{"id":210842,"date":"1957-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957"},"modified":"2015-02-19T13:01:52","modified_gmt":"2015-02-19T07:31:52","slug":"subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","title":{"rendered":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 66, \t\t 1958 SCR 428<\/div>\n
Author: P G Menon<\/div>\n
Bench: Menon, P. Govinda<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSUBRAMANIA GOUNDAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/09\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nMENON, P. GOVINDA\nBENCH:\nMENON, P. GOVINDA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nKAPUR, J.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR   66\t\t  1958 SCR  428\n\n\nACT:\n       Criminal law-Retracted confession-Corroboration, requirement\n       of--Question by recording magistrate-If an inducement.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       The  appellant was charged with murder.\tThe  eye  witnesses\n       against\thim  were not relied upon.  He\tmade  a\t confession\n       before a magistrate.  One of the questions put by the magis-\n       trate to the appellant before recording the confession  was:\n       \"  For what purpose are you going to make a  statement?\"\t To\n       this he replied, \" Others will be implicated in the case for\n       murder,\tI alone have committed murder.\" It was argued  that\n       an  inducement was given by the magistrate by the manner\t in\n       which the question was put.  The next day after the murder \"\n       a drawer, a baniyan and a bed-sheet\", all stained with human\n       blood were recovered from the appellant, for which no expla-\n       nation  was  given  by him.  The\t confession  was  retracted\n       before the Court of Session.  These recoveries\n       429\n       were  used as corroboration of the confession.  It was  con-\n       tended that this was no corroboration.\n       Held,  that the confession was voluntary and the putting\t by\n       the  magistrate of a perfectly innocuous question which\twas\n       prescribed by the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice did\tnot\n       amount to an inducement to make a confession.\n       Held,  further,\tthat  there can be no  absolute\t rule  that\n       retracted  confession  cannot  be acted upon  unless  it\t is\n       corroborated  materially.  But as a matter of  prudence\tand\n       caution,\t which has sanctified itself into a rule of law,  a\n       retracted  confession  cannot be made solely  the  basis\t of\n       conviction  unless it is corroborated.  It is not  necessary\n       that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession\n       regarding the complicity of the accused should be separately\n       and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the\n       corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discov-\n       ered after the confession was made.  It would be\t sufficient\n       if  the general trend of the confession is substantiated\t by\n       some  evidence which would tally with what is  contained\t in\n       the confession.\tIn the instant case the recovery of clothes\n       stained\twith  human blood for which the appellant  gave\t no\n       explanation was sufficient corroboration of the confession.\n       Balbir  Singh  v. State of Panjab, A.I.R.  (1957)  S.C.\t216\n       relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 127\t of
\n       1957.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated
\n       the 12th February, 1957, of the Madras High Court in  Crimi-
\n       nal  Appeal  No. 728 of 1956 and Referred Trial No.  144\t of
\n       1956,  arising out of the judgment and order dated the  23rd
\n       October, 1956, of the Court of the Addl.\t Sessions Judge\t of
\n       the Coimbatore Division in S. C. Nos. 120 & 135 of 1956.
\n       H.J. Umrigar and T. S. Venkataraman, for the appellant.
\n       P.Rama Reddy and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
\n       1957.   September 17.  The following Judgment of\t the  Court
\n       was delivered by
\n       GOVINDA MENON J.-Before the Additional Judge of the court of
\n       Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused,\t of
\n       whom  the first accused Subramania Goundan has now  appealed
\n       to this court against the confirmation by the High Court\t of
\n       Madras of the conviction and sentence by the trial court, by
\n       which,
\n\t\t\t\t   430<\/span>
\n       on  charges Nos. 1 & 2, he was sentenced to death, and  also
\n       sentenced  to rigorous imprisonment for two years on  charge
\n       No. 3. Special leave to appeal was granted by order of  this
\n       court, dated the 6th of May, 1957.  Along with the appellant
\n       were tried three others, of whom the second accused (Marappa
\n       Goundan)\t was his father.  The third accused  (Karuppa)\twas
\n       the  grandson of the second accused’s paternal uncle,  while
\n       the  fourth  accused (Iyyavu) was an agnate  in\tthe  fourth
\n       degree of the second accused.  It is thus seen that all
\n       the accused were related to each other.\n<\/p>\n
       The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which\tthe
\n       first was against the appellant, that he on June 6, 1956, at
\n       night  in  the  Village of  Vengakalpalayam,  committed\tthe
\n       murder  of  Marappa Goundan by cutting him with\tan  aruval;
\n       while the second charge was that at about the same time\tand
\n       place and in the course of the same transaction, he  commit-
\n       ted  the\t murder\t of Muthu Goundan by stabbing  him  with  a
\n       spear.  The third count of the charge was against the  first
\n       and  the second accused that they conjointly  committed\tthe
\n       offence\tof attempt to murder by stabbing one Munia  Goundan
\n       with a spear and knife, and the last count of the charge was
\n       against accused Nos. 3 & 4 that they abetted the\t commission
\n       of  the\toffence of attempt to murder of\t Munia\tGoundan\t by
\n       being  -present\ton the scene.  The learned  Sessions  Judge
\n       acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4, but convicted and sentenced
\n       the appellant before us in the manner stated above.
\n       The village, where the offences were committed, was faction-
\n       ridden  in which the appellant, his father and  others  took
\n       one  side, whereas the two deceased individuals\talong  with
\n       Munia  Goundan and others, former the leaders of\t the  rival
\n       faction.\t It was also stated that the appellant’s father was
\n       the  leading man of the village, having been  assigned  that
\n       dignity by the consent of the villagers.\n<\/p>\n
       The prosecution case is that the dignity of the\tappellant’s
\n       family  had  been offended by certain actions of\t the  rival
\n       party  and it was apprehended by the appellants father  that
\n       his prestige and
\n       431<\/span>
\n       influence,  as  the  chief-man of the  village,\twere  being
\n       gradually undermined and usurped by the rival group.   About
\n       three days prior to the occurrence, which took place on\tthe
\n       night  between  the  6th and the 7th of\tJune,  1956,  Munia
\n       Goundan is said to have stated to the hearing of the  appel-
\n       lant that he (Munia Goundan) would wipe out the\tappellant’s
\n       father and his partisans, and if that were not possible,\t in
\n       a  spirit of humiliation, Munia Goundan would shave off\this
\n       moustache.   It\tis further alleged that\t the  two  deceased
\n       individuals also proclaimed words to that effect.
\n       Angered\tat this threat of extermination of his\tfamily\tand
\n       inflamed\t by the enmity due to the faction that had  already
\n       existed, the appellant, according to the prosecution, having
\n       armed himself with an aruval (a sickle) a spear and a  knife
\n       left  his house on the night of the 6th and 7th June,  1956,
\n       proceeded  to a place known as Chettithottam where  the\tde-
\n       ceased  Marappa Goundan was sleeping in his field-shed,\tand
\n       cut  him\t on the neck with the aruval, and  inflicted  other
\n       injuries on him before leaving the place.  Thereafter  while
\n       on  his\tway to the house of Munia Goundan to do\t away  with
\n       him,  the appellant met the deceased Muthu Goundan  who\twas
\n       coming  in  the opposite direction and thinking\tthat  Muthu
\n       Goundan\twould  catch him, inflicted a stab wound  on  Muthu
\n       Goundan.\t  After\t this the appellant went to  the  house\t of
\n       Munia  Goundan (P.  W. 5) and stabbed him also.\t Not  being
\n       content\twith  committing these crimes, he set fire  to\tthe
\n       shed of Sennimalai Goundan (P.  W. 4-who was also a partisan
\n       of  the\trival faction) which lay at a distance\tabout  four
\n       furlongs\t from  the village.  Thereafter the  appellant\tre-
\n       turned to his own garden and lay down.\n<\/p>\n
       Karuppa\tGoundan (P.W. 1) hearing cries and noise  from\tthe
\n       direction  of the house of Munia Goundan, ran  towards  that
\n       place, followed by Sennimalai Goundan (P.W. 4) who similarly
\n       heard  the  same cries.\tThey found Munia Goundan  (P.W.\t 5)
\n       with  injuries  on him and also saw the shed  of\t Sennimalai
\n       Goundan (P.W. 4) aflame.\t At this P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 proceed-
\n       ed to the burning shed and on the way saw Natarajan
\n       432<\/span>
\n       (P.W. 10), the son of the deceased Marappa Coundan,  weeping
\n       and  lamenting in his field.  Reaching the  place  wherefrom
\n       P.W.  10 was wailing, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 saw Marappa  Goundan
\n       lying  dead on a cot in s the shed with injuries.  It is\t in
\n       evidence\t that  the witnesses then saw the shed\tof  P.W.  4
\n       completely  burnt  down and after that Karuppa  Goundan\tand
\n       Sennimalai  Goundan went to the house of the village  Munsif
\n       who  was living about four miles away from the  village\tand
\n       gave  a report about the occurrence at about 5 a.m. on  7-6-
\n       1956  and  which is on record as\t Exhibit  P.I.\tInformation
\n       reached the Sub-Inspector of Police of Avanashi (P.W.17)\t at
\n       8-30  a.m.  who reached the place of occurrence at  11  a.m.
\n       Investigation  was then started, the details of which it\t is
\n       unnecessary  to mention.\t At about 12 noon near a temple\t in
\n       the village finding the appellant there, the SubInspector of
\n       Police arrested him after which the appellant made a  state-
\n       ment, the admissible portions of which are marked as Exhibit
\n       P. 13.  From the appellant material objects Nos. 10 and\t11,
\n       a bloodstained drawer and a baniyan respectively worn by him
\n       were  seized  and the appellant thereafter took\tthe  Police
\n       Officer to his garden and took out M. 0. 12, a blood-stained
\n       bed-sheet from a rafter in the garden shed which,  according
\n       to  the prosecution, was used by the appellant for  wrapping
\n       himself\tup after he lay down in his shed subsequent to\tthe
\n       commission of the crime.\t Statements were taken by the  Sub-
\n       Inspector  from\ta number of  persons,  including  Natarajan
\n       (P.W. 10), son of Marappa Goundan, Nachimuthu Goundan  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
       11) son of Muthu Goundan, Munia Goundan (P.W. 5) and others.
\n       We do not think it necessary to describe the details of\tthe
\n       investigation and the examination of witnesses regarding the
\n       accusations against the acquitted persons.
\n       On  June 9, 1956, at about 3-50 p.m. the appellant was  pro-
\n       duced  before Sri P. I. Veeraswami, Sub-Magistrate  (P.\t W.\n<\/p>\n
       7), who administered the necessary warnings under the Crimi-
\n       nal Rules of Practice and being satisfied that the appellant
\n       wanted to make a voluntary statement, he was given two day’s
\n       time for
\n\t\t\t\t   433<\/span>
\n       reflection  till June 11, 1956, on-which date the  appellant
\n       was  produced  before the same Magistrate at 3-50  p.m.\tThe
\n       same warnings were again administered to him and the  Magis-
\n       trate was satisfied that the statement about to be made\twas
\n       a  voluntary  one.   Thereafter\tit  was\t recorded  in  the,
\n       appellant’s own words, read over to him and acknowledged\t by
\n       him  to be correct.  This statement in which  the  appellant
\n       confessed to having committed the murder of Marappa  Goundan
\n       and  Muthu  Goundan  and also inflicted\tinjuries  on  Munia
\n       Goundan on the night in question, is exhibited as P. 3\/A.
\n       In  order to prove the case against the appellant  the  main
\n       reliance\t on  the side of the prosecution was  on  Natarajan
\n       (P.W.  10),  the\t eye-witness to the attack  on\this  father
\n       Marappa\tGoundan,  and with regard to the  murder  of  Muthu
\n       Goundan,\t the  case rested on the  testimony  of\t Nachimuthu
\n       Goundan (P.W. 11), son of Muthu Goundan, who is said to have
\n       told  the witness (P.W. 12) that the appellant  had  stabbed
\n       Muthu with a spear.  Subbanna Goundan (P.W. 12), a neighbour
\n       of Muthu Goundan, also spoke to the fact that he heard Muthu
\n       Goundan\tsaying\tthat the appellant had stabbed him  with  a
\n       spear.\tThe assault on Munia Goundan (P.W. 5) is spoken\t to
\n       by  himself.  In addition to this evidence, the\tprosecution
\n       rested its case on the confession of the appellant-.  Before
\n       the learned Sessions Judge the appellant denied the  offence
\n       and retracted the confession made by him on the ground  that
\n       the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector of Police threat-
\n       ened to implicate the appellant’s father and five others\t in
\n       the crime if he did not confess and that was the reason\twhy
\n       he made a false confession.\n<\/p>\n
       The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Natara-
\n       jan  (P.\t W. 10), Nachimuthu Goundan (P.W. 11) and  Subbanna
\n       Goundan\t(P.W. 12) with regard to the murders and also  that
\n       of  Munia Goundan (P.W. 5) and Komaraswami Goundan (P.W.\t 6)
\n       with  regard to the attack on Munia Goundan.  He\t also  held
\n       that the confession, Exhibit P. 3\/A, was voluntary and  true
\n       and on the footing of the oral evidence,
\n       434<\/span>
\n       corroborated  amply  by the confession,\tthe  appellant\twas
\n       convicted and sentenced.\t In the High Court Somasundaram\t J.
\n       who delivered the judgment of the court, was not inclined to
\n       place reliance on the oral testimony of P.W. 5, P.W..10\tand
\n       P.W.  1 1. The learned Judge was of the opinion that it\twas
\n       not  safe to act on the evidence of Natarajan (P.W. 10)\tand
\n       convict\tthe appellant of the offence of murder\tof  Marappa
\n       Goundan.\t  The  High Court did not accept  the  evidence\t of
\n       Nachimuthu Goundan (P.W. 11) and Subbanna Goundan (P.W. 12).
\n       In  the\tsame strain the judgment of the High  Court  states
\n       that it is not safe to act on the evidence of Munia  Goundan
\n       (P.W.  5) and (P.W. 6) Komaraswami Goundan.  The\t conclusion
\n       was  that the oral evidence did not reach that  standard\t of
\n       proof  necessary for reliance to sustain a  conviction,\tbut
\n       the  learned judge upheld the conviction on the ground  that
\n       as the confession was voluntary and true, it can be believed
\n       though  the same was retracted.\tOpinion was also  expressed
\n       that  the confession was corroborated by the recovery of\t M.\n<\/p>\n
       0.  12, as a result of the statement made by  the  appellant
\n       which contained human-blood for which there was no  explana-
\n       tion  whatsoever.   Corroboration was also afforded  by\tthe
\n       existence  of human-blood on M. Os. 10 & 11.  The  question,
\n       therefore, before us is whether the High Court erred in\tlaw
\n       in agreeing with the trial court regarding the guilt of\tthe
\n       appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       Had the High Court come to the conclusion that the  evidence
\n       of P.Ws. 5, 10 & 11 can be accepted in order to sustain\tthe
\n       conviction  of the appellant, the question would\t have  been
\n       simpler\tof  solution,  and alternatively  were\tthis  court
\n       inclined\t to appraise the credibility or otherwise of  their
\n       testimony,  whether a different conclusion would\t have  been
\n       arrived\tat, is unnecessary to speculate.  On a\tperusal\t of
\n       the  evidence  of these witnesses, it cannot  be\t said  that
\n       their testimony is such as should be relegated to the  realm
\n       of  disbelief  Even so, we have decided to  proceed  on\tthe
\n       footing\tthat  the testimony of\tthe  important\tprosecution
\n       witnesses would not be sufficient
\n\t\t\t\t   435<\/span>
\n       for a conclusion that the appellant is guilty beyond reason-
\n       able doubt.\n<\/p>\n
       The ultimate approach, therefore, to the question should\t be
\n       whether the confession, Ex.  P. 3\/A, is entitled to credence
\n       and  be acted upon.  The learned counsel for the\t appellant,
\n       Sri Umrigar, was at pains to show, firstly that the  confes-
\n       sion was not voluntary ; secondly it is not true and  lastly
\n       that  even if these’ two tests are answered in the  affirma-
\n       tive  so\t far as the prosecution is concerned, it  would\t be
\n       very  unsafe  to\t act on this  retracted\t confession  which,
\n       according to him, was resiled from as early as an opportuni-
\n       ty  occurred.  Dealing with the first question,\the  pointed
\n       out that the appellant was produced at 3-45 p.m., on June 9,
\n       1956, before the Sub -Magistrate in the court hall which was
\n       cleared\tof all police officials, and the Jail Warder  alone
\n       was placed in-charge; thereafter the Sub-Magistrate gave the
\n       necessary warnings and enough time was given for reflection.
\n       The  criticism levelled by the appellant’s counsel  is  that
\n       despite\tthese beneficient actions, still the  influence\t of
\n       the police on the appellant still remained and that even\t at
\n       the  time when the confession was given. it cannot  be  said
\n       that  the  appellant  was free from  police  pressure.\tOur
\n       attention  was invited to passages in  cross-examination\t of
\n       P.W.  7 where he had stated that on both the occasions  when
\n       the appellant was produced for recording of the\tconfession,
\n       the Police Constable in guard at the Sub-Jail was in  charge
\n       and  further  that there is a gate way  between\tthe  Police
\n       Station and the court, and that gate way is the approach\t to
\n       the  Subjail.  From these circumstances inference is  sought
\n       to  be  drawn that though during the  relevant  periods\tthe
\n       incarceration  of the appellant was in a Sub-Jail, still\t he
\n       was under police custody and influence and, therefore, there
\n       was  no clearance of the supervening police control on  him,
\n       in order to make his mind free from all such influence.\t We
\n       have carefully gone through the questions put by the  Magis-
\n       trate,  not  only on June 9, 1956, when\tthe  appellant\twas
\n       given  time  for reflection, but also on those on  June\t11,
\n       1956,  when he gave the confessional statement, and  we\tare
\n       satisfied
\n       56<\/span>
\n       436<\/span>
\n       that  nothing could be said against the procedure  followed.
\n       The  learned Magistrate has clearly conformed to the  proce-
\n       dure prescribed by ss. 164 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure
\n       Code,  as well as to the directions laid down in the  Madras
\n       Criminal Rules of Practice as a preliminary to the recording
\n       of the confession.  The meagre cross-examination of the Sub
\n       Magistrate  has not brought out any  material  circumstances
\n       which  would, in any way, detract from the satisfactory\twas
\n       in  which  he has performed his official duty.  In  the\ten-
\n       dorsement at the foot of the confessional statement the Sub-
\n       Magistrate (P.W. 7) says that he had explained to the appel-
\n       lant that he (the appellant) was not bound to make a confes-
\n       sion  and if he does so, it may be used as evidence  against
\n       him;  and  the endorsement further goes on to add  that\tthe
\n       Sub-Magistrate believed that the confession was\tvoluntarily
\n       made.  The next remark is that it was taken in his  presence
\n       and  hearing and read over to the confessor who admitted\t it
\n       to be correct.  But it is urged against the voluntary nature
\n       of  the\tconfession,  that an inducement was  given  by\tthe
\n       Magistrate  by the manner in which the questions\t were  put.
\n       One  of the questions was ‘Why do you want to give a  state-
\n       ment and the answer given was It is suspected that those who
\n       have committed murder are others.  To prove that it is I who
\n       have stabbed, I am giving the statement.’ The above was\tthe
\n       question put and the answer given on June 9, 1956.  On  June
\n       11, 1956, the question and the answer were as follows:
\n       ” Q. For what purpose are you going to make a statement ?
\n       A.   Others  will  be implicated in the case for\t murder,  I
\n       alone have committed murder.  I am going to give the  state-
\n       ment to that effect.”\n<\/p>\n
       When  he resiled from the confession in the Sessions  Court,
\n       the  appellant stated that the Sub-Inspector and the  Circle
\n       Inspector  went to him in Sub-Jail and threatened to  impli-
\n       cate his father, accused No. 2 in the lower court, and  five
\n       others,\tunless\the confessed.  Therefore, it  was  on  this
\n       account\tthat the statement Ex. P. 3\/A was made\tbefore\tthe
\n       Magistrate which the
\n       437<\/span>
\n       accused alleged was neither true, nor voluntary.\t The  argu-
\n       ment  of\t the learned counsel is that in order to  save\this
\n       father and some others, the appellant implicated himself and
\n       confessed falsely to an act which he did not commit.  Criti-
\n       cism has been levelled against the mode and manner in  which
\n       the  question was put as directly inducing the appellant\t to
\n       immolate himself and thereby save his kith and kin.  We\tare
\n       asked  to say that the appellant, being an  emotional  young
\n       man  of noble sentiments and spirit, did not desire to  have
\n       his  father implicated in a crime of this sort and what\tmay
\n       be  ascribed as a filial obligation was performed in  trying
\n       to  get release of his father from the enmeshes of  the\tpo-
\n       lice.   Such  an argument, we are afraid, cannot\t carry\tany
\n       conviction.   The form of the question is prescribed by\tthe
\n       Criminal\t Rules of Practice and if the officer  before  whom
\n       the  confession is made, fails to put it, then  his  failure
\n       will be criticised as blameworthy.  We do not feel that\tany
\n       nefarious  object existed in putting a  perfectly  innocuous
\n       and obligatory question to the appellant asking him “Why\t he
\n       wants  to make a statement?” Further, P.W. 17, the  Investi-
\n       gating Sub-Inspector, has clearly denied the alleged induce-
\n       ment  by\t the  police that if be did  not  confess,  others,
\n       including  his father, would be implicated in the case.\t It
\n       is, therefore, difficult to conclude that there was any kind
\n       of inducement or threat as a result of which an\tinvoluntary
\n       confession was made.\n<\/p>\n
       A  complaint is made by the learned counsel that before\tthe
\n       Committing  Magistrate no question under s. 342 Cr.   P.\t C.
\n       was put to the appellant with regard to the confession  and,
\n       therefore,  he  had no opportunity to put forward  his  com-
\n       plaint  about the confession until the case came before\tthe
\n       Sessions court.\tNo doubt a scrutiny of the statement of the
\n       accused\tbefore the Sub-Magistrate does not reveal any  spe-
\n       cific questions as having been put to him about the  confes-
\n       sion, but the fact remains that the confession was exhibited
\n       before  the Committing court and the contents were known\t to
\n       the  appellant then and there.  Under s. 207-A, sub-cl.\t(3)
\n       of the Criminal Procedure Code, even at the commencement\t of
\n       the enquiry into a case triable by a
\n       438<\/span>
\n       Sessions\t Court the Committing Magistrate is enjoined,  when
\n       the  accused is brought before him, to satisfy himself  that
\n       the documents mentioned in s. 173 have been furnished to the
\n       accused\tand if it is found that they have not so  far  been
\n       furnished,  it  is the duty of the Magistrate to\t cause\tthe
\n       same  to\t be furnished.\tSection 173, sub-cl. (4)  makes\t it
\n       obligatory  upon the Police to furnish the accused  free\t of
\n       cost  with a copy of the police report, the F.I.R. under\t s.
\n       154 and all other documents on which the prosecution propose
\n       to rely, including statements and confessions if any record-
\n       ed under s. 164.\t The result, therefore, is that even before
\n       the commencement of the committal proceedings the’ appellant
\n       had  been provided with the copy of the confessional  state-
\n       ment  sought to be relied upon for justifying a prima  facie
\n       case  against  him.   We do not ,think,\tgranting  that\tthe
\n       confession  was not placed in the fore-front as a  piece\t of
\n       evidence against the accused in the Committing Court, such a
\n       default if it is one, would in any way show that the confes-
\n       sion was involuntary.\n<\/p>\n
       The  second  aspect of the learned counsel’s  contention\t is
\n       that  the  confession  is not true.  In\tSarawan\t Singh\tand
\n       Harbans\tSingh  v, The State of Punjab (1)  this\t court\tex-
\n       pressed\tthe  opinion that for the purpose  of  finding\tout
\n       whether\ta  confession  is true, it would  be  necessary\t to
\n       examine the same and compare it with the rest of the  prose-
\n       cution  evidence and the probabilities of the case, and\tMr.
\n       Umrigar\trelying on these observations urges that on a  com-
\n       parison of the confession with the other parts of the prose-
\n       cution  evidence, the irresistible conclusion should  follow
\n       that on the face of it the confessional statement is untrue.
\n       The material portions of the confessional document  concern-
\n       ing the actual crime are to the following effect:
\n       ” So, on Wednesday night at about 11 O’clock, I took aruval,
\n       spear  and  knife  sharp on both sides and  went\t to  Chetty
\n       Thottam,\t near our garden.  Marappa Goundan, then was  lying
\n       on the cot in his shed and sleeping.  I cut him with  aruval
\n       on  the\tneck.\tWhile coming from there, to  the  house\t of
\n       Muniappa Gouildan
\n       (1)  Criminal Appeals NOS. 22 and 23 Of 1957, decided  April
\n       10, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
       439<\/span><\/p>\n
       in  our village, Muthu Goundail came opposite to me  in\tour
\n       village\tstreet.\t  Thinking  that he came  to  catch  me,  I
\n       stabbed him.  The aruval fell there itself.\n<\/p>\n
       Then,  I went to Muniappa Gouudan’s house, and  stabbed\tMu-
\n       niappa Goundan.\n<\/p>\n
       Afterwards, I set fire to the shed of Sennimalai Goundan\t at
\n       a distance of four furlongs to our village.  Then I came\t to
\n       our garden and lay.”\n<\/p>\n
       From this, according to the defence counsel, it is seen that
\n       only  one  cut was inflicted with an aruval on the  neck\t of
\n       Marappa\tGoundan and a single stab was given to Muthu  Goun-
\n       dan.  Similarly Munia Goundan was only stabbed once, but\t in
\n       Ex.  P. 4 the postmortem certificate on the body of  Marappa
\n       Goundan there are as many as thirteen injuries of which\tthe
\n       neck  injuries  were 4, 5 and 6, the others being  on  other
\n       parts of the body.  It is, therefore, urged that the unques-
\n       tionable\t fact of the existence of a number of  injuries\t on
\n       Marappa belies the truth of the confession, in that only one
\n       cut  was given on the neck.  Similarly the  confession  does
\n       not  make any mention of the presence of any One\t else  when
\n       Munia  Goundan was stabbed, though both P. W. 5 and  P.W.  6
\n       have  deposed that there were three persons who were  coming
\n       northward from the shed of Marappa Goundan at the time  P.W.
\n       5  was  stabbed.\t The statement made by P.W. 5 (Ex.   D.\t 2)
\n       before the Medical Officer on June 8, 1956, was also to\tthe
\n       effect  that  more  persons than one were  involved  in\tthe
\n       attack on him.  The confession also does not make any refer-
\n       ence  to the recovery of the incriminating articles such\t as
\n       M. 0. 12 as a result of a statement made by the appellant to
\n       the  police officer.  From these circumstances we are  asked
\n       to  say\tthat the confession cannot be  true.   Mr.  Umrigar
\n       urges  that  the learned Judges of the High Court  have\tnot
\n       paid  sufficient attention to this method of  examining\thow
\n       far  a  confession is true by comparing it  with\t the  other
\n       evidence\t in the case in accordance with the test laid  down
\n       by  this court.\tEven in the absence of such  comparison\t in
\n       the judgment of the High Court we do not think that on  that
\n       ground  it  can\tbe predicated that the\tappellant  made\t an
\n       untrue  statement  voluntarily.\tAfter all  the\tabsence\t of
\n       elaborate
\n       440<\/span>
\n       details in a confession cannot brand it as false.  There\t is
\n       no statement in the confession which is contrary to the oral
\n       evidence\t though the details put forward when the  witnesses
\n       were  examined  in  court do not appear in  extenso  in\tthe
\n       confession  and for that reason we are not prepared  to\tsay
\n       that the confession. in untrue.\n<\/p>\n
       The  next question is whether there is corroboration of\tthe
\n       confession  since it has been retracted.\t A confession of  a
\n       crime  by a person, who has perpetrated it, is  usually\tthe
\n       outcome of penitence and remorse and in normal circumstances
\n       is  the best evidence against the maker.\t The  question\thas
\n       very  often arisen whether a retracted confession  may  form
\n       the  basis of conviction if believed to be true\tand  volun-
\n       tarily made.  For the purpose of arriving at this conclusion
\n       the  court has to take into consideration not only the  rea-
\n       sons  given for making the confession or retracting  it\tbut
\n       the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the  same.
\n       It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a
\n       retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is
\n       corroborated materially.\t It was laid down in certain  cases
\n       one  such being Kesava Pillai alias Koralan and another\tand
\n       Kesava  Pillai  alias Thillai Kannu Pillai (1) that  if\tthe
\n       reasons given by an accused person for retracting a  confes-
\n       sion  are on the face of them false, the confession  may\t be
\n       acted upon as it stands and without any corroboration.\tBut
\n       the  view taken by this court on more occasions than one\t is
\n       that  as a matter of prudence and caution which has  sancti-
\n       fied  itself  into  a rule of law,  a  retracted\t confession
\n       cannot  be  made solely the basis of conviction\tunless\tthe
\n       same  is corroborated one of the latest cases being  ‘Balbir
\n       Singh Versus State of Punjab (2), but it does not necessari-
\n       ly  mean that each and every circumstance mentioned  in\tthe
\n       confession regarding the -complicity of the accused must\t be
\n       separately and independently corroborated, nor is it  essen-
\n       tial that the corroboration must come from facts and circum-
\n       stances discovered after the confession was made.  It  would
\n       be sufficient, in our opinion, that the
\n       (1) I.L.R. 53 Mad. 16o.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 216.\n<\/p>\n
       441<\/span><\/p>\n
       general\ttrend  of the confession is substantiated  by  some
\n       evidence\t which\twould tally with what is contained  in\tthe
\n       confession.   In this connection it would be  profitable\t to
\n       contrast\t a  retracted confession with the  evidence  of\t an
\n       approver\t or  an\t accomplice.  Though under s.  133  of\tthe
\n       Evidence\t Act a conviction is not illegal merely because\t it
\n       proceeds\t on  the  uncorroborated  testimony  of\t witnesses,
\n       illustration  (b) to s. 114 lays down that a court may  pre-
\n       sume  that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he\t is
\n       corroborated in material particulars.  In the case of such a
\n       person  on  his\town showing he is a  depraved  and  debased
\n       individual  who\thaving\ttaken part in the  crime  tries\t to
\n       exculpate  himself  and\twants to fasten\t the  liability\t on
\n       another.\t  In such circumstances it is absolutely  necessary
\n       that  what he has deposed must be corroborated  in  material
\n       particulars.   In contrasting this with the statement  of  a
\n       person  making a confession who stands on a better  footing,
\n       one  need only find out when there is a\tretraction  whether
\n       the  earlier  statement, which was the  result  of  remorse,
\n       repentance and contrition, was voluntary and true or not and
\n       it  is  with that object that corroboration is  sought  for.
\n       Not  infrequently one is apt to fall in error in equating  a
\n       retracted  confession  with the evidence\t of  an\t accomplice
\n       and.therefore,  it  is advisable to clearly  understand\tthe
\n       distinction between the two.  The standards of corroboration
\n       in  the two are quite different.\t In the case of the  person
\n       confessing  who\thas  resiled from  his\tstatement,  general
\n       corroboration  is sufficient while an accomplice’s  evidence
\n       should be corroborated in material particulars.\tIn addition
\n       the  court must feel that the reasons given for the  retrac-
\n       tion in the case of a confession are untrue.\n<\/p>\n
       Applying this test to the present case, we are of the  opin-
\n       ion that when the appellant has given no satisfactory expla-
\n       nation  for the presence of human-blood on material  objects
\n       Nos. 10, 11 & 12, it follows that the blood of the  murdered
\n       was  on these material objects.\tThe reasons for\t retraction
\n       are  also false.\t A criticism is levelled that the  Chemical
\n       Examiner’s report does not show the extent of blood on M.O.\n<\/p>\n
       442<\/span><\/p>\n
       No.  12, the bed-sheet, in which the appellant wrapped  him-
\n       self  after  the offence.  All that the document\t states\t is
\n       that  among other items it is also stained with\thumanblood,
\n       but Mr. Umrigar argues that this description only shows that
\n       there would have been only a speck or a spot of blood on the
\n       bed sheet, for according to him, as a matter of fact,  there
\n       should  have been a large quantity of blood on the hands\t of
\n       the appellant if he had, without washing, used a\t bed-sheet,
\n       thereafter  large patches of blood are likely to be  present
\n       on  the\tbed-sheet.  If that is so, the mere fact  that\tthe
\n       presence of blood is described as stains would show that the
\n       prosecution case cannot be true.\t We do not feel inclined to
\n       put  such  a  restricted\t meaning  on  the  word\t I  stain’.
\n       ‘Stained\t with human blood’ is an expression commonly  found
\n       in  Chemical Examiner’s reports and it does not\tnecessarily
\n       refer  to specks of blood alone.\t We do not think  that\tany
\n       inference  can be drawn from the use of the word ‘stain’\t in
\n       the  Chemical Examiner’s report, that there was\tnot  suffi-
\n       cient  blood on the bed-sheet.  The appellant has  given\t no
\n       explanation  as to how blood came to be present on  material
\n       objects\tNos. 10 to 12.\tAgreeing with the High\tCourt  that
\n       this  is corroboration of the confession made by the  appel-
\n       lant, we are of the opinion that the confession can be acted
\n       upon.  If that is so, the appellant’s guilt has been  proved
\n       beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   The appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 66, 1958 SCR 428 Author: P G Menon Bench: Menon, P. Govinda PETITIONER: SUBRAMANIA GOUNDAN Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADRAS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/09\/1957 BENCH: MENON, P. GOVINDA BENCH: MENON, P. GOVINDA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSubramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - 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\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-19T07:31:52+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T07:31:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\"},\"wordCount\":4915,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\",\"name\":\"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T07:31:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957\"}]},{\"@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":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - 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\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-19T07:31:52+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957","datePublished":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T07:31:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957"},"wordCount":4915,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957","name":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T07:31:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramania-goundan-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957"}]},{"@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\/210842","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=210842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210842\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}