{"id":213006,"date":"2008-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-13T08:40:52","modified_gmt":"2018-03-13T03:10:52","slug":"state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :18\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nCrl.A.No.155 of 2001\n\nState represented through\nThe Inspector of Police,\nCheranmahadevi Police Station,\nCr.No.84 of 1997\nTirunelveli District\t\t\t\t\t   ..  Appellant\t\t\n\nVs.\n\n1.Seemon\n2.Aasir\n3.Joseph\n4.Ebenezer alias Balakrishnan\t\t\t\t   ..  Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C against\nthe judgment dated 12.05.2000 made in S.C.No.21 of 1999 by the first Additional\nSessions Judge, Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj, Additional\n\t\t     Public Prosecutor\n^For Respondents ... Mr.J.Ashok for Mr.P.Jayapaul\n\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe State appeals a judgment of the first Additional District Judge,
\nTirunelveli made in S.C.No.21 of 1999, whereby the respondents, who were shown
\nas A1 to A4 on being acquitted of the charges 341 I.P.C against all the accused,
\n302 read with 109 I.P.C against A1 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C against A2 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, for the disposal of the appeal
\ncan be stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, Jebamani Nadar.  They were the
\nresidents of Odakarai.  The first accused is the father of A2 and A3, and the
\nfourth accused is the Son-in-law of A1.  Previously one Dharmaraj Nadar, brother
\nof A1, was murdered, in which A1 to A3 stood charged, and they faced a trial
\nbefore the Court of Sessions.  In that case, the deceased Jebamani Nadar was one
\nof the eyewitnesses.  On three occasions, the accused by attempting to make
\npayment and also by threat of murder, tried to prevail that Jebamani not to give
\nevidence in that case.  This was known to P.W.1,P.W.2 and P.W.3.  But the
\ndeceased was adamant that he would give evidence as he witnessed the occurrence,
\nand thus, these accused persons have planned to do away with him before he gives
\nevidence before the Court.  On seeing the dead body of Jebamani Nadar at about
\n9.00 am on 18.06.1997, P.W.5, the Village Assistant, informed to P.W.1.  P.W.1
\naccompanied by P.W.2 went over to the place and found the dead body of her
\nhusband along with one goat which was alive and the other goat killed.  She
\nproceeded to the respondent Police Station, where P.W.18, the head constable,
\nwas on duty.  She gave a complaint Ex.P1, P.W.18 registered a case in Crime
\nNo.84 of 1997 under Section 302 I.P.C., and the Express FIR, Ex.P.30, was
\ndespatched to the Court by P.W.16.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Circle, was in additional
\ncharge of Cheranmahadevi Division.  On receipt of the copy of the FIR, he took
\nup the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection
\nin the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.31, the Observation mahazar, and
\nEx.P.32, the rough sketch. Further, he enquired some witnesses and recorded
\ntheir statements.  He recovered  sample earth, bloodstained earth and also other
\nmaterial objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazer in the
\npresence of witnesses.  The investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of
\nthe deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an
\ninquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.33.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the
\ngovernment hospital, for the purpose of autopsy.  P.W.13, the Doctor, attached
\nto Government Hospital, on receipt of the requisition conducted autopsy on the
\ndead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.25, the post-mortem certificate,
\nopining that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock due to head
\ninjury, cervical injury and shock due to hypovoleam.\n<\/p>\n
\td) Further investigation was taken up by P.W.20.  Pending investigation he
\narrested A3 and A4 on 19.06.1997.  Both of them gave  confessional statements
\nvoluntarily, and the admissible part of the confessional statements of A3 and A4
\nwere marked as Ex.P.36 and 37 respectively.  Consequent upon the same, A3
\nproduced M.O.1 aruval, and A4 produced M.O.2 aruval, which were recovered under
\na cover of  mahazar independently.  A3 and A4 were sent for judicial remand.
\nThe investigator came to know that A1 and A2 surrendered before the Judicial
\nMagistrate, Nagercoil, on 02.07.1997, and an application for taking them to
\npolice custody was made. Accordingly they were taken in to police custody, and
\non enquiry, A1 and A2 came forward to give a confessional statements
\nvoluntarily, and the admissible parts of the said confessions were marked as
\nExs.P.40 and 41 respectively.  Following the same, A2 produced M.O.3 aruval and
\nA1 produced M.O.4 aruval, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.  Then,
\nthey were also sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\te) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead body of the deceased and the Material Objects recovered from the
\naccused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition given by the
\nInvestigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Two reports were
\nreceived.  One is Ex.P.26, the Chemical analyst’s report, and the other is
\nEx.P.27, the Serologist’s report.  On completion of the investigation, the
\nInvestigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court,
\nwhich in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, and necessary charges
\nwere framed, and the case was taken up for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 46 exhibits and 14 M.Os.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused\/appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the
\nincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He
\ndenied them as false.  No defence witness was examined.  One Court Assistant was
\nexamined as C.W.1, through whom two documents were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.
\nAfter hearing the arguments of the counsel and looking into the material
\navailable meticulously, the lower court took the view that the prosecution has
\nnot proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused not guilty and
\npassed an order of acquittal which is being challenged by the State in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the State, the learned Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor submits that the lower Court has not properly considered the
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution in the proper perspective.  The prosecution
\nhas clearly by acceptable evidence proved that the accused had a strong motive
\nto do the crime of murder, on the deceased Jebamani.  There is ample evidence to
\nindicate Jebamani, who was a witness in the case in which these accused A1 to A3
\nfaced a charge of murder of the elder brother of A1, was an eyewitness, and the
\ndeceased Jebamani was threatened in his house by the accused not to give
\nevidence in that murder case.  On the second occasion, they sent a messenger and
\nmade an attempt to give Rs.2,000\/-, and on the third occasion again, they made
\nopen threat if he gives evidence he would be finished off.  Despite all these
\nthings, Jebamani Nadar informed that he would depose before the Trial Court what
\nhe wants, and thus, the lower Court has also accepted that part of the evidence
\nadduced by the prosecution in order to prove the motive.  It is true that the
\nprosecution has no direct evidence to offer, but rested its case on other
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The first circumstance relied on by the learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor is that P.Ws.8, 11 and 12 have seen all the accused along with the
\ndeceased near by at the time and place of occurrence.  It is true that they have
\nturned hostile.  But even though they turned hostile, they have clearly spoken
\nabout the  which is necessary for the prosecution pointing to the complecity of
\nthese accused.  Yet another circumstances in favour of the prosecution was the
\narrest of A3 and A4, and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 aruvals, the weapons of crime,
\nin the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5, and also the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 pursuant
\nto their confession voluntarily made in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7.  The lower
\nCourt has much committed upon that all these four witnesses namely P.Ws.4 to 7,
\nhave turned hostile, and hence, that apart of the evidence adduced by the
\nprosecution with regard to the arrest and confessional statements and recovery
\nof the weapons of crime cannot be believed.  In the instant case though all
\nthose four witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of the investigator is
\navailable to the prosecution.  This Court had no reason to reject his evidence.
\nYet another circumstances, connecting the accused  to the crime in that all the
\nmaterial objects including the weapons of crime, were subjected to  analysis by
\nthe forensic department.  The serologist’s report would clearly indicate that
\nthe material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and also from the
\ndead body and also the weapons of crime contained the same blood group and thus
\nthe scientific evidence was fully in favour of the prosecution.  All put
\ntogether would be pointing to the guilt of the accused, but the lower Court has
\nnot considered the same and has acquitted on the flimsy reasons.  The judgment
\nof the lower Court is perverse and without proper reasons whatsoever, and they
\nhave got to be dealt with in accordance with law on the available evidence
\nrecorded by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Heard Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who
\nmade submissions  in his sincere attempt of affirming the judgment of the Court
\nbelow.  The Court paid his anxious consideration on the submissions made on
\neither side and also made a thorough scrutiny of the entire materials.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. At the outset, it has got to be pointed out that the judgment of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial Court should not be disturbed unless and until
\nthe judgment of the trial Court is perverse and a decision of acquittal has been
\narrived at without proper reasoning.  If this legal principle is applied, Court
\nis very much afraid whether the judgment of the lower Court could be disturbed.
\nThe case of the prosecution as could be seen above in short is that despite
\ntheir attempts to desist the deceased Jebamani Nadar from giving evidence in an
\nearlier murder case, in which the respondents 1 to 3 were involved, they cannot
\nconvince him and the deceased made in clear terms that he would give evidence in
\nthat murder case and pursuant to a plan, all these four accused\/respondents
\nattacked him on the night of 18.06.1997 and he was done to death.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.A careful perusal of the records and the evidence adduced through P.Ws.1
\nand 2, would make it abundantly clear that the elder brother of the first
\naccused was already murdered, and these accused A1 to A3 were facing a trial,
\nand the deceased Jebamani Nadar in the instant case was one of the occurrence
\nwitnesses and A1 to A3 failed in their attempt of stopping him from giving
\nevidence before the trial Court, and the deceased Jebamani Nadar was certain in
\ngiving evidence under the circumstances, they were motivated to finish him
\nbefore he gives evidence before the trial Court.  No doubt the prosecution was
\nsuccessful enough in proving the motive attributed to the accused.  Prosecution
\nwas also successful enough in proving the fact that Jebamani Nadar has died out
\nof homicidal violence by marking the inquest report and also the post mortem
\ncertificate issued by the doctor and also by his evidence.  In the instant case,
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer before the trial Court.  It relied
\nupon certain circumstances.  Needless to say, in a given case like this, where
\nthe prosecution rested its case exclusively on the circumstances, even one
\ncircumstance would suffice pointing to the guilt of the accused.  If there are
\nnumber of circumstances available before the trial Court, the circumstances
\nplaced and proved must constitute a chain without a snap, and it must also be
\npointing to the hypothesis that except the accused  no one could have committed
\nthe offence.  In the instant case, the prosecution has now placed the
\ncircumstances in order to prove the case.  According to the prosecution,
\nP.Ws.8,11 and 12 have seen all the accused and the deceased at the time and
\nplace of occurrence, but all these witnesses unfortunately have turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The second circumstance was the recovery of the weapons of crime,
\nfollowing the confessional statements alleged to have been made by the accused
\nto the investigator.  In this regard, the prosecution in respect of the
\nconfessional statements and recovery of weapons of crime from A3 and A4,
\nexamined two witness namely P.Ws.4 and 5, who have turned hostile.  Equally, two
\nwitness, P.Ws.6 and 7 examined to prove the confessional statements of A1 and A2
\nand the consequent recovery, have also turned hostile, and thus, in so far as
\nthe confessions leading to recovery, all the witnesses have turned hostile.  The
\ncontention put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that though
\nthose witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution had to its benefit the
\nevidence of the investigating officer, and there was no reason to reject his
\ntestimony.  It is true that the evidence of police official must be looked into
\nas that of an ordinary evidence adduced.  But, in the instant case, it was not
\nthe evidence of police official only available.  But, four more witness have
\nbeen examined, and all have turned hostile.  No one can support the case of
\nprosecution, and in such a situation, the evidence of investigating officer
\ncannot be taken to accept the case of prosecution and sustain a conviction.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Further, the last submission made by the learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor also falls to ground.  According to him, all the material objects and
\nscientific evidence are in favour of the prosecution, since the blood group
\nfound in all the material objects  recovered from the place of occurrence and
\nfrom the dead body of the deceased and also weapons of crime tallied.  At this
\njuncture, it should not be forgotten that the witnesses for the observation
\nmahazar and recovery of material objects have turned hostile.  Needless to say
\nin a given case like this, where the recovery is proved by sufficient evidence,
\nthat cannot be a basis to sustain a conviction.  Under the circumstances, the
\nprosecution was able to prove the motive part and also Jebamani died out of
\nhomicidal violence.  But, it has miserably failed to atleast place or prove  one
\ncircumstance connecting the accused\/respondents to the crime in question, and
\nhence, the lower Court was perfectly correct in rejecting the case of
\nprosecution.  It cannot be stated that the judgment of the lower Court lacked
\nreasons, and it has got to be affirmed.  Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ssm\/arul<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The First Additional Sessions Judge,
\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Cheranmahadevi Police Station,
\n  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Crl.A.No.155 of 2001 State represented through The Inspector of Police, Cheranmahadevi Police Station, Cr.No.84 of 1997 Tirunelveli District .. Appellant Vs. 1.Seemon 2.Aasir […]<\/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-213006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 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\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-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=\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-13T03:10:52+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=\"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\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-13T03:10:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2427,\"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\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\",\"name\":\"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-13T03:10:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 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":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 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\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-13T03:10:52+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-13T03:10:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008"},"wordCount":2427,"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\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008","name":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-13T03:10:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-through-vs-seemon-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Represented Through vs Seemon on 18 March, 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\/213006","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=213006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}