{"id":219802,"date":"2003-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003"},"modified":"2017-09-10T23:21:54","modified_gmt":"2017-09-10T17:51:54","slug":"kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 08\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCRL. APPEAL NO.422 OF 1996\n\nKovil Pillai                           .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState\nrep. by Inspector of Police\nValparai P.S.\nCr. No.26\/95                                    .. Respondent\n\n        This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C.    against\nthe  judgment dated 11.4.1996 in S.C.No.173 of 1995 on the file of the learned\nII Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan\n                for Mr.Calvin Jacob\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The sole accused in a case of murder, who stood charged, tried,  found<br \/>\nguilty  under  Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI with a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.1000\/- in default one year RI has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal  can  be<br \/>\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        a)  P.Ws.1  to  P.W.3  are the Supervisors working in Nadumalai Estate<br \/>\nwhere P.W.7 was the acting Manager during the relevant  time.    The  deceased<br \/>\nKumaravel was  working  as Writer under P.W.7.  P.W.8 Kanaki Devi was the wife<br \/>\nof the  deceased.    The  accused  Koil   Pillai&#8217;s   son   Ganesan   and   his<br \/>\ndaughter-in-law Bagyalakshmi  were  working  in  the  same  Estate.  They were<br \/>\nworking under the supervision of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>        b) On 13.1.1995, the said Ganesan and one person by name  George  were<br \/>\ncollecting the tea leaves at Field No.15 of the Estate.  P.W.2 Supervisor came<br \/>\nto  know  that  the  said Ganesan was discouraging George from collecting more<br \/>\nlaves and censured him.  P.W.2 informed the same to the deceased, who in  turn<br \/>\nbrought the same to the Manager of the Estate, namely, P.W.7.  P.W.7 suspended<br \/>\nthe said Ganesan for 20 days.  The complaint given by the deceased against the<br \/>\nsaid Ganesan  to  the  Manager  was  marked  as  Ex.P.8.  The said Ganesan has<br \/>\ntendered explanation, which was marked as Ex.P.9.  When the deceased  came  to<br \/>\nknow  that  Bagyalakshmi was also not properly doing her work, he sent her out<br \/>\nof the work.  On 30.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m., the accused went to  the  house<br \/>\nof the deceased  and  picked  up quarrel with him.  P.W.  Janaki Devi was also<br \/>\npresent at the time of quarrel.  The deceased has asked the accused to come to<br \/>\nthe Muster-roll building to discuss about his grievance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        c) On 31.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 were waiting  for  the<br \/>\narrival of  the  deceased  at  Muster-roll  building.    The  deceased used to<br \/>\ndistribute the work to the labourers at the Muster-roll building.   While  the<br \/>\ndeceased was  coming  as  usual  on  31.1.1995  at  about  7.00  a.m.   to the<br \/>\nMusterroll building, the accused emerged from the  side  of  the  pathway  and<br \/>\nattacked  the deceased with Kavathu Knife and caused injury on the left leg of<br \/>\nthe deceased.  The said occurrence was  witnessed  by  P.Ws.1  to  3.    After<br \/>\ncausing injury,  the  accused  sped  away  from  the scene of occurrence.  The<br \/>\ndeceased was taken to the hospital.  P.  W.4 Doctor Thambiran  gave  treatment<br \/>\nto the deceased  at  about  7.50  a.m.   On 31.1.1995.  Ex.P.2 is the accident<br \/>\nregister issued by the said doctor.  P.W.4 sent the intimation to  the  police<br \/>\nunder Ex.P.3.    He also sent the death intimation to the police under Ex.P.4.<br \/>\nP.W.14 Duraisamy  Head  Constable  attached  to  Valparai  Police  Station  on<br \/>\nintimation  went  to  the  hospital  and got the intimation that Kumaravel had<br \/>\ndied.  He obtained the  statement  of  P.W.1.    On  the  strength  of  Ex.P.1<br \/>\ncomplaint,  P.W.14  registered a case in Crime No.26 of 1995 under Section 302<br \/>\nIPC against the  accused.    Ex.P.20  printed  F.I.R  was  despatched  to  the<br \/>\nconcerned court, while the copies were sent to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n<p>        d) P.W.15 Easwaran Inspector of Police on receipt of the F.I.R took up<br \/>\ninvestigation, proceeded  to  the  site of occurrence at about 10.30 a.m.  and<br \/>\nprepared observation mahazar Ex.P.10 in the  presence  of  P.W.9  and  another<br \/>\nwitness by  name  Veeriah  and  h  so prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.21.  He<br \/>\nseized the blood stained earth  M.O.4  and  the  sample  earth  M.O.5  in  the<br \/>\npresence of  the  same  witnesses  under Ex.P.11 mahazar.  P.W.11 photographer<br \/>\ntook photographs and photographs M.Os6 to 10 were taken.    The  Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer  conducted  inquest in the presence of the panchayatdhars and prepared<br \/>\nEx.P.23 inquest report.  On request made by the Investigating  Officer,  P.W.5<br \/>\nDr.Mary  Sugantha  attached  to  Government  Hospital,  Valparai has conducted<br \/>\nautopsy on  31.1.1995  at  about  2.00  p.m.    Ex.P.6  was  the   post-mortem<br \/>\ncertificate.   He  narrated the injuries found on the body and has opined that<br \/>\nthe deceased would appear to have died of shock due to massive haemorrhage due<br \/>\nto injury to important blood vessels approximately  about  6  hours  prior  to<br \/>\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n<p>        e) On  1.2.1995  at  about  9.10  a.m.  near the bus stop of Nadumalai<br \/>\nEstate, P.w.15 arrested the accused in the  presence  of  P.W.10  and  another<br \/>\nwitness Rajan  and  obtained  confessional  statement  from  the accused.  The<br \/>\nadmissible portion of  the  confessional  statement  was  marked  as  Ex.P.12.<br \/>\nPursuant to the same, the accused\/appellant produced the blood stained Kavathu<br \/>\nknife  M.O.1  under  Ex.P.13  mahazar  in  the presence of the said witnesses.<br \/>\nP.W.15 brought the accused along with the knife to the police station  and  on<br \/>\nfinding  that the accused has sustained some injuries, he has sent the accused<br \/>\nto the hospital for treatment with  a  memo.    On  requisition  made  by  the<br \/>\nInvestigating  Officer, the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai sent M.Os.1 to 5 for<br \/>\nchemical examination under Ex.P.15.   The  biology  report  Ex.P.16,  serology<br \/>\nreport Ex.P.17 and the chemical analysis report Ex.P.18 were received.  P.W.15<br \/>\nrecorded the  statement  of  all  other  witnesses.    On  completion  of  the<br \/>\ninvestigation, he filed a charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In order to prove the charges levelled against  the  accused,  the<br \/>\nprosecution examined  15  witnesses  and  marked  23 exhibits and 11 M.Os.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the  prosecution,  the  accused  was<br \/>\nquestioned  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C  as to the incriminating circumstances<br \/>\nfound in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which the  accused  flatly<br \/>\ndenied as false.  No defence witness was examined and no materials were marked<br \/>\non the  side  of  the defence.  On consideration of the rival submissions made<br \/>\nand scrutiny of the materials available, the lower  court  found  the  accused<br \/>\nguilty  under  Section 326 IPC, though not under Section 302 IPC and sentenced<br \/>\nto undergo imprisonment as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Advancing his argument on behalf of  the  appellant,  the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan inter-alia made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  lower  court  has failed to consider that there was absolutely no<br \/>\nevidence available connecting the accused to the crime.  P.Ws.1 to  3,  during<br \/>\nthe  relevant  time,  were  working  as  Supervisor  and the deceased was also<br \/>\nworking as Supervisor, and thus, they were all interested witnesses.   At  the<br \/>\ntime  of  investigation,  the Investigating Officer has found that the accused<br \/>\nalso sustained injuries.  He was also sent for medical examination along  with<br \/>\nmemo and  the  injuries were also found.  The prosecution has not come forward<br \/>\nto explain the said injuries.  There was a delay  in  the  first  information,<br \/>\nwhich was  not  properly  explained  by the prosecution.  Thus, without proper<br \/>\nappreciation of the evidence, the lower court has convicted him under  Section<br \/>\n326 IPC.    In view of the reasons stated above, the accused is entitled to an<br \/>\nacquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Strongly opposing the contentions put  forth  by  the  appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nside, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that there<br \/>\nwas  overwhelming evidence in the instant case, which was properly appreciated<br \/>\nby the lower court and the lower court has  found  the  accused  guilty  under<br \/>\nSection  326  IPC,  and  hence,  the judgment of the lower court has got to be<br \/>\naffirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  A careful analysis and appraisement of the evidence available  and<br \/>\nfull  consideration  of  the  rival  submissions made, this Court is unable to<br \/>\nnotice any substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Admittedly,  the  accused  Kovil  Pillai&#8217;s  son  Ganesan  and  his<br \/>\ndaughter-in-law  Bagyalakshmi were working under the deceased, who was working<br \/>\nas Supervisor of Nadumalai Estate.  Prior to the occurrence,  a  complaint  as<br \/>\nfound under Ex.P.8 was lodged by the deceased to his Manager alleging that the<br \/>\nson  of  the  accused was discouraging the coworkers and on that count, he was<br \/>\nsuspended for a period of 20 days.  When the daughter-in-law of  the  accused,<br \/>\nnamely,  Bagyalakshmi  was not properly doing her work, the deceased also kept<br \/>\nher out of service.  Enraged over the same, the appellant\/accused has gone  to<br \/>\nthe residence  of  the deceased on 30.1.1995 and quarrelled with him.  At that<br \/>\ntime, the deceased has asked the accused  to  come  to  Muster-roll  building,<br \/>\nwhere it could be better discussed.  On 31.1.1995 at about 7.00 a.m.  when the<br \/>\ndeceased  was  proceeding  from  his  house  to  the Muster-roll building, the<br \/>\naccused emerged from the side of the pathway and attacked  the  deceased  with<br \/>\nM.O.1 kavathu knife and caused severe injury wo the deceased.  This act of the<br \/>\naccused was  witnessed  by  P.Ws.1  to  3.   All these three eyewitnesses have<br \/>\ncategorically narrated the  occurrence.    Their  evidence  has  inspired  the<br \/>\nconfidence  of  the  Court  in  view  of  the  cogency and the lower court has<br \/>\ncorrectly relied on their evidence.  Immediately, the injured was taken to the<br \/>\nhospital, where he was treated by P.W.4  Dr.Thambiran.    He  issued  accident<br \/>\nregister,  which  was  marked  as Ex.P.2 where P.W.4 has narrated the injuries<br \/>\nfound on the deceased and the statement of the deceased also.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  On intimation, P.W.14 Head Constable attached to  Valparai  Police<br \/>\nStation  proceeded to the hospital and came to know that the injured has died.<br \/>\nHe received a complaint from P.W.1.  On the strength of which, a case came  to<br \/>\nbe  registered  and  investigation  was  taken up by the Investigating Officer<br \/>\nshortly within a few hours after the occurrence.  After the  inquest  made  by<br \/>\nthe Investigating Officer, a requisition was forwarded to Government Hospital,<br \/>\nValparai  to  conduct  postmortem, where P.W.5 Doctor has conducted autopsy on<br \/>\nthe dead body of the deceased and has given  post-mortem  certificate  Ex.P.6.<br \/>\nP.W.5  has  opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to<br \/>\nmassive haemorrhage due to injury to  important  blood  vessels  approximately<br \/>\nabout  6 hours prior to autopsy, and thus, the medical evidence adduced by the<br \/>\nprosecution has clearly corroborated the ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  One adding circumstance in the instant case was  the  confessional<br \/>\nstatement  made voluntarily by the accused before the Investigating Officer at<br \/>\nthe time of his arrest in the presence of the  witnesses.    Pursuant  to  the<br \/>\nsame, seizure  of  MO1,  blood stained knife was made.  The fact of arrest and<br \/>\nrecovery of MO1 knife all were well  spoken  to  by  P.W.10.    Despite  cross<br \/>\nexamination, his  evidence  as  to those facts remained intact.  This piece of<br \/>\nevidence stood as a corroborative piece of evidence showing the nexus  between<br \/>\nthe accused  and  the  crime  in  question.    All  the M.Os were subjected to<br \/>\nchemical analysis and the reports have been marked.  They have also  supported<br \/>\nthe case of the prosecution.  As rightly pointed out by the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate ( Criminal side), there was overwhelming evidence in the instant case<br \/>\npointing to the guilt of the accused that it was he who caused injuries to the<br \/>\ndeceased, which caused his death.  The lower court discussed the circumstances<br \/>\nand  has  found  that  it is not a fit case which would fall under Section 302<br \/>\nIPC, but would fall under Section 326 IPC.  This Court, in view of the reasons<br \/>\nadduced by the lower court, does not find  any  reason  to  deviate  from  the<br \/>\nrecordings as to the conviction under Section 326 IPC.  10.    Coming  to  the<br \/>\nquestion of sentence, the lower court has awarded punishment  of  7  years  RI<br \/>\nalong with  a  fine  of Rs.10 00\/- in default one year RI to the accused.  The<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appelant brought to the notice of the Court  that  the<br \/>\naccused  is  aged about 80 years, and hence, some leniency has got to be shown<br \/>\nas to the punishment given to the accused.    Taking  into  consideration  the<br \/>\nfacts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  Court  is of the view that the<br \/>\npunishment awarded by the lower court to the accused under Section  3  26  IPC<br \/>\nhas  got  to  be  reduced  to  four  years RI along with fine of Rs.1 000\/- in<br \/>\ndefault three months RI.  Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the lower court<br \/>\nto the accused under Section 326 IPC is reduced to four years  RI  along  with<br \/>\nfine of  Rs.1000\/-  in  default three months RI.  With the above modification,<\/p>\n<p>this criminal appeal is dismissed.  The Sessions Judge  shall  take  steps  to<br \/>\ncommit  the  accused  to  prison,  if  he is on bail, to undergo the remaining<br \/>\nperiod of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Judicial Magistrate, Valparai\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Judicial Magistrate, Valparai<br \/>\nthrough the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The II Addl.  Sessions Judge, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The II Addl.  Sessions Judge, Coimbatore<br \/>\nthrough the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  The Dy.  Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt.  Advocate (Crl side)<br \/>\nHigh Court, Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  The Inspector of Police, Valparai Police Station<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM CRL. APPEAL NO.422 OF 1996 Kovil Pillai .. Appellant -Vs- State rep. by Inspector of Police Valparai P.S. Cr. No.26\/95 .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under [&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-219802","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>Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - 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\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-10T17:51:54+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-10T17:51:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2119,\"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\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-10T17:51:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 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":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - 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\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-10T17:51:54+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-10T17:51:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003"},"wordCount":2119,"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\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003","name":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-10T17:51:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovil-pillai-vs-state-on-8-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kovil Pillai vs State on 8 August, 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\/219802","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=219802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219802\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}