mill, all the accused with deadly weapons have deterred the said
\nlorries. The complainant has questioned the accused. The accused 1 & 2 have told
\nthat the complainant and others should not take soil. The complainant has told
\nthem that already an agreement has been entered into with regard to taking of
\nsoil.  The accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder the
\ncomplainant.  The third accused by name Viswanathan has attacked on the left
\nheel of the complainant by using an aruval.  The fourth accused  by name Selva
\nVinayagam has tried to attack on the head of the complainant, but the said
\nattack has caused injury on his backside. The fifth accused viz., Murugan has
\nattacked on the right upper thigh of the complainant twice.  After occurrence,
\nthe complainant has been taken to Government Hospital, Palayamkottai and at
\nabout 11.00 a.m. one Head Constable has recorded a statement from the
\ncomplainant and the same has been marked as Ex.P1.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.On receipt of Ex.P1, complaint, the investigating agency has done
\ninvestigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of
\nthe Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam and the same has been taken on file
\nin P.R.C.No.40 of 1996.  The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions,
\nTuticorin Division and subsequently transferred to the file of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The trial Court, after considering the alleged culpability of all the
\naccused and other connected documents has framed first charge against the
\naccused 1 to 5 under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against
\nthe accused 1 to 5 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, third charge
\nagainst the accused 3 to 5 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and fourth
\ncharge against the accused 1 & 2 under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian
\nPenal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.  The accused
\nhave denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P10 and MOs.1 to 4 have been marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in
\nevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crimes.  However no
\noral and documentary evidence have been let in on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The trial Court, after perpending the evidence available on record has
\nfound the accused 1 to 5 guilty under Sections 148 of the Indian Penal Code and
\nsentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a
\nfine of Rs.500\/- upon each of them with default clause.  The accused 1 to 5 are
\nalso found guilty under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
\nundergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of     Rs.500\/-
\nupon each of them with default clause.  The accused 1 & 2 are found guilty under
\nSections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two
\nyears rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1500\/- upon each of
\nthem with default clause.  The accused 3 to 5 are found guilty under Section 307
\nof the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
\nimprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- upon each of them with
\ndefault clause.  Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court,
\nthe present criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused as
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The crux of the prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence, the
\ncomplainant by name Murugan  has served as Maestri in K.K.M.Chanmber and
\nproceeded to Chennalpatti Village so as to take soil through the lorries bearing
\nRegistration Nos.TN-72-9732 and MDD.9732 and an agreement has been in existence
\nwith regard to taking of soil from the place of the second accused viz., Marutha
\nVinayagam and near his Rice Mill all the accused have deterred the said lorries
\nwith deadly weapons.  The complainant has questioned them and the accused 1 & 2
\nhave directed the other accused to murder the complainant and in pursuance of
\ntheir direction, the accused 3 to 5 have attacked the complainant and thereby
\ncaused injuries on his person.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon Ex.P1, complaint, wherein
\nit has been clearly stated that in the place of occurrence, the accused 1 & 2
\nhave directed the remaining accused to attack the complainant and the remaining
\naccused have attacked the complainant by using deadly weapons.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Before considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel
\nappearing for the appellants\/accused, the Court has to analyse as to whether the
\nprosecution has  established the guilt of the accused as alleged on its side.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The author of Ex.P1, complaint has been examined as PW1.  He has
\nclearly stated in his evidence that on 21.01.1995 at about 8.00 a.m. he and
\nothers have proceeded to Chennalpatti Village for taking soil through the
\nlorries bearing Registration Nos.TN-72-9732, MDD.9732 and near the Rice Mill of
\nthe second accused all the accused have deterred the said lorries with deadly
\nweapons and the accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder him and
\naccordingly the third accused has attacked on his left heel by using an aruval
\nand the fourth accused has tried to attack on his head by using an aruval, but
\nthe said attack has caused injury on his backside and the fifth accused has
\nattacked on his right thigh twice by using an aruval.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.One of the eyewitnesses by name Marimuthu has been examined as PW2.  He
\nwould say in his evidence that on 21.01.1996 at about 8.00 a.m. he and others
\nhave proceeded to Chennalpatti village for taking soil and he has heard a queer
\nnoise and subsequently found the complainant with injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.One Chokkalingam has been examined as PW4.  He would say in his
\nevidence that on 21.01.1996 while he has been in his tea shop, the accused 3 to
\n5 have attacked the complainant in the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.One of the eyewitness by name Father has been examined as PW8.  He
\nwould say in his evidence that in the place of occurrence, the accused 3 to 5
\nhave attacked the complainant by using aruvals.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The Doctor who has seen the complainant viz., PW1 deposed evidence as
\nPW15.  He has also stated in his evidence that on 21.01.1996 at about 9.15 a.m.
\nhe examined the complainant and he reported to him that on the same day, at
\nabout 8.10 a.m. in Chennalpatti village he has been attacked by 5 known persons
\nby using aruvals and sticks, and he found four injuries on his person.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.From the evidence of PW1 and other eyewitnesses coupled with the
\nevidence of PW15, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that in the place of
\noccurrence, the accused 1 & 2 have directed the accused 3 to 5 to murder the
\ncomplainant and in pursuance of their direction, the third accused has attacked
\non the left heel of the complainant by using an aruval and the fourth accused
\nhas attacked on his backside by using an aruval and the fifth accused has
\nattacked on his right thigh twice and due to overtacts alleged to have been
\ncommitted by the accused 3 to 5, PW1 has sustained injuries on his person.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/accused has attacked
\nthe conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the basis of the
\nfollowing grounds;\n<\/p>\n
\ta)In Ex.P1, complaint it has been stated that  before occurrence, the
\ncomplainant has alighted from the lorry, whereas in the evidence of PW1 it has
\nbeen stated that the entire occurrence has taken place while he has been in the
\nlorry and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)The specific evidence of PW1 is that the accused 3 to 5 have attacked
\nhim by using deadly weapons, whereas he reported to PW15 that he has been
\nattacked by five known persons by using aruvals and sticks and on that score
\nalso, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be thrown out.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)PW4 one of the eyewitnesses has admitted in his evidence that due to
\nelection, a motive is in existence between him and accused and therefore,  his
\nevidence cannot be believed in.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Even assuming without conceding that in the place of occurrence, the
\naccused 1 & 2 have directed the remaining accused to attack the complainant,
\nsince no agreement has been produced with regard to taking of soil from the
\nplace of the second accused, the second accused is entitled to get private
\ndefence with regard to his property.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.The first and foremost ground urged on the side of the
\nappellants\/accused is that in Ex.P1, it has been clearly stated that before
\noccurrence, the complainant viz., PW1 has alighted from the concerned lorry and
\nsubsequently the occurrence has taken place,  whereas in the evidence of PW1, it
\nhas been stated that the entire occurrence has taken place while he has been in
\nthe concerned lorry.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has
\nbefittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2009(1)
\nCrimes 479 (1) Crimes 479 (Supreme Court) (Mani @ Udattu Man and others Vs.
\nState rep. by the Inspector of Police) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has
\nheld that  the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in
\nIndia.  Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court
\nto convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to
\nbe deficient, or to be not wholly credible.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In the instant case, as rightly pointed out on the side of the
\nappellants\/accused, in Ex.P1 it has been clearly stated that before occurrence,
\nPW1 has alighted from the concerned lorry and subsequently the occurrence has
\ntaken place, but PW1 in his evidence has clearly stated that the entire
\noccurrence has taken place while he has been in the concerned lorry.   Whether
\nthe occurrence has taken place out side the concerned lorry or inside the same,
\nthe only aspect that has to be looked into is as to whether in the place of
\noccurrence, as per the alleged direction of the accused 1 & 2, the accused 3 to
\n5 have attacked the complainant viz., PW1.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.It has already been pointed out that the evidence of PW1 has been
\nclearly corroborated by the evidence of PWs.4, 8 & 15. Since the occurrence
\nalleged on the side of the prosecution has been clearly proved through the said
\nwitnesses, the Court can eschew the flimsy contradictions found in Ex.P1 and in
\nthe evidence of PW1 and further as per the decision referred to supra, if a
\nwitness gives false evidence with regard to one aspect, his entire testimonies
\ncannot be discarded and further the primordial duty of the Court is to sift the
\nchaff from grain.  Under the said circumstances, the first and foremost ground
\nurged on the side of the appellants\/accused goes out without merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The second ground urged on the side of the appellants\/accused is that
\nthe specific evidence of PW1 is that  the accused 3 to 5 have attacked him by
\nusing deadly weapons, whereas he reported to PW15, Doctor that in the place of
\noccurrence he has been attacked by 5 known persons by using aruvals and sticks.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In the instant case, five accused have involved in the occurrence.  The
\nconsistent evidence of PW1, PW4 & PW8 are that in the place of occurrence, the
\naccused 3 to 5 have attacked PW1 by using aruvals.  Since five accused have
\ntaken part in the occurrence, probably PW1 might have stated that he has been
\nattacked by five known persons in the place of occurrence and that itself would
\nnot militate the case of the prosecution.  Therefore, the second ground urged on
\nthe side of the appellants\/accused is of no use.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.The third ground urged on the side of the appellants\/accused is that
\nPW4, one of the eyewitnesses has stated in his evidence that he is having motive
\nwith regard to election against the accused and therefore, his evidence cannot
\nbe believed in.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Of-course, it is true that PW4 has clearly admitted in his evidence
\nthat he is having motive with regard to election against the accused.  It is an
\neverlasting principle of law that the evidence of a witness who is having motive
\nagainst the accused should be looked into very cautiously and if his evidence is
\ncorroborated by other witnesses, his evidence can be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.In the instant case, apart from the evidence of PW4, the prosecution
\nhas adduced reliable evidence through PW8, one of the eyewitnesses.  Therefore,
\nsimply on the basis of alleged motive, the evidence of PW4 cannot be
\ndisbelieved.  Under the said circumstances,  the third ground urged on the side
\nof the appellants\/accused goes out without merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.The fourth point urged on the side of the appellants\/accused is that
\neven assuming without conceding that in the place of occurrence the accused 1 &
\n2 have directed the remaining accused to attack the complainant, since no
\nagreement has been produced with regard to taking of soil from the place of the
\nsecond accused, the second accused is entitled to get  private defence with
\nregard to his property.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In support of fourth ground, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants\/accused has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported
\nin 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 16 (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs.  State rep. by
\nthe Inspector of Police, T.N.) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as
\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, burden of proof is on the accused
\nwho takes the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not
\npossible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence.  The
\nCourt shall presume the absence of such circumstances, It is for the accused to
\nplace necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence
\nor by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution.
\nAn accused taking the plea of right of private defence is not required to call
\nevidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring
\nfrom the prosecution evidence itself.  The question in such a case would be a
\nquestion of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a
\nquestion of the accused discharging any burden.  Where the right of private
\ndefence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version
\nsatisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for
\neither warding off the attack or for forestalling any further reasonable
\napprehension, from the attacker.  The accused need not prove the existence of
\nthe right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.  It is enough for him to
\nshow as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of
\nhis plea.”\n<\/p>\n
\t29.From the close reading of the decision referred to Supra, the Court can
\ncull out the following aspects;\n<\/p>\n
\ta)If the plea of self-defence is taken on the side of the accused, he has
\nto place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive
\nevidence or by elucidating necessary facts from the witnesses examined on the
\nside of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)When the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be
\nreasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the
\naccused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling any
\nfurther reasonable apprehension from the attacker.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.Section 103 and 105 of the Indian Penal Code are dealt with the right
\nof private defence of property.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Section 103 of the said Code reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.-
\nThe right of private defence of the property extends, under the restrictions
\nmentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm
\nto the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which,or the attempting to
\ncommit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the
\ndescriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:- ……….”\n<\/p>\n
\t32.Section 105 of the said Code reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of
\nproperty.- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
\napprehension of danger to the property commences. …….”\n<\/p>\n
\t33.At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 99 of
\nthe said Code also and the same reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Acts against which there is no right of private defence.- There is no
\nright of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
\napprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by
\na public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, through that
\nact may not be strictly justifiable by law.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no right of private defence against an act which does not
\nreasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or
\nattempted to be done, by the discretion of a public servant acting  in good
\nfaith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly
\njustifiable by law.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to
\nhave recourse to be protection of the public authorities.”\n<\/p>\n
\t34.From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the said Sections, the
\nCourt can easily discern that the right of private defence is not available
\nunless a particular act would cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous
\nhurt.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.At this juncture, it would also be apropos to look into the decision
\nreported in 2008 AIR SCW 8012 (Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)  wherein
\nthe Honourable Apex Court has held as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“The right of private defence is  defence right. It is neither a right of
\naggression or of reprisal. There is no right of private defence where there is
\nno apprehension of danger. The right of private defence is available only to one
\nwho is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger
\nnot of self creation.  Necessity must be present, real or apparent.  The basic
\nprinciple underlying the doctrine of the right of private defence is that when
\nan individual or his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the
\nState machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to protect
\nhimself and his property. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the
\nviolence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use
\nmust not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted
\nor which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose.
\nThe means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to
\nward off the danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in
\ngolden scales.  It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down abstract
\nparameters which can be applied to determine as to whether the means and force
\nadopted by the threatened person was proper or not.  Answer to such a question
\ndepends upon host of factors like the prevailing circumstances at the spot, his
\nfeelings at the relevant time; the confusion and the excitement depending on the
\nnature of assault on him etc.  Nonetheless, the exercise of the right of private
\ndefence can never be vindictive or malicious.  It would be repugnant to the very
\nconcept of private defence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t36.From the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court, it is made clear that the
\nbasic principle of doctrine of the right of private defence is that when an
\nindividual or his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the State
\nmachinery is not readily available, then the concerned individual is entitled to
\nprotect himself and his property.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.Now, with these legal backdrops, the Court has to consider the fourth
\nground urged on the side of the appellants\/accused.  The specific evidence of
\nPW1 is that he and others have proceeded to Chennalpatti village for taking soil
\nthrough the lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN-72-9732 & MDD.9732 and before
\nreaching the place where soil has to be taken, near the Rice Mill of the second
\naccused, all the accused have deterred him from proceeding further and PW1 has
\nquestioned them as to why they deterred him and immediately the first and second
\naccused have directed the remaining accused to murder him.  Therefore, the
\nconditions for exercising the alleged right of private defence to the property
\nof the second accused are not at all available in the present case. It is not
\nthe evidence of PW1 that he and others have reached the place where soil has to
\nbe taken and they attempted to take soil and at that time the occurrence has
\ntaken place. To put it in short, PW1 and others have not at all reached the
\nplace, where soil has to be taken and they simply proceeded to that place and
\nbefore reaching there, he and others have been restrained by all the accused and
\nsubsequently as per the direction of the accused 1 &  2, the remaining accused
\nhave attacked him by using deadly weapons.  Therefore, it is quite clear that
\nthe right of private defence taken on the side of the appellants\/accused is not
\nlegally entertainable and the same can also be eschewed.\n<\/p>\n
\t38.The trial Court after analysing all the evidence available on record
\nhas rightly found the accused 1 to 5 guilty under Sections 148 & 341 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, accused 1 & 2 guilty under Sections 307 read with 149 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and the accused 3 to 5 guilty under Section 307 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t39.In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court has not found even a
\nflimsy ground to make interference with the conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t40.Now the Court has to look into the sentences imposed against the
\naccused.  As per the evidence of PW15, Doctor PW1 has sustained only four simple
\ninjuries.   Out of four injuries, three injuries have been caused by the accused
\n3 to 5.  Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1, lenient view
\ncan be taken in awarding sentence against the accused and under the said
\ncircumstances, the accused 1 & 2 can be sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
\nimprisonment under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the
\naccused 3 to 5 can be sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under
\nSection 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same would be sufficient to meet
\nthe ends of justice.  With the above modification, the present criminal appeal
\ncan be allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
\t41.In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed in part.  The conviction and
\nsentence passed against the accused 1 to 5 under Sections 148 & 341 of the
\nIndian Penal Code are confirmed. The conviction passed  by the trial Court
\nagainst the accused 1 & 2 under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
\nCode and against the accused 3 to 5 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
\nis also confirmed.  But the sentences imposed against them are modified as
\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused 1 & 2 are sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
\nimprisonment under Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
\nlikewise, the accused 3 to 5 are sentenced to undergo one year rigorous
\nimprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.  In other aspect the
\njudgment of the trial Court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t42.If the appellants\/accused are not in duress, the trial court is
\ndirected to take proper steps to incarcerate them in prison to serve out the
\nremainder of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
\n  FTC No.I, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High
\n  Court, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Murappanadu Police Station,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
4.V.R. Section,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High
\n  Court, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Crl.A.(MD) No.128 of 2004 1.Pooluthevar 2.Marutha Vinayagam 3.Viswanathan 4.Selva Vinayagam 5.Murugan . . . Appellants\/ Accused 1 to 5 Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of […]<\/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-209143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-22T10:23:07+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-22T10:23:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4129,\"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\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-22T10:23:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-22T10:23:07+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-22T10:23:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":4129,"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\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009","name":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-22T10:23:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooluthevar-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pooluthevar vs The State Rep. By on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/209143","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=209143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}