{"id":212407,"date":"2008-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-04T17:19:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T11:49:05","slug":"k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1107 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.T. Palanisamy\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Tamil Nadu\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tAppellant with two others, namely, A2, Vellingiri, and A3, Officer @
\nParamasivam, were prosecuted for commission of the offence of murder of
\none Somasundaram.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant was an astrologer.   The deceased was passing through
\ntough times.   His son had also remained ill for long time.   He allegedly was
\nadvised by the appellant to perform some poojas on the bed of the river
\nBhavani situated at Nanjaipuliyampatti on or about 29.4.1996.   He went to
\nthe place for the said purpose along with the accused persons.   The deceased
\nat that time was said to be wearing a gold chain (M.O.1) and two gold rings
\n(M.Os.2 & 3) engraved with the letters P.Mani.    The deceased was
\nallegedly last seen by PW-3 and PW-4 namely, Nallasamy and K.Devaraj
\nrespectively and his brother-in-law PW-5, Muthusamy.   He, however, did
\nnot come back.  On inquiries having been made from the appellant, the
\nfamily members of the deceased were informed that he had gone away after
\nperforming the said pooja for attending some function.\n<\/p>\n
     He was even thereafter not heard of for a long time.
\n     An advertisement was issued in a local newspaper on 12.5.1996.
\nPoongodi (PW-1), the wife of the deceased, in order to search out her
\nhusband, in turn, sought for the assistance of the appellant, who advised
\nthem to perform a pooja at Bannavi Amman Temple.\n<\/p>\n
     However, when the parents of the deceased and his grand-mother left
\nfor Bannavi Amman Temple for performing the pooja in the company of the
\nappellant, they also did not return home.   From a report which appeared in a
\nlocal newspaper on 3.6.1996 PW-1 came to learn that the said three persons
\nhave been found murdered at Erode.   He went to Erode and lodged first
\ninformation report before the Erode, South Police Station, which was
\nrecorded by Manoharan (PW16).   A first information report was registered
\nbeing crime No.415\/96 under the caption man missing.   On 4.7.1996 the
\nstatement of PW-1 was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW-18.   The
\nBanglaputhur police station which had the jurisdiction to investigate into the
\nsaid matter received the said first information report on 2.9.1996, on the
\nbasis whereof PW-17 the Head Constable of the said police station
\nregistered a case as Crime No.406\/96  against the accused under Sections
\n302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).  Accused Nos.1
\n& 2 were arrested on 6.7.1996 at a bus stop at Erode in the presence of
\nAbdulhasan Ansari (PW-11).  Allegedly, on the basis of a purported
\nconfessional statement made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer and
\nothers went to Coimbatore for recovery of a gold chain which is said to have
\nbeen sold to one Dhanasekaran.     The said gold chain and some bangles,
\nhowever,  were seized in connection with the murder of the deceaseds
\nparents and grand-mother.  He also took the police party to a jewellery shop
\nbelonging to one  Dhanasekaran who produced a long golden chain.   The
\nsame was seized and marked as M.O.1\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAccused No.2 allegedly was having a gold ring in his finger which
\nwas seized and marked before the learned Trial Judge as M.O.3.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAccused No.3 was arrested near a municipal guest house at Erode on
\n7th July, 1996.   Two Criminal cases were instituted against the appellants;
\none for commission of murder of Somasundaram; and the other for murder
\nof his parents and grand-mother.\n<\/p>\n
     Whereas the first case was registered as S.C No.70\/97, the second one
\nwas registered as S.C No. 100\/97.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and other two
\naccused persons for commission of offence under Section 120B, 302 read
\nwith Section 34 and 109 of the IPC as also Section 379 and 201 thereof.
\nThey were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under
\nSection 120B, 302 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the IPC and one
\nyears rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 and three years rigorous
\nimprisonment under Section 201 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBefore the learned Trial judge,  a large number of witnesses were
\nexamined on behalf of the prosecution.  PW1 is the widow  of the deceased.
\nHer evidence centered around the fact that the deceased used to consult him
\nas he was an astrologer.   She further stated that the deceased  had gone with
\nthe accused for performing the said pooja and never came back thereafter.
\nShe identified Material Objects 1, 2 & 3.    According to her,  a letter was
\nreceived from one Bala in the name of the first accused stating that her
\nhusband was keeping well but was in a depressed mind and that within a
\nmonth he would go back home.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAllegedly, on the hope generated from the said letter,   no first
\ninformation report was lodged. As noticed hereinbefore,   she went back to
\nthe appellant and requested him to find out her husband, who in turn advised
\nher to perform a pooja at Pannari Mariamman temple.   Her in-laws and
\nmother of her mother-in-law went there on 28.6.1996 and the news about
\ntheir murder appeared in the newspaper on 30th June, 1996.   According to
\nher, she became suspicious on learning that her in-laws have been murdered
\nand as her husband was also missing, she filed a first information report on
\n3.7.1996 at Erode.\n<\/p>\n
     In the cross-examination of the said witness, several discrepancies
\nhave been brought on record particularly the omissions in her statement
\nunder Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,   that her husband had
\nbeen putting on M.Os. 1 to 3.  She accepted that there used to be quarrel
\nbetween her and her husband.   The distance between her residence and that
\nof her in-laws was 5 to 6 kms.   They were living separately.   She admitted
\nthat her husband had not been in sound mental health.   She had been
\ninformed that her husband was to go to a function after performance of the
\nsaid pooja and the same statement was made by her before the police.
\nLoganathan (PW-2) was to be the brother-in-law of the deceased appellant.
\nAccording to him, he used to run an electrical shop with the deceased
\nSomasundaram and one Nallasamy.   The deceased, according to him, used
\nto come to the appellant to discuss astrological aspects as regards his child
\nwho had not been keeping good health.   He deposed that on 29.4.1996
\nSomasundaram came to his shop along with the appellant and informed him
\nthat they were going to perform a pooja in the Vannan temple whereafter he
\nwould go to some function.   Although according to him the deceased was
\nwearing gold ornaments (viz. the rings and the chain) but he did not know to
\nwhom they belonged to.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tPW-3 was also a partner in the said electrical shop in which the
\ndeceased and PW-2 were running.   According to him on 29\/4\/1996 he met
\nthe deceased at Gobi Chettipalayam when he informed him that he had been
\ncoming from Nanjai Pulliampatti after performing the pooja.   He
\nfurthermore informed that they were going to a temple whereupon he came
\nback by bus.   He could not remember the date when Somasundaram brought
\nthe three accused to his shop.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tPW-4 is K.Devaraj.   He was a    valuer working at the Veerappan
\nChattiram Co-operative Bank.   He also saw the deceased going to perform
\npooja with the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-5 is Muthusamy.   He is an electrician.   He is the brother in-law
\nof the deceased.   Allegedly, he saw the deceased and the other accused
\nsitting in the bus and on a query made by him, they informed that they were
\ngoing to the temple at Nanjaipulimpatti and at about 8.30 P.M. on that day
\nwhen he was returning from Bangalaputhur, all the three accused also
\nboarded the same bus.   On a query again made by him in regard to
\nwhereabouts of the deceased, he was told that he had gone to attend some
\nfunction.   Although he is a resident of the area he did not know as whether
\nthere was a river bridge at Puliampatty or not.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tPW-6 is Thangavel.   He is the brother-in-law of the deceased.   He is
\nsaid to have given advance of  a sum of Rs.10,000\/-  on execution of a
\npronote to accused No.3, at the instance of the deceased.   The letter which
\nwas marked as Ex.A6, according to him, contained some zig-zag lines at the
\ntime of his deposition which were not there when it was received.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tPW-7 is Marisamy.    According to him, Dhanasakarn had paid a sum
\nof Rs.15,000\/- to the accused persons.   He accepted that he was a police
\ninformer and had been appearing for them as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-8 has, however, denied that he was a Jeweler or that he had a
\nshop.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tOn analysis of the entire materials brought on records by the
\nprosecution,  the only relevant evidence is the purported recovery of chain
\n(M.O.1) at the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The dead body of the deceased was not recovered.   There is no
\nevidence in regard to death.   Nothing has been brought on record to show
\nthat there was enough water in the river or the current in the water was such
\nso as to take a dead body away.\n<\/p>\n
     All the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased.   It is
\ndifficult for us to believe that all the witnesses saw the deceased
\naccompanying the accused persons one after the other at different places.
\nTherefore,  chances of their deposing falsely cannot be ruled out.   Be that as
\nit may, when the offence is said to have been committed and the
\ncircumstantial evidence is made the basis for establishing the charge against
\nthe appellant, indisputably all the links must be completed to form the basis
\nfor his conviction.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIt is now well settled that in a case where an offence is said to have
\nbeen established on circumstantial evidence alone, indisputably all the links
\nin the chain must be found to be complete as has been held in Sharad
\nBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [AIR 1984 SC 1622] in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
A close analysis of this decision would show that
\nthe following conditions must be fulfilled before a
\ncase against an accused can be said to be fully
\nestablished:\n<\/p>\n
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
\nof guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
\nIt may be noted here that this Court indicated that
\nthe circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and
\nnot ‘may be’ established. There is not only a
\ngrammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may
\nbe proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved as was
\nheld by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v.\n<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra where the following
\nobservations were made:\n<\/p>\n
certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
\nmust be and not merely may be guilty before a
\nCourt can convict, and the mental distance
\nbetween ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides
\nvague conjectures from sure conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
\nonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
\naccused, that is to say, they should not be
\nexplainable on any other hypothesis except that the
\naccused is guilty.\n<\/p>\n
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
\nnature and tendency.\n<\/p>\n
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
\nexcept the one to be proved, and
\n(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
\nas not to leave any reasonable ground for the
\nconclusion consistent with the innocence of the
\naccused and must show that in all human
\nprobability the act must have been done by the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
153. These five golden principles, if we may say
\nso, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
\nbased on circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n
13.\tIn this case, corpus delicti has not been proved.   The same  need not
\nbe but the death as a fact must be proved.  Even death has not been proved in
\nthis case.   No piece of mortal remains of the deceased was found.   If the
\nprosecution witnesses are to be believed they had no reason to suspect the
\nappellant herein at the relevant point of time.   They knew that the deceased
\nwas to attend another function.   We fail to understand as to why the
\ndeceased would take all the accused to the shop of PW2 or   allowed to be
\nfound in their company by all of his relations and partners.   None of the
\nwitnesses testified that they were seen near the place of worship.  None said
\nthat they were found to be performing any pooja.  No evidence was addnced
\nto show that any pooja was performed in a temple.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn a situation of this nature, it is difficult to hold that a judgment  of
\nconviction can be founded on the sole circumstance of the deceaseds having
\nbeen last seen with the appellant by the prosecution witnesses who are all
\ninterested and partisan witnesses.   More significant is the conduct of the
\nprosecution witnesses.   On the day of the alleged crime, they did not suspect
\nthe appellant in any manner whatsoever.   They did not even  go to the place
\nof the occurrence.  Despite the fact that he was missing, the purported
\nexplanation of the appellant was taken for granted.  Even no missing report
\nwas lodged.   It was expected that such missing report should have  been
\nlodged immediately and  that details of his wearing apparels as also the fact
\nthat he had  two rings on his finger and one gold chain would have been
\nmentioned.\n<\/p>\n
     The fact that the deceased was last seen with  the appellant should
\nhave been specifically disclosed in the first information report.     Suspicion
\nwas raised about the involvement of the appellant only because   three other
\ndead bodies were recovered.   We do not know the nature of evidence that
\nhas been adduced in that case.   We need not enter into any surmise in this
\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn any event,   the circumstancial evidence  which  formed part of the
\nrecords of SC 100 of 1997 could not be relied upon for arriving at the
\nconclusion that the appellant herein   is guilty of commission of the said
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe only other circumstance is recovery of the golden chain.   It was
\nallegedly sold to PW8.   He, however, has denied his involvement.   Even
\nassuming that golden chain was recovered at the instance of the appellant
\nherein, the same by itself, in our considered view, would be sufficient for
\nupholding the judgment and conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tMr. V.Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, has placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Sevaka
\nPerumal and Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> reported in [1991 (3) SCC 471].
\nTherein also it was held that the fact of the death of the deceased must be
\nestablished like any other fact.  In that case it was not done.   This Court in
\nthat case gave an instance where a corpus delicti is not possible to be traced
\nor recovered.   The same being that the murder was committed and the dead
\nbody was thrown into the river, stream or burnt out. Even such is not the
\ncase here.\n<\/p>\n
     As indicated herein before, the fact that the river was a tidal one had
\nnot been proved.\n<\/p>\n
     There is, thus, no reliable or acceptable evidence that the offence has
\nbeen committed by the appellant. Neither any direct nor circumstantial
\nevidence had been brought on record to establish the guilt on the part of the
\nappellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot
\nbe sustained, which is set aside accordingly.    The appeal is allowed.   The
\nappellant is in jail.   He is directed to be set at liberty unless wanted in
\nconnection with any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1107 of 2005 PETITIONER: K.T. Palanisamy RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/01\/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-212407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - 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-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-04T11:49:05+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=\"13 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-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T11:49:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2595,\"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\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\",\"name\":\"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T11:49:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - 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-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-04T11:49:05+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T11:49:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008"},"wordCount":2595,"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\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008","name":"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T11:49:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-palanisamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/212407","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=212407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}