{"id":216324,"date":"2003-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003"},"modified":"2017-05-14T08:58:42","modified_gmt":"2017-05-14T03:28:42","slug":"subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nC.A.No.501 of 2001\n\nSubramanian @ Subban                           .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. by:\nThe Inspector of Police\nPoolampatti Police Station\nSalem District\nCr.No.233 of 1999                                       .. Respondent\n\n        This criminal appeal is preferred under  Sec.374(2)  of  The  Code  of\nCriminal  Procedure against the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge,\nSalem, made in S.C.No.339 of 1999 and dated 7.11.2000.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.  S.N.Thangaraj\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.O.Srinath\n                Government Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        The sole accused in a case of murder who stood charged and tried under
\nSs  302  and  324  of  the  Indian  Penal Code, has brought forth this appeal,
\nchallenging the conviction under Ss 304(i) and 324 of I.P.C.  and sentence  of
\n10 years R.I.    and  fine  of  Rs.3,000\/-  in  default,  6 months R.I.  under
\nSec.304(i) of IPC and 1 year R.I.  and fine of Rs.2,000\/- in default, 3 months
\nR.I.  under Sec.324 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  short  facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be
\nstated thus:\n<\/p>\n
        (a) The appellant\/accused and the deceased Madesh were close relatives
\nand  also  residing  in  the  adjacent  houses  in  Molaparai  Perumal  Nagar,
\nPoolampatti Village,  Edapadi  Taluk.    P.W.1  Palaniammal is the wife of the
\ndeceased, while P.W.2 Lakshmi is the mother-in-law.  There was a long standing
\nenmity between the parties over a common passage which was situate in  between
\nthe houses.  On the date of incident namely 24.3.1999 at about 11.00 A.M., the
\ndeceased  Madesh was returning to his house, after taking batch in the Cauvery
\nRiver.  Near the house of  one  Rajamani,  the  wife  of  the  accused  namely
\nRajammal scolded  the  deceased  in  sarcastic  language.  Hence, the deceased
\npushed her down.  On seeing this, the appellant\/accused came to the  place  of
\noccurrence  with  M.O.1  billhook, attacked the deceased on the left side neck
\nand caused his instantaneous death.  When P.W.1, the  wife  of  the  deceased,
\nintervened,  she  was also attacked on both hands by the appellant, and simple
\ninjuries were caused to her.    The  said  incident  was  witnessed  by  P.W.3
\nPushpamary and  P.W.4  Raju.  P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.4 rushed to Poolampatti
\nPolice Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P1 .  On the strength  of  Ex.P1,
\nP.W.11 Duraisamy,  Head  Constable,  registered  a case at 1.30 P.M.  in Crime
\nNo.233\/99 under Ss 302 and 324 of IPC.  Ex.P14 printed F.I.R.  was  despatched
\nto  the  concerned  Judicial  Magistrate’s Court, while the copies of the same
\nwere sent to the higher officials.  P.W.1 was sent to the Government Hospital,
\nEdapadi with the medical memo.  P.W.7 Dr.Kothandaraman examined P.W.1 at about
\n6 .00 P.M.  and issued Ex.P6 accident register.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) P.W.12 Karunakaran, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of
\nthe F.I.R.  took up the investigation, proceeded to the occurrence place, made
\nan inspection and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar in the presence of  P.W.5
\nSeerangan,  Village  Administrative Officer and other witness and Ex.P15 rough
\nsketch.  Then, P.W.12 conducted the inquest on the  dead  body  of  Madesh  in
\nfront  of  the  panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P16 inquest report.
\nHe examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and other witnesses and  recorded  their  statements.
\nHe  made  a  request  under  Ex.P7  to  P.W.8  Dr.Sundararajan  through  P.W.9
\nShanmugam, Constable for conducting the postmortem.  Accordingly, P.W.8 Doctor
\nconducted the autopsy on the dead body of Madesh on 25.3.99 at 8.30 A.M.   and
\nissued  Ex.P8  postmortem certificate, wherein he has narrated the injuries as
\nfollows.\n<\/p>\n
External Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.  A lacerated wound on the right forearm 6 cm x 3 cm muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
2.  A cut injury on the left forearm, semicircle in shape  with  reversion  of
\nthe skin exposing the muscles and bone.\n<\/p>\n
3.   A  cut  injury  on  the left side of the neck 12 cm x 5 cm, deep upto the
\ncervical vertebra C6 exposing the spinal cord which is  lacerated.    All  the
\nmajor neck blood vessels on the left side have been cut.
\nThe Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhaemorrhage and injury to cervical spinal card and to major neck blood vessels
\non the left side.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)  P.W.12  Investigating Officer recovered M.O.2 bloodstained lungi,
\nM.O.3 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 sample earth under Ex.P3 mahazar  in  front
\nof P.W.5 V.A.O.    and other witness.  At about 7.15 P.M., P.W.12 arrested the
\naccused and recorded the co sional statement made by  him  voluntarily.    The
\nadmissible portion of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P4.  Pursuant
\nto  the  confession, M.O.1 billhook was recovered under Ex.P5 mahazar in front
\nof P.W.5 V.A.O.  and other witness.  P.W.12 recorded their  statements.    The
\nappellant\/accused was sent for judicial custody.  On 25.3.99, P.W.12 proceeded
\nto  the  Government  Hospital, Edapadi and examined P.Ws.1, 4, 6, 9 and 11 and
\nrecorded their statements.  P.W.8 Doctor was also examined, and his  statement
\nwas recorded.    P.W.12 produced all the material objects before the concerned
\nMagistrate’s Court and made a request for sending them for chemical  analysis.
\nAccordingly they  were  sent.    On  completion  of the analysis, the chemical
\nanalyst’s reports and the serologist’s report were received, which were marked
\nas Exs.P11 to P13 respectively through P.W.10 Dhandapani, Head Clerk, attached
\nto the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sangagiri.   On  completion  of
\nthe  investigation,  a  charge  sheet  was filed against the appellant\/accused
\nunder Ss 302 and 324 of I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In order to prove the  charges  levelled  against  the  appellant\/
\naccused,  the  prosecution  examined 12 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and 7
\nmaterial objects.  After the completion of the evidence  of  the  prosecution,
\nthe accused  was  questioned  under  Sec.313  of  Cr.P.C.    in respect of the
\nincriminating  circumstances  found  in  the  evidence  of   the   prosecution
\nwitnesses, which   were   denied   by   him   as  false.    The  wife  of  the
\nappellant\/accused was examined as D.W.1.  She has stated that at the  time  of
\noccurrence,  she  was  not  only  pushed  down,  but the deceased attempted to
\noutrage her modesty and under such circumstances, they went over to the Police
\nStation and lodged a complaint, but it was not enquired into,  and  instead  a
\nfalse case  has  been  foisted  against  the accused.  On consideration of the
\nrival submissions made and scrutiny of  the  materials  available,  the  trial
\nCourt found  the  accused  guilty  under  Ss 304(i) and 324 of I.P.C.  and has
\nawarded the punishment as referred  to  above.    Hence  this  appeal  by  the
\naggrieved appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Arguing  for  the  appellant\/accused,  the  learned Counsel would
\nsubmit that the lower Court without proper consideration of the evidence,  has
\nconvicted  the  accused;  that  it  is  pertinent to note that there are vital
\ncontradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1  and  2;  that  they  are  interested
\nwitnesses; that a perusal of the accident register would show that two persons
\ncommitted  the  alleged  offence,  but the appellant alone has been arrayed as
\naccused; that the lower Court has not considered the defence put forth by  the
\naccused;  that  it  has  to  be  noted that before lodging the complaint under
\nEx.P1, the accused and his wife have lodged a complaint against  the  deceased
\nfor the acts done by him; that the complaint given by the accused and his wife
\nhas  been  totally  suppressed  by  the  prosecution, since it was against the
\nprosecution case; that this aspect of the matter would clearly show  that  the
\ncase  was  totally  cooked-up; that there is undue delay in lodging the F.I.R,
\nwhich would create a doubt on the entire prosecution case;  that  the  medical
\nevidence has not corroborated the prosecution case, and hence, the judgment of
\nthe lower Court has got to be set aside and the appellant\/accused be acquitted
\nof the charges against him.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Countering  to the above contentions of the appellant’s side, the
\nlearned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would argue that the  lower  Court
\nhas  thoroughly  analysed  the  entire evidence and has come to the conclusion
\nthat the accused was guilty of the charges against him; that  because  of  the
\nfact that P.Ws.1 and 2 are relatives, their evidence cannot be rejected, since
\ntheir evidence is cogent and acceptable; that there is no delay in lodging the
\nF.I.R.;  that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the ocular evidence;
\nthat the lower Court has correct found the appellant\/accused guilty  under  Ss
\n304(i) and 324 of I.P.C., and there is nothing to interfere in the judgment of
\nthe  lower  Court,  and  hence,  the judgment of the lower Court has got to be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  A careful consideration of  the  rival  submissions  and  thorough
\nappraisement  of  the  available  materials  would  lead  to  the irresistible
\nconclusion that there is no substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The gist of the prosecution case was  that  on  24.3.99  at  about
\n11.00  A.M.,  when  the deceased Madesh, the husband of P.W.1 was returning to
\nhis house after taking bath in Cauvery River, and when  he  was  crossing  the
\nhouse of one Rajamani, D.W.1 Rajammal, the wife of the accused abused him, and
\nhence  he  pushed  her  down,  and  seeing this, the accused armed with M.O.1.
\nbillhook attacked him on both hands and left side neck  of  the  deceased  and
\ncaused instantaneous  death.   At the outset it has got to be pointed out that
\nat the time  of  Sec.313  Cr.P.C.    questioning,  the  appellant\/accused  has
\ncategorically  admitted  that  it  was  he  who attacked the deceased with the
\nweapon and caused his death.  The incident has been clearly spoken to not only
\nby P.W.1, the injured witness, who came to the rescue of the  husband  at  the
\ntime of attack by the accused and who also sustained injuries, but also by the
\nother witnesses,  who  were  present namely P.Ws.3 and 4.  It is true that the
\nwitnesses examined on the side of the prosecution namely P.  Ws.1  and  2  are
\nclose relatives.    But,  the  Court cannot reject their testimonies solely on
\nthat ground.  It has to exercise careful scrutiny over them.  The evidence  of
\nthose  witnesses,  if  scrutinised  carefully,  inspires the confidence of the
\nCourt, because it is cogent and  acceptable.    That  apart,  as  pointed  out
\nalready,  the  presence of the accused at the time and place of occurrence and
\nthe attack on the deceased by a weapon are well admitted by him at the time of
\nquestioning under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.  It is pertinent to point out that D.W.1,
\nthe wife of the accused has also admitted the same.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  What was contended by the  defence  before  the  Court  below  and
\nequally  here also was that at the time of occurrence, the deceased Madesh not
\nonly pushed D.W.1 down, but attempted to outrage her modesty  by  pulling  her
\nsaree  and  jacket;  that enraged over the same and due to sudden provocation,
\nthe accused acted in such a manner thereby causing injuries; that  by  way  of
\nself defence, he is entitled to do so, and hence, the defence put forth by him
\nhas to  be  accepted.    This theory of self defence was rejected by the lower
\nCourt and rightly too.  The  wife  of  the  accused,  examined  as  D.W.1  has
\ncategorically admitted in her cross examination that it was for the first time
\nshe placed  the  whole story before the trial Court.  Hence, the contention of
\nthe appellant’s side that immediately after  the  occurrence,  the  appellant\/
\naccused  and D.W.1 had gone to the Police Station and gave a complaint, but it
\nwas not considered and no enquiry was made has got to be rejected.      9.  At
\nthe time of investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted the inquest  on
\nthe dead body of Madesh, prepared an inquest report and sent the dead body for
\nautopsy.   P.W.8 Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Edapadi conducted
\nautopsy on the dead body of Madesh.  The  Doctor  has  narrated  the  injuries
\nfound  and  has  opined that the death would have been caused due to shock and
\nhaemorrhage and injury to cervical spinal card and to major neck blood vessels
\non the left side.  This part of the medical evidence stands a  good  piece  of
\ncorroboration to  the ocular testimony through P.W.1 and other witnesses.  The
\nevidence as to the  chemical  analysis  reports  and  the  recovery  of  M.O.1
\npursuant  to  the  confessional  statement made by the accused voluntarily had
\nbeen placed in the hands of the trial Court.  Thus, the evidence  as  narrated
\nabove  would  be  suffice to find the accused guilty that it was he who caused
\nthe instantaneous death of the said Madesh by attacking him with M.O.1  weapon
\nof murder  at  the  time  and place of occurrence.  At the time of occurrence,
\nwhen P.W.1 intervened to save her  husband,  she  was  also  attacked  by  the
\nappellant, and  the  accused  caused  simple  injuries  to  her.  She was also
\nexamined medically and  certificate  has  also  been  brought  forth,  wherein
\ninjuries have been narrated, and thus, the charge under Sec.324 of I.P.C.  has
\nalso been proved.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Under  the  stated  circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly
\ncorrect in recording a conviction not  under  Sec.302  of  I.P.C.,  but  under
\nSec.304(i) of  I.P.C.    in  view  of the fact that at the time of occurrence,
\nthere was a huge quarrel, and following the same.  the accused  has  acted  in
\nsuch a manner, and further at the time of occurrence, it should have been well
\nwithin  the  knowledge  of  the  accused  that  the assault on the neck of the
\ndeceased with M.O.1 deadly weapon would cause instantaneous death.  The  lower
\nCourt  is  also right in finding the appellant\/accused guilty under Sec.324 of
\nI.P.C.  There is nothing to interfere in the conviction passed  by  the  lower
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Coming  to the question of sentence, the lower Court has awarded
\n10 years R.I.  to the appellant\/accused under Sec.304(i) of I.P.C.  along with
\nfine.  Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,  the
\nCourt  is  of  the  considered view that the reduction of the sentence from 10
\nyears R.I.  to 7 years R.I.  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.    In  other
\nrespects, the sentences awarded by the lower Court has got to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In  the  result,  the  sentence  of 10 years R.I.  imposed by the
\nlower Court on the appellant\/accused under Sec.304(i)  of  I.P.C.    alone  is
\nmodified, and  the  appellant\/accused  shall  undergo  7  years  R.I.    under
\nSec.304(i) I.P.C.  In other respects, the  judgment  of  the  lower  Court  is
\nconfirmed.  With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1) The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sangagiri.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sangagiri,
\nThro’ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
3) The III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
4) The III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem,
\nThro’ The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
5) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
6) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
7) The D.I.G.  of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n
8) Mr.O.Srinath, Government Advocate (Crl.  Side),
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
9) The Inspector of Police, Poolampatti Police Station,
\nSalem.\n<\/p>\n
10)The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Race Course
\nPolice Station.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.501 of 2001 Subramanian @ Subban .. Appellant -Vs- State rep. by: The Inspector of Police Poolampatti Police Station Salem District Cr.No.233 of 1999 .. Respondent […]<\/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-216324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - 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\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-14T03:28:42+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\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T03:28:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2471,\"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\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T03:28:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - 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\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-14T03:28:42+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\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T03:28:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003"},"wordCount":2471,"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\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003","name":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T03:28:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-subban-vs-state-rep-by-on-23-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subramanian @ Subban vs State Rep. By: on 23 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/216324","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=216324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}