{"id":218402,"date":"2008-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-26T05:55:43","modified_gmt":"2015-03-26T00:25:43","slug":"marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATE :01.04.2008\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM\n\nCriminal Appeal No.309 of 2002\n\n\nMarimuthu\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Appellant\n\nVersus\n\n\nThe State represented\nby the Inspector of Police\nKeelapolur Police Station\nAriyalur District.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      ..Respondent\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed against the Judgment dated 20.02.2002, made in S.C.No.68 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, convicting the appellant herein for an offence offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentencing him for four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000\/-.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t: Mr.A.Meenakshisundaram\n\t\tFor Respondent   : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj\n\t\t\t\t\t   Government Advocate (Crl. side)\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appellant stands convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur in S.C.No.68 of 2001, for the offence  under Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced him for four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.  Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1  is the resident of  Keelapolur Village.  About 10 years back he became sick and was immobilized.  His wife Amsavalli only had taken care of the family.  P.W.1’s wife’s sister was married by the accused.  Both the families were living in the same house and there was some partition.  There was only one entrance for that.  About two years prior to the date of evidence one day at 10.00p.m., after closing the door, P.W.1, his wife the deceased and their daughter were all sleeping.  The accused who came there shouted as to why the door was closed and he also beat the deceased and P.W.1. There was a Panchayat and thereafter P.W.1 was not in talking terms with the accused.  On 19.09.1999, at 10.00p.m., while the deceased and their daughter were sleeping.  The accused after eating washed his hands and sprinkled water on them.  The deceased questioned the accused as to why he was not pouring water at the open place, but pouring the water on them, then  the  accused  questioned her whether she would die if the water falls on her.  Immediately, the deceased asked him if she died whether  he would save her husband.  Then the accused caught hold of the hair of the deceased, pulled her down and beat her on the back and kicked her on the stomach.  As P.W.1 questioned, he was also kicked by the accused.  P.Ws. 3 and 4 came and intervened.  The deceased   cried due to stomach pain and  vomited.  One Ramalingam came and took the deceased to the hospital and she was taken to a private clinic.  On the next day, the deceased was taken to the Tanjure Medical College Hospital.  On 21.01.1999 she died  in the hospital.  The Police were informed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police of Keelapolur Police Station on receiving the telephonic information from the Constable from the Hospital, he went to the hospital and saw the body of the deceased and thereafter obtained Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 at 11.30p.m., and also obtained his left thumb impression and came back to the Police Station at 3.00p.m., and registered the case in Crime No.353 of 2009 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. P.W.14, Inspector of Police of Keelapolur Police Station took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.6 and also prepared the observation mahazar  and went to the  hospital and held inquest and prepared Ex.P.7 inquest report.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. P.W.9, post mortem Doctor received the requisition on 22.09.1999 at 1.30p.m., and held autopsy and noticed the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
\tExternal Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.Dark brown coloured abrasions noted over.\n<\/p>\n
i. Medical aspect of lower part of left knee 1 x 1 cms.\n<\/p>\n
ii. Below the right knee 2 x 1 cms.\n<\/p>\n
iii.Lateral to left elbow 2 x 1 cms.\n<\/p>\n
iv. Abraded contusion over the hair margin of middle of forehead measuring 4 x 4 cms.\n<\/p>\n
v. Abrasion of 1 x 1 cms over the back of right elbow with surrounding contusion over an area of 4 x 4 cms.\n<\/p>\n
vi. Multiple scratch abrasions of various sizes cresenteric abrasions nail markings noted over clavicular area, left side of neck, supra sternal notch areas, front of middle of neck.\n<\/p>\n
2. Contusion (bluish black) noted over the lower third of medical aspect of right thigh measuring 4 x 4 cms x muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
3. Abdomen was found distended.\n<\/p>\n
\tInternal Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
4.  On dissection of abdomen  about 2.5 liters of bile stained fowl smelling yellowish brown coloured fluid came out immediately after opening the abdomen.  A perforation tear noted 5 cm away from the duodenal jejunal flexure over the jejunum measuring  1.5 x 1.5 cms x lumen deep.  Another perforation over the 3rd part of duodenum on the anterior aspect measuring 1 x 1 cms x lumen deep.  Contusion over the root of mesentery measuring 4 x 4 cms.  Multiple small contusions of various sizes over the coils of small intestine.  Coils of small intestine were found matted together.  Flakes of greenish yellow coloured fowl smelling pus noted sticking on to the stomach, liver and coils of small intestine.\n<\/p>\n
5. On reflecting the scalp sub scalp contusion noted over both sides frontal regions.\n<\/p>\n
All the above mentioned injuries were of antemortem in nature due to blunt injury of abdomen involving the hallow viscus of abdomen.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Doctor opined that  the deceased would appear to have died due to the septic complications of blunt injury of abdomen perforation peritonitis.  Ex.P.4 is the post mortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. P.W.15 took up further investigation on 25.02.2000 and also examined the witnesses and P.W.16 continued the investigation from 05.12.2000 and on completing the investigation laid the final report  under Sections 352, 325 and 302 IPC on 27.02.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating circumstances, he denied his complicity.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits and the defence has neither examined any witness nor marked any exhibits.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The trial Court considered the evidence of the witnesses and convicted the accused.  P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased and he had been present at the time of occurrence.  His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of his daughter P.W.2 with regard to the occurrence.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are cogent and convincing.  There is no reason for  P.Ws.1 and 2 to depose falsely against the accused and the defence also has not suggested anything.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused did not have the intention of causing the death of the deceased and he had no knowledge that by his act would cause the death of the deceased.  The occurrence had taken only in  spur of the moment after the wordy quarrel.  The deceased also died only two days after the occurrence due to complications and due to improper treatment.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned Government Advocate submitted that though the accused did not have the intention of causing death, he might have had knowledge that by his act he is to cause the death of the deceased.  Kicking on the abdomen is a dangerous act and thereby the accused had knowledge that he is to cause an injury which is likely to cause the death.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The deceased was attacked by the accused on 19.09.1999 at 10.00p.m.  She was taken to the Doctor P.W.13 who had a private clinic and there she was treated only for  her stomach pain.  As the pain did not subside even on the next day, P.W.13 has stated that  no X-ray facility was available.  Therefore, the deceased was sent to the Tanjore Medical College Hospital.  Though on 20.09.1999 evening the deceased was sent to the Tanjore Government Medical College Hospital.  But the Doctor who admitted in the hospital is not examined in this case and no record of admission is also marked in this case.  There is no evidence also at what time the deceased was admitted and died in the hospital.  The evidence available is that the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.10 received information from the hospital about the death of the deceased on 21.09.1999 at 7.50p.m.  The Grade-I Constable  1883 who gave the information also not examined.  Therefore it appears that the deceased had died even before taking treatment in the Tanjore Government Medical College Hospital.  As per Ex.P.4 post mortem certificate,  the external injuries found on the deceased are only minor injuries.  The death is due to internal injuries on the abdomen.  The death was caused due to the internal injuries which are the result of the attack on the abdomen.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the accused kicked the deceased on the stomach.  Therefore, there is every possibility of causing internal injury of abdomen.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The only question now is that to what extent the accused had knowledge about causing the internal injury by his act.  The perforation caused on the duodenal jejunal  flexure was the result of the blunt force on the abdomen.  Even so, whether it can be definitely said that by  kicking  on the abdomen, the accused could have the knowledge that the perforation is to be caused, which may result in death.  The post mortem Doctor had not stated in his evidence that the internal injuries caused was sufficient to cause death  or in the nature likely to cause death.  On the other hand, the Doctor had admitted  during the cross examination that the deceased died due to septicemia as she was not given proper treatment.  It is not established in this case by medical evidence that the death was the direct result of the attack on the deceased.  Though it could be said that the accused intentionally attacked the deceased on the stomach and caused an injury, it cannot be definitely said that he had all the knowledge by such act that internal injury is to be caused which could lead to death.  On the facts of this case, unimpeachable conclusion cannot be drawn against the accused that he possessed the knowledge that the death was likely consequences of his criminal  act.  Though in some cases, the beatings and kicks may attract knowledge on the part of the accused about the death of the deceased, since the injury caused may cause death in the ordinary course of nature.  In the present case, it is not established that internal injury caused was sufficient to cause  death in the ordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 304(ii) IPC is set aside instead of that he is convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to a period of only one year rigorous imprisonment, since eight years had elapsed after the occurrence.  The fine amount imposed already is retained for the offence under Section 325 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
ksr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.Principal District Judge, Perambalur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\nKeelapolur Police Station
\nAriyalur District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Presecutor
\nHigh Court
\nChennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE :01.04.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2002 Marimuthu ..Appellant Versus The State represented by the Inspector of Police Keelapolur Police Station Ariyalur District. ..Respondent Criminal Appeal filed against the […]<\/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-218402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMarimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 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\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-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=\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-26T00:25:43+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T00:25:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1719,\"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\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T00:25:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 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":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 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\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-26T00:25:43+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T00:25:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008"},"wordCount":1719,"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\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008","name":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T00:25:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marimuthu-vs-the-state-represented-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marimuthu vs The State Represented on 1 April, 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\/218402","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=218402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}