{"id":210944,"date":"2009-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-08T22:41:16","modified_gmt":"2016-02-08T17:11:16","slug":"k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 16\/03\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nCRL.A.(MD) No.466 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008\n\nK.Lakshmi\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\/A-2\n\nvs\n\nInspector of Police\nArantangi & Taluk\nPudukkottai District\t\t\t.. Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Complainant\n\n\tCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of\nthe Principal Sessions Court, Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.57 of 2006 dated 17.4.2007.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...  Mr.C.A.Ganapathi\n^For Respondent\t\t...  Mr.N.Senthurpandian\n\t\t\t     Additional Public\n\t\t\t\tProsecutor\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
\n\tThis appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division,
\nPudukkottai, made on 17.4.2007 in S.C.No.57 of 2006 whereby the appellant shown
\nas A-2 along with A-1 stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302
\nread with 34 and 302 read with 201 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along
\nwith a fine of Rs.10000\/- and default sentence and three years Rigorous
\nImprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000\/- with default sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased Krishnamoorthy.  P.W.6 is the
\nfather of A-2.  The marriage of A-2 and the said Krishnamoorthy took place in
\nthe year 1995.  They had two children out of the wedlock.  They were living at
\nMerpalaikkadu.  The deceased Krishnamoorthy was employed in Hotel Impala at
\nPudukkottai, which belonged to P.W.7.  On weekly holidays, he used to go to the
\nvillage.  A-1 was a Homoeopathy Doctor by profession.  A-1 and A-2 had illicit
\nintimacy.  P.W.6 and others advised both of them not to behave so.  But, both A-
\n1 and A-2 did not heed to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) On 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Krishnamoorthy, after
\ndoing the day’s work, left for his native place, and he had to come back to work
\nin the hotel on 16.6.2004; but, he did not come back.  Even there was no whisper
\nabout him.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) On 15.6.2004, during night hours, P.W.9, who is the brother-in-law of
\nthe deceased, along with his wife Suseela came to a tea shop, which belonged to
\nP.W.10.  At that time, A-1 and Krishnamoorthy were taking tea in that shop.  A-1
\nasked the deceased Krishnamoorthy to accompany him.  But Krishnamoorthy refused
\nto go with him.  However, on his insistence, the deceased Krishnamoorthy went
\nalong with A-1 in a TVS Moped, which belonged to A-1, and they were not seen
\nthereafter.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) On 16.6.2004, when P.W.1, a native of Poovatrakkudi, was going through
\nthe field, near the well situated in the filed he found a naked dead body, which
\nwas half burnt.  Immediately, he proceeded to Aranthangi Police Station where
\nthe Sub Inspector of Police P.W.18 was on duty.  He gave a report, which was
\nmarked as Ex.P.1.  On the strength of Ex.P.1, PW.18 registered a case in Crime
\nNo.299\/2004 under Sections 302 r\/w 201 IPC. The printed F.I.R. Ex.P.20 along
\nwith Ex.P.1 report was sent to the Court and to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.22, the Inspector of Police,
\ntook up investigation, proceeded to the spot and prepared an Observation
\nMahazer, Ex.P3 in the presence of witnesses and a rough sketch, Ex.P21.  Then,
\nhe arranged for taking photos of the deceased Krishnamoorthy as well as the
\nplace, and the photos and negatives were marked as M.O.38 (Series) and
\nM.O.39(Series) respectively.  He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained earth, half burnt
\npant pieces, M.O.2 (Series), bloodstained earth, M.O.3 and sample earth, M.O.4,
\nand other material objects recovered from the spot. Thereafter, P.W.22 conducted
\ninquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and
\nprepared an Inquest Report Ex.P23.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f)  The dead body was subjected to post mortem by the Doctor P.W.15,
\nattached to the Government Hospital, Aranthangi.  He has issued a postmortem
\ncertificate Ex.P18 wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of burn
\ninjuries sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) The identity of the body was not known.  Hyoid bone and other parts
\nwere preserved for finding the identity.  P.W.22 caused necessary publications
\nthrough T.V., news papers and bit notices etc.,.  On 30.11.2004, P.W.22 received
\nan information from P.W.4 that the deceased Krishnamoorthy was not found, and he
\nwas missing for 5 months.  Then, he proceeded to the place and verified from
\nP.W.4.  He has also received photographs from her. All the photographs and the
\nnegatives which were marked as M.O.38 (Series) and M.O.39(Series) respectively
\nand the photos which were marked as M.O.11 (Series) received from P.W.4 were
\nsent along with the skull and other parts of the body for the purpose of super
\nimposition.  The super imposition test was done as a result of which, P.W.19 has
\ngiven her opinion under Ex.P17 that the dead body was that of the said
\nKrishnamoorthy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h) Pending investigation, on 29.3.2005 A-1 was arrested, and he gave a
\nconfessional statement in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer,
\nP.W.11 and his assistant.  The same was recorded and the admissible part was
\nmarked as Ex.P7.  Pursuant to the confession, M.O.21, TVS Moped, and other
\nmaterials objects were recovered.  A-2 was also arrested.  Both the accused were
\nsent for judicial remand.  All the Materials Objects were subjected to chemical
\nanalysis, which resulted in Chemical Analysis Report. On completion of the
\ninvestigation, the investigator filed the final report against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, and necessary charges
\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
\nthe prosecution examined 22 witnesses and relied on 25 Exhibits and 39 Material
\nObjects.  On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating
\ncircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they
\nflatly denied as false.  No defence witness was examined.  The trial Court after
\nhearing the arguments advanced by either side and considering the materials
\navailable on record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case
\nbeyond reasonable doubt and hence found the accused guilty of the charge of
\nmurder and awarded punishment referred to above.  Aggrieved over the same, the
\nappellant\/A-2 has brought forth this appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel
\nMr.C.A.Ganapathi would submit that the trial Court has not considered the
\nevidence in its proper perspective; that there is no evidence at all connecting
\nthe accused with the crime in question; that it is true that the case is rested
\non the circumstantial evidence; that if to be so, the onus lies on the
\nprosecution to prove the appellant’s role in the commission of the offence; but,
\nit has miserably failed to do so; that it is pertinent to note that P.W.9 is the
\nonly person who is alleged to have seen last the deceased with A-1; that there
\nis no evidence indicating that the appellant\/A-2 was also seen along with A-1
\nand the deceased; that A-2 was not at all present in the place of occurrence;
\nthat the alleged confessional statement was obtained from A-1 and not from A-2;
\nthat even in the said confessional statement, it is stated that A-1 alone took
\nthe deceased in his TVS 50 moped, poured kerosene and set him ablaze; that apart
\nfrom that, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; that in the
\ninstant case, the vital witnesses namely P.Ws.10, 12, 20 and 21 have turned
\nhostile; that apart from that, the finger print expert’s opinion has been
\nwithheld since it does not connect the accused with the offence; that the
\nimportant material object is TVS 50 moped; but, the ownership of the vehicle was
\nnot proved by the prosecution; that the occurrence is alleged to have taken
\nplace in the late night of 15.6.2004; but P.W.9 is alleged to have seen lastly
\nthe deceased along with A-1 by 9.00 A.M. on that date; that under the
\ncircumstances, the last seen theory cannot be applied in the case on hand; that
\nhad P.W.9, the brother-in-law of the deceased, seen the deceased along with A-1
\non 15.6.2004, he would have brought the same to the notice of the police or
\ninformed to anybody, but not done so; that it is pertinent to point out that
\nP.W.4, the mother of the deceased, had not given any complaint about the missing
\nof her son, and under the circumstances, the evidence projected by the
\nprosecution through P.W.9 as to the last seen theory, is highly improbable and
\nunbelievable.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further the learned Counsel that the case was registered after 5
\nmonths, and A-1 and A-2 were arrested after 9 months even though they were very
\nwell available in their native places; that there is no evidence to show that A-
\n1 and A-2 shared any common intention for the commission of murder; that as far
\nas the report given by the expert on superimposition test, there is no
\nconclusion that it was the skull of the deceased Krishnamoorthy; that the
\nprosecution has miserably failed to point out the nexus or the complicity of A-2
\nin the instant case; that in the instant case, motive for the crime was illicit
\nintimacy between A.1 and A.2, but there was no one to speak about that fact;
\nthat the Investigator has filed the final report in the case wherein he has
\nstated that there was an earlier report, and he would state that only on
\nsuspicion, the accused were arrested; that all those material objects were found
\nafter a long period pursuant to the alleged confession; that the recovery of
\nmaterial objects and the alleged confession were all highly improbable and
\nunbelievable; that the trial Court without considering the above aspects of the
\nmatter, has taken an erroneous view and found the appellant\/A-2 guilty, and
\nhence she is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the
\nabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.As could be seen above, on 15.6.2004, one half burnt dead body was found
\nin the field of P.W.1, who gave a complaint under Ex.P1.  Thereafter, a case
\ncame to be registered by the respondent police on the strength of Ex.P1.  The
\nidentity of the dead body could not be found.  Then following the publication
\nmade, it came to light that one Krishnamoorthy, the son of P.W.4, was found
\nmissing for about 9 months.  The Investigator probed into the matter and
\nverified the photographs available, and the skull was sent to the Forensic
\nSciences Laboratory along with the photos for superimposition test.  A report
\nwas given to the effect that it was the skull of the deceased.  Thus, the
\nprosecution was successful enough in proving the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The motive attributed to the act of the accused was the illicit intimacy
\nbetween A-2, the wife of the deceased, and A-1.  As far as the motive part was
\nconcerned, it can be stated that there was no one to speak about the same.  A
\nperusal of the materials available would indicate that the prosecution though
\nrested its case on the circumstantial evidence, has miserably failed either to
\nplace or to prove the necessary circumstances.  The only evidence available for
\nthe prosecution was that of P.W.9, according to whom, he went to a tea shop
\nalong with his wife Suseela, and at that time, he found the deceased
\nKrishnamoorthy in the company of A-1, and though A-1 called Krishnamoorthy to
\naccompany him in the TVS moped, the deceased refused to go with him, and A-2,
\nthe appellant herein, compelled him to go and then the deceased went along with
\nA-1, and thereafter, P.W.9 did not see Krishnamoorthy.  The evidence of P.W.9
\ncan be stated as highly improbable and unacceptable for more reasons.  P.W.9 has
\nmarried the sister of Krishnamoorthy and thus he was the brother-in-law.  If to
\nbe so, when Krishnamoorthy was found missing, one would naturally expect P.W.9
\nto speak about the fact that it was A-1 who took him in his moped; but, he has
\nnot done so.  It is pertinent to point out that P.W.9 knew A-1 very well, and A-
\n1 was also staying in the same place.  P.W.9 has neither questioned A-1
\nthereafter nor informed to P.W.4, the mother of the deceased, about the same.
\nThat apart, neither P.W.9 nor P.W.4 approached the police for a number of months
\nas to the missing of the said Krishnamoorthy.  The statement of P.W.9 was
\nrecorded by the Investigator on 4.1.2005; but, it has reached the Court only
\nafter a period of two months.  No explanation was brought forth before the trial
\nCourt.  The absence of Krishnamoorthy for a period of five months would
\nimprobablise that P.W.9 could not have seen them together.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.A-1 on being convicted by the trial Court, challenged the same in
\nC.A.No.278 of 2007, and this Court has recorded an order of acquittal by setting
\naside the judgment of the trial Court, on 6.2.2008.  It is pertinent to point
\nout that the very reasons which were applied for the acquittal of A-1, have got
\nto be equally applied for this appellant\/A-2 also.  As far as the illicit
\nintimacy between A-1 and A-2 was concerned, there was no material available.
\nApart from that, the evidence of P.W.9 has been rejected on the reasons stated
\nabove.  Further, the appellant\/A-2 was arrested only on the confessional
\nstatement made by A-1. Needless to say that the confessional statement of the
\nco-accused namely A-1 in this case, cannot be applied against the appellant\/A-2.
\nIn short, it can be stated that the prosecution had no material to place or to
\nshow that the appellant had got any nexus to the crime in question.  But the
\ntrial Court without proper appreciation of the materials available,  has found
\nthe appellant guilty.  Hence the appeal, in the considered opinion of the Court,
\nhas got to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment
\nof conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.  The appellant\/A-2 is
\nacquitted of the charges levelled against her.  She is directed to be released
\nforthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.
\nThe fine amounts if any paid, will be refunded to her.  Consequently, connected
\nMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge
\n  Pudukkottai\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n  Arantangi & Taluk
\n  Pudukkottai District\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
\n\tMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/03\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CRL.A.(MD) No.466 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008 K.Lakshmi .. Appellant\/A-2 vs Inspector of Police Arantangi & Taluk Pudukkottai District .. […]<\/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-210944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 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\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-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=\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2403,\"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\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 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":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 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\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009"},"wordCount":2403,"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\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009","name":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T17:11:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-lakshmi-vs-inspector-of-police-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Lakshmi vs Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 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\/210944","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=210944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}