{"id":213991,"date":"2008-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-04T02:55:09","modified_gmt":"2014-11-03T21:25:09","slug":"ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.219 of 2007\n\nPonnusamy                    ..    Appellant\n\nvs.\n\nInspector of Police,\nEriyodu,\nEriyodu Taluk,\nDindigul District.\n(Crime No.309\/2004).          ..   Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 05.4.2007 made in S.C.No.19\/2006 by the learned\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.\n\t\n\n!For appellant \t\t... Mr.K.Thirumalai Raj,\n                   \t    Senior Counsel\n\t                   for Mr.N.Shamuga Selvam\n\n^For respondent\t\t... Mr.P.N.Pandithurai\n                            Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made<br \/>\n by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division, Dindigul<br \/>\ndated 5.4.2007 made in S.C.No.19 of 2006 whereby the appellant\/sole accused<br \/>\nstood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 IPC and 506 (2) of IPC<br \/>\nand awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a default<br \/>\nsentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the first charges; and three years<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with a default sentence of 9<br \/>\nmonths rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can<br \/>\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) PW.1 is the daughter of the deceased.  PW.2 is the husband of PW.1.<br \/>\nPW.3 is another daughter.  The accused, in the instant case, is the younger<br \/>\nbrother of the deceased.  They were the residents of R.Kombaipatti.  A few days<br \/>\nprior to the occurrence, the deceased sent his men to pick out groundnuts from<br \/>\nthe field.  The same was objected to by the accused.  Since there was a dispute<br \/>\nbetween them over the land, the workers returned.  They informed the same to the<br \/>\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) On 23.11.2004 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased proceeded to the<br \/>\nfield. He was followed by PW.1 and PW.2.  They went near the field.  They found<br \/>\nthe deceased and the accused were quarrelling over their land dispute.  At that<br \/>\ntime, the accused  took MO.1 aruval, attacked him on his head and also on<br \/>\ndifferent parts of the body.  Not satisfied with that, he took a towel and<br \/>\nstrangulated him. As a result, the deceased Sankar died instantaneously.<br \/>\nThough PW.1 and PW.2 went nearby the occurrence, they were criminally<br \/>\nintimidated.  The occurrence was witnessed by PW.1 and PW.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) PW.1 and others went to the respondent police station where PW.11<br \/>\nwas the Sub Inspector of Police on duty at 8.30 a.m., gave a report Ex.P.1.   On<br \/>\nthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.309\/2004 under<br \/>\nSections 302 IPC.  Printed F.I.R Ex.P.5 was sent to the Court and to the higher<br \/>\nofficials.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R, PW.12, Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nattached to the respondent police station, took up investigation, proceeded to<br \/>\nthe scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and<br \/>\nprepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.6 and also a rough sketch Ex.P.7.  He<br \/>\nconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of<br \/>\npanchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.8. He recovered the materials<br \/>\nobjects available from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by PW.7,<br \/>\nattached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul and he found injuries as described<br \/>\nin the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he has opined that the deceased<br \/>\nwould appear to have died due to head injury, about 10-12 hours prior to<br \/>\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 24.11.2004.<br \/>\nDuring investigation, the accused gave a confessional statement and the<br \/>\nadmissible part of that evidence was marked as Ex.P.9.  Pursuant to the<br \/>\nconfession, he produced an aruval MO.1 in the presence of witnesses and the same<br \/>\nwas recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.P.10.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and<br \/>\nfrom the dead body of the deceased were sent to Forensic Sciences Department for<br \/>\nchemical analysis, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical Analysis Report<br \/>\nEx.P.13 and Serological Report Ex.P.14.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.12 filed a final report<br \/>\nagainst the accused\/appellant as per the charges.  The case was committed to the<br \/>\nCourt of Sessions.  Necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 14 Exhibits and 9 MOs.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found in<br \/>\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the part<br \/>\nof the accused.  No defence witness was examined. The trial Court after hearing<br \/>\nthe arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available<br \/>\non record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubts and found the accused\/appellant guilty of the charges and<br \/>\nawarded punishments as referred to above.  Aggrieved over the same, the accused<br \/>\nhas brought forth this appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of    the appellant, Mr. K.Thirumalai<br \/>\nRaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) In the instant case, the prosecution has only two eye-witnesses viz.,<br \/>\nPW.1 and PW.2.  PW.1 was the daughter.  PW.2 was the son-in-law of the deceased.<br \/>\nThe deceased was actually in inimical terms with the accused since there was a<br \/>\nland dispute.  Thus, PW.1 and PW.2 were not only interested in the deceased but<br \/>\nalso inimical to the accused.  Their evidence if scrutinised should have been<br \/>\nrejected by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)  Apart from that, their evidence is not only inconsistent to each<br \/>\nother but also self-contradictory.  Under the circumstances, their evidence is<br \/>\nnot worth mentioning to connect the accused with the crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) The ocular testimony projected by PW.1 and PW.2 was never<br \/>\ncorroborated with the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) The arrest, confession and the alleged recovery were all cooked up<br \/>\naffairs in order to strengthen the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution had<br \/>\nno evidence worth mentioning to offer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) Even assuming that the prosecution has proved the fact that it was the<br \/>\naccused, who attacked the deceased and thereby caused death, it was neither<br \/>\nintentional nor deliberate because even as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,<br \/>\nthere was a quarrel and in the quarrel, the accused attacked with aruval.<br \/>\nHowever, injuries were found to be simple and actually, the occurrence had taken<br \/>\nplace in the natural course.  PW.7 Doctor has given his opinion that the injury<br \/>\nfound on the skull was the bane for his death and that would be possible by<br \/>\nfalling on the ground also, for which the accused cannot be found guilty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi)  Even though if the act of the accused found to be proved, it would<br \/>\nonly attract the penal provision of Section 324 of IPC.  Accordingly, this legal<br \/>\naspect has got to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a<br \/>\nthorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is not a fact in controversy that one Sankar, the father of PW.1 was<br \/>\ndied out of homicidal violence in the occurrence that took place on 23.11.2004.<br \/>\nFollowing the inquest made by the investigator, the dead body of the deceased<br \/>\nwas subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.7, who has given his opinion in Ex.P.3<br \/>\npost-mortem certificate that the deceased died out of  head injury, about 10 &#8211;<br \/>\n12 hours prior to autopsy.  The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal<br \/>\nviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings.<br \/>\nHence, it has got to be recorded factually so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused\/appellant who<br \/>\nattacked him and caused his death, the prosecution has marched two witnesses. It<br \/>\nis true, PW.1 is the daughter and PW.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased.  It is<br \/>\nthe  well settled position of law that merely on the ground of relationship of<br \/>\nthe witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. In the instant case, PW.1 and<br \/>\nPW.2 have clearly spoken in one voice that when they were nearing the deceased,<br \/>\nactually, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, in which,<br \/>\nthe accused took an aruval and attacked the deceased on the head and not-<br \/>\nsatisfied with that, he took a towel and pressed his neck and the deceased died<br \/>\ninstantaneously. When PW.1 and PW.2 tried to rescue him, they were criminally<br \/>\nintimidated. The ocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the evidence of<br \/>\nPW.7 who opined that injury No.5 found on the skull was the reason for the<br \/>\ndeath.  The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 inspires the confidence of the Court.<br \/>\nHence, the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that<br \/>\nmerely falling on the ground, such an injury could be inflicted and that other<br \/>\ninjuries were simple and the death had not been brought out by the act of the<br \/>\naccused cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Yet another circumstance is the recovery of weapon of the crime from<br \/>\nthe accused pursuant to his confession, which was recorded by the investigator<br \/>\nin the presence of two witnesses.  That part of evidence remains unshaken<br \/>\ndespite the cross-examination.  The lower Court has thoroughly accepted that<br \/>\npart of evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  All these would go to show that the prosecution has proved the fact<br \/>\nthat it was none but the accused who attacked his brother and caused his death.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Coming to the second line of contention that even assuming that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the case, the act of the accused would not attract the<br \/>\npenal provision of murder, the Court is able to see some force in the contention<br \/>\nput-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant though not in full.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The accused had attacked the deceased with an aruval and injury No.5<br \/>\nwas actually caused by him.  It is evident from the ocular testimony, which<br \/>\nstood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.  At this juncture, it is<br \/>\npertinent to point out that, actually, there was a wordy altercation between the<br \/>\nbrothers in respect of land dispute which fact has been spoken to by the two<br \/>\nwitnesses viz., PW.1 and PW.2.  It would be quite clear that this wordy<br \/>\naltercation caused sudden provocation in attacking the deceased with an aruval<br \/>\nand causing his death.  However, the contention put-forth by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant that the act would attract only Section 324 IPC can not be<br \/>\naccepted.  However, the Court is of the considered opinion that it will be<br \/>\nappropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 (Part &#8211; II) of IPC and<br \/>\nawarding 5 years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 506 (2) of IPC<br \/>\nare set aside.  Instead, the appellant\/accused is convicted under Section 304<br \/>\n(Part II) of IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment.  Fine amount, if<br \/>\nany, was already paid by the appellant under section 302 IPC, the same shall be<br \/>\nrefunded to the appellant.   The conviction and sentence under Section 506(2)<br \/>\nIPC are confirmed. The sentences are to run concurrently. The period of sentence<br \/>\nalready undergone by the appellant shall be given set off.  The Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nis disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Eriyodu,<br \/>\n  Eriyodu Taluk,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (Crime No.309\/2004).\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of<br \/>\n  the Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD) No.219 of 2007 Ponnusamy .. Appellant vs. Inspector of Police, Eriyodu, Eriyodu Taluk, Dindigul District. (Crime No.309\/2004). .. Respondent Criminal [&hellip;]<\/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-213991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-03T21:25:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-03T21:25:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"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\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-03T21:25:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 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":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-03T21:25:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-03T21:25:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"wordCount":1838,"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\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","name":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-03T21:25:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnusamy vs Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 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\/213991","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=213991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}