{"id":220382,"date":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-10-16T23:57:05","modified_gmt":"2015-10-16T18:27:05","slug":"teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 20\/10\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI\n\nC.A. No.196 of 2002\n\nTeakon                                         .. Appellant\n\n-vs-\n\nState by Inspector of Police,\nValparai Police Station\nValparai,\nCoimbatore District.\n(Crime No.111\/97)                               .. Respondent\n\n        Criminal Appeal against the judgment made in S.C.No.126 of 1998\ndated 11.12.1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.\n\n!For Appellant  : Mr.A.Ganesh\n\n^For Respondent : Mr.E.Raja,\n                  Addl.Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
T.V. MASILAMANI, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The appellant is the accused in the Sessions Case No.126  of  1998  on
\nthe file  of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.  He was convicted under
\nSections 392 r\/w.  397, 302, 323 and 201 (Part-I) I.P.C.    by  the  Principal
\nSessions  Judge,  Coimbatore  on  11.12.1998  and he has preferred this appeal
\nquestioning the legality of the same.\n<\/p>\n
        2. The appellant herein is referred to hereunder as accused for the sake of convenience.\n<\/p>\n
        3. The charge against the accused in substance may be extracted
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
        On 13\/14.5.1997 at mid night in Nadumalai Estate,  South  division  in
\nValparai,  the  accused  with the intention to commit robbery after committing
\nmurder of the deceased Saraswathi @ Chinnammal in the backyard of  her  house,
\nattacked her with iron rod and robbed her of two sovereign of gold chain worth
\nRs.6,000\/-.   In the course of the same transaction, the accused had assaulted
\nthe witness Perumal Ammal @  Thangammal,  mother  of  the  deceased  and  also
\nstrangulated her  neck  with intention to commit murder.  In the course of the
\nsame transaction, the accused had with the intention to cause the evidence  of
\nthe  offence  to  disappear,  dragged the dead body of Saraswathi @ Chinnammal
\ninto the tea garden and buried the same.  Hence, he is liable to  be  punished
\nunder Sections 392, 302, 307, 201 r\/w 301 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Since  the  accused  denied  the  charges framed against him, the
\nprosecution examined  16  witnesses,  marked  20  documents  and  produced  13
\nmaterial objects to bring home the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  case  of  the  prosecution as discerned from the prosecution
\nevidence may be set out briefly as hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                (a)  Perumal  Ammal  @  Thangammal  (since  deceased)  is  the
\neye-witness  in  this  case  who lodged the complaint, Ex.P-18 in the hospital
\nwhere she was admitted after the occurrence for treatment and Ex.P-19  is  the
\nfirst information report prepared by P.W.14, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
\nValparai Police Station who recorded the complaint from the said Perumal Ammal
\n@ Thangammal and prepared the printed F.I.R.  which set the law in motion.\n<\/p>\n
                (b)  The  accused  as  well  as  the  deceased were working in
\nNadumalai Estate, Valparai as labourers in the  tea  estate.    While  so,  on
\n13\/14.5  .1997  at  mid  night  12.00  O’Clock while the deceased Saraswathi @
\nChinnammal came out of her house to attend the natural call, the  accused  had
\nassaulted  her  with M.O.2, iron rod and caused the fatal injuries as a result
\nof which she succumbed to the same.  The accused had also committed robbery by
\nsnatching away from the neck  of  the  deceased  the  gold  chain  weighing  2
\nsovereign worth  Rs.6,000\/-  which  is  marked as M.O.1.  When Perumal Ammal @
\nThangammal, mother of the deceased happened to  witness  the  occurrence,  the
\naccused  had  also  assaulted  her  and  caused injuries with the intention to
\ncommit murder.  Thereafter, the accused dragged the body of the deceased  into
\nthe tea  garden  and  buried  the  same.    P.Ws.1  and  2  had  witnessed the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                (c) P.W.3, another worker in the same tea estate known to  the
\naccused,  had  lent  his gold chain weighing 2 sovereign to the accused as the
\nlatter requested him to give his chain as he had to go  to  another  place  of
\nimportance and since the accused failed to return the same till the day before
\nthe  occurrence,  P.W.3  warned  him  of  the consequence that if he failed to
\nreturn the gold chain, he would lodge a complaint to the police.\n<\/p>\n
                (d) P.W.4, son of the said  Perumal  Ammal  @  Thangammal  and
\nbrother  of  the  deceased,  is  working as driver in the Government Transport
\nCorporation at Valparai.  He learnt about the incident on 14.5.1997  at  about
\n3.30 A.M.  in the early hours and came to the place of occurrence and took his
\nmother Perumal  Ammal  @  Thangammal  to  Valparai  Government  Hospital.  She
\nnarrated about the incident to P.W.4  in  the  hospital.    P.W.9  doctor  who
\ntreated  Perumal  Ammal @ Thangammal issued the wound certificate, Ex.P-11 and
\nsent intimation to the police under Ex.P-1 0.\n<\/p>\n
                (e) Having received the said intimation, P.W.14, Sub Inspector
\ncame to the hospital on 14.5.1997 at 5.30 A.M.   and  recorded  the  complaint
\nfrom  Perumal  Ammal  @  Thangammal under Ex.P-18 and prepared printed F.I.R.,
\nEx.P-19 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai as well as  the
\ncopies to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
                (f)  P.W.15  Inspector  of Police in-charge of Valparai Police
\nStation took up the investigation having received the copies of  Exs.P-18  and
\nP-19 at  12.00 noon on 14.5.1997 and proceeded to the place of occurrence.  He
\nissued requisition for exhumation of the  dead  body  under  Ex.P-6  to  P.W.8
\nTahsildar, Valparai.    P.W.8  along  with  P.W.10 doctor went to the place of
\noccurrence, exhumed the body and proceeded to conduct the inquest as  well  as
\nthe post-mortem.  The inquest report prepared by P.W.8 is Ex.P-8.\n<\/p>\n
                (g)  Ex.P-12  is  the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.10
\ndoctor  after  conducting  port-mortem  on  the  dead  body  of  Saraswathi  @
\nChinnammal at the place of occurrence in pursuance of the requisition given by
\nP.W.8 under Ex.P-7.  P.W.10, the Autopsy Surgeon, found the following injuries
\non the dead body of the deceased:-\n<\/p>\n
“Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
        1.   Laceration over the right side of occipital bone oblique 5 cm x 2
\ncm x 2 cm underlying structures lacerated, bone fractured  depressed,  covered
\nwith sand and blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Laceration  over  the  right  side of occipital bone oblique 2 cm
\nbelow and parallel to wound 1.1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm covered with sand  and  blood
\nclots.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Laceration occipito-parietal region oblique left side 4 cm x 2 cm
\nx 2 cm.  Wound covered with sand and blood clots,  underlying  bone  fractured
\nand depressed.    On removing the scalp bones broken into fragments, depressed
\nin wounds 1 and 3.  The occipital bone broken into fragments on the right  and
\nleft sides and left parietal bone.  On removing the skull bones haematoma seen
\nunderlying  membranes  lacerated  with laceration of brain brain substance and
\nvessels.”\n<\/p>\n
She has opined that the deceased would appear to have died  of  shock  due  to
\nextensive  haemorrhage,  multiple fractures and injury to brain about 17 to 20
\nhours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
                (h)  P.W.15   continued   his   investigation   and   prepared
\nobservation  mahazar,  Ex.P-1 in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness and
\nalso prepared the rough sketch, Ex.P-20.  Thereafter he recovered M.O.3, blood
\nstained earth and M.O.4, sample earth in the presence of  the  same  witnesses
\nunder cover of mahazar, Ex.P-2 and he had also arranged to take photographs of
\nthe place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                (i)  On the same day at 5.45 P.M., P.W.15 arrested the accused
\nin the bus stop at Samathapuram in Nadumalai Estate and recorded his voluntary
\nconfession in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.  In pursuance of  the
\nadmissible  portion  of  confession,  Ex.P-5, the accused had taken the police
\nparty along with witnesses to the tea garden No.1 4 in  Nadumalai  Estate  and
\nproduced  M.O.2,  iron rod and M.O.5, picas which had been recovered by P.W.15
\nunder cover of  mahazar,  Ex.P-3  in  the  presence  of  the  same  witnesses.
\nThereafter,  the  accused took them to his house and produced M.O.1 gold chain
\nweighing 2 sovereign and the same was  recovered  by  P.W.15  under  cover  of
\nmahazar,  Ex.P-4  in  the  presence  of  P.W.7  and another and recorded their
\nstatements.  On the same night at 8.30 P.M., he brought  the  accused  to  the
\npolice station  and  sent  him to lock-up.  On 15.5.1997, P.W.15 forwarded the
\naccused along with the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate for remand.\n<\/p>\n
                (j) On 15.5.1997, P.W.15 examined Thangammal who was  admitted
\nto  Medical  College  Hospital  at  Coimbatore  for treatment and obtained her
\nstatement.  He examined P.W.5 and other witnesses in Valpalai  Police  Station
\non the  same day and recorded their statements.  Thereafter he examined P.W.10
\ndoctor in the Government Hospital and recorded her statement.\n<\/p>\n
                (k) P.W.16, the Inspector who succeeded P.W.15  continued  the
\ninvestigation  and  gave  requisition  Ex.P-14  to  the  Judicial  Magistrate,
\nValparai to send the material objects for  chemical  analysis.    Further,  on
\n7.6.1997,  he  examined P.W.8 Tahsildar and another witness and recorded their
\nstatements.  On 16.8.1997, he examined P.W.9, doctor  who  treated  Thangammal
\nafter obtaining   Ex.P-11   wound   certificate.      After   completing   the
\ninvestigation, he laid the final report against the accused on 22.4.1998 under
\nSections 302, 392, 307, 201 r\/w 301 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  On 23.12.1997, Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal died and therefore  even
\nthough  she was cited as prosecution witness, she could not be examined during
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  When the accused was questioned under Section 313  Cr.P.C.    with
\nreference  to  the  incriminating  circumstances in the evidence let in by the
\nprosecution, he denied the same.  He  examined  one  witness  and  marked  two
\ndocuments on the side of defence.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The learned Principal Sessions Judge having analysed the evidence
\nboth oral and documentary arrived at the penultimate conclusion  that  on  the
\nfateful  night,  the  accused  with  the  intention to commit robbery beat the
\ndeceased with iron rod on her head and caused  fatal  injuries  to  which  she
\nsuccumbed at  the  place  of  occurrence.  Thereafter, he committed robbery in
\nsnatching the gold chain weighing 2 sovereign from her  neck.    Further,  the
\naccused  had  also  dragged  the  deceased  Saraswathi into the tea garden and
\nburied her with the intention to cause the evidence to disappear.  Further  he
\nhad  also  attacked Thangammal, mother of the deceased who happened to witness
\nthe occurrence and caused injuries.  In the above circumstances,  the  learned
\ntrial Judge  found  the  accused guilty under Sections 392 r\/w.  397, 302, 323
\nand 2 01 (Part-I) I.P.C.  and sentenced him to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment
\nfor 7  years  under  Section  392  r\/w 397 I.P.C.  and life imprisonment under
\nSection 302 I.P.C.  and rigorous imprisonment for one year under  Section  323
\nI.P.C.  and also ordered the sentence to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant\/accused  has therefore
\nsubmitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by  the  learned
\nPrincipal  Sessions  Judge has to be reversed on any of the grounds averred in
\nthe memorandum of appeal.  Firstly, he has  contended  that  the  trial  court
\nerred in  believing the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2.  There is
\nno explanation on<\/p>\n
the part of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 in not lodging the complaint at the earliest
\nopportunity if really they had witnessed the occurrence.  It  is  the  further
\ncontention  put  forth  by  him that the subsequent conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 in
\nrespect of their failure to inform anyone about the occurrence till the police
\nenquired would also probablise the defence version.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Similarly,  he  has  argued  that  P.W.5  to  whom  the  injured
\ncomplainant  narrated about the incident also failed to lodge any complaint to
\nthe police  about  the  occurrence.    Therefore  his  evidence  is  not  only
\nartificial but also becomes unbelievable.  It is contended further that P.W.4,
\nson  of  Thangammal  and  brother  of  the  deceased  who came to the scene of
\noccurrence after receiving information about the occurrence failed  to  inform
\nthe  police  and  also  to  search  for his sister, the deceased in this case.
\nHence, he would  urge  that  his  evidence  also  becomes  suspicious  in  the
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Regarding  the  arrest  of  the  accused  also,  the prosecution
\nevidence is not cogent and therefore the learned counsel has  argued  that  on
\nthat  ground  alone,  the  judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the
\ntrial court has to be  set  aside.    Similarly,  the  medical  evidence  with
\nreference  to  absence  of any bruises and abrasions found in the dead body of
\nSaraswathi would go to show and prove that the accused could not have  dragged
\nthe dead  body  so  as to bury the same.  Similarly, he has submitted that the
\nmotive alleged for the murder is not only very weak, but also  appears  to  be
\nunbelievable  for the fact that the deceased was also wearing two gold bangles
\nand two gold ear studs at  the  time  of  occurrence  as  the  same  had  been
\nrecovered after  post-mortem  from  her body.  Therefore he has contended that
\nthe accused would not have robbed her gold chain alone and it follows that the
\nmotive alleged is proved to be false.    Regarding  the  weapon  used  in  the
\ncommission  of the offence also, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary
\nand therefore becomes unbelievable.  The learned Sessions Judge ought to  have
\naccepted  the statement of Thangammal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate as a
\npiece of evidence in favour of of the accused.  Thus, the learned counsel  for
\nthe accused has contended that the trial court verdict has to be reversed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Having  regard  to  the  materials  available  on record and the
\ncircumstances as narrated above, it has become necessary to  consider  whether
\nthe  prosecution  has  brought  home  the  guilt of the accused on all charges
\nleveled against him by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The deceased Saraswathi @ Chinnammal and her mother Perumal Ammal
\n@ Thangammal  were  residing  at  Nadumalai  Tea  Estate,  South  Division  in
\nValparai.   P.W.4  Paramasivam,  son  of  said  Thangammal  and brother of the
\ndeceased  Saraswathi,  is  working  as  driver  in  the  Government  Transport
\nCorporation  and  he  was  residing  in Kamaraj Nagar, Valparai at the time of
\noccurrence.  Similarly, it is not in dispute that the  accused,  the  deceased
\nSaraswathi  and  Thangammal  as  well as the witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 7 were
\nknown to each other as they were working in Nadumalai  Estate  tea  garden  in
\nValparai.   In  the  above  background,  the  question whether the accused was
\nguilty of the offences charged against him has to be decided.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The fact that the deceased died of homicidal injuries  is  spoken
\nto by P.W.10, Autopsy Surgeon who conduced the post-mortem on the dead body of
\nSaraswathi as per the requisition, Ex.P-7 given by P.W.8 Tahsildar.  According
\nto  P.W.10,  the  deceased  would  appear to have died on account of shock and
\nhaemorrhage due to multiple fractures and injuries to the brain about 17 to 20
\nhours prior to the  autopsy  and  to  that  effect  she  has  issued  Ex.P-12,
\npost-mortem certificate.    Further P.W.10 has stated that the injuries 1 to 2
\nnoted in Ex.P-12 could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1, iron rod and
\nsuch injuries could cause death within few minutes  after  the  attack.    The
\ntotality  of  the  medical  evidence as narrated above would indicate that the
\ndeceased died on account of homicidal injuries and therefore  we  are  of  the
\nconsidered  view that the culpability of the accused with reference to causing
\nof such injuries has to be determined on the basis of the recorded evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  It is necessary to analyse the evidence of the  prosecution  with
\nreference to  the motive alleged for the commission of the offence.  According
\nto P.W.3, a co-worker in the estate, the accused had borrowed his  gold  chain
\nweighting  about 2 sovereign prior to the occurrence under the pretext that he
\nwould return the same after visiting another place wearing the chain.    Since
\nthe accused was evading to return the gold chain to P.W.3 under one pretext or
\nother,  P.W.3  finally  gave  a  ultimatum  to  him on the previous day of the
\noccurrence that if he failed to return the chain, he would lodge  a  complaint
\nto the police.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   It  is  in  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.1  and  2  that the deceased
\nSaraswathi was wearing M.O.1 gold chain with dollar weighing about 2 sovereign
\nand there is no reason shown to disbelieve their evidence, as neighbours, they
\nhad every occasion to see the deceased wearing the said chain.  It is in these
\ncircumstances, we are unable to accept the contention put forth by the learned
\ncounsel for the accused that the motive alleged  for  the  commission  of  the
\ncrime cannot be considered to be true.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In view of the above evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that
\ndespite  vigorous  cross-examination,  P.W.3 is consistent in his version that
\nwhenever he asked the accused to return the gold  chain,  he  was  evading  to
\ncomply with  the  demand.    It is relevant to note that he has empathetically
\ndenied the suggestion that the accused had not borrowed any  gold  chain  from
\nhim.   It  is  in  these  circumstances, we find no circumstance to disbelieve
\ntestimony P.W.3 on this aspect of the matter.  It follows necessarily that the
\nprosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive for the commission of the
\noffence by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Nextly, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be scrutinised as to
\nwhether the same is liable to be rejected for any of the reasons stated by the
\naccused in the memorandum of appeal.  P.W.1 is residing in the adjacent  house
\nwhere the deceased and her mother Thangammal were also residing.  According to
\nhim,  on 13\/14.5.1997 at mid-night about 12.00 O’Clock, he heard noise outside
\nand he opened his door and saw the accused attacking the deceased twice on her
\nhead with M.O.2, iron rod and after she fell down, he snatched the gold  chain
\nM.O.1 from  her neck and put the same in his pocket.  Similarly, he has stated
\nthat  the  accused  on  seeing  Thangammal  witnessing  the   occurrence   had
\nstrangulated  her  neck  with  hands and shut her mouth and also fisted on her
\nchest and pushed her to the ground.  Further according  to  him,  the  accused
\ndragged the deceased into the tea garden.  He has also explained that he could
\nnot  help  them on account of the fear psychosis as the accused was armed with
\nweapon.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In this context, the salient particulars of the  incident  spoken
\nto  by  P.W.1 as ocular witness have been materially corroborated by P.W.2 who
\nwas also residing in the adjacent house of P.W.1.  The learned counsel for the
\naccused would contend that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 in  not  informing  the
\npolice  or  any one about the incident would indicate that they could not have
\nwitnessed the occurrence.  On the contrary, as has been rightly argued by  the
\nlearned  Additional  Public Prosecutor, both the witnesses did not stir out of
\ntheir houses due to apprehension that the accused would attack them  also  and
\nwe are therefore hold that in view of the normal course of human conduct, they
\nappear to be natural witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Similarly,  the  learned counsel for the accused has argued that
\nthe contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the one hand and
\nthe medical evidence on the other  in  support  of  the  contention  that  the
\nprosecution case  is  not true.  He has stated that that the accused would not
\nhave dragged the dead body of Saraswathi to  a  distance  of  about  120  feet
\n(vide)  Ex.P-20  sketch  as  P.W.10  doctor  would  admit  that  there were no
\nabrasions or bruises found on  the  body  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of
\npost-mortem  and  therefore  he  would  urge  that  the  evidence  of both the
\nwitnesses has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  It is however relevant to note  that  the  deceased  was  wearing
\nsaree,  blouse  and  under  garments  (vide) evidence of P.W.12, Constable who
\nrecovered the clothes and other material objects recovered from  the  body  of
\nthe deceased  after  post-mortem.  Hence it stands to reason as also explained
\nby P.W.10, postmortem doctor that there was no abrasion found on the  back  of
\nthe dead  body of the deceased.  In view of such factual aspect of the matter,
\nwe are unable to agree with the defence counsel in this respect and  therefore
\nwe  render  a  finding  that  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.1  and  2  is cogent and
\nconvincing.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The medical evidence  as  narrated  above  has  corroborated  the
\nversion  of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the homicidal injuries found on the dead
\nbody of Saraswathi could have been caused by the accused with M.O.2, iron rod.
\nIn this regard, the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who treated  Thangammal  and
\nissued the wound certificate, Ex.P-11 assumes importance.  It is no doubt true
\nthat  as per the evidence of P.W.16, Investigating Officer, Thangammal died on
\n23.12.1997, long after the occurrence and therefore the prosecution was not in
\na position to examine her before the trial court.  However, the  fact  remains
\nthat  the  evidence  of both P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the assault by the accused
\nresulting in the injuries as found by P.W.9 on the  injured  Thangammal  found
\nproved by the oral testimony of P.W.9 and the wound certificate, Ex.P-11.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   Moreover,  such evidence finds corroboration in the testimony of
\nP.W.4, son of the  said  Thangammal  (since  deceased).    After  hearing  the
\nincident at  about 3.30 A.M.  in the early hours of 13\/14.5.1997, he came in a
\ntaxi to the residence of his mother and took her immediately to the Government
\nHospital, Valparai for treatment.  Though the learned counsel for the  accused
\nwould  draw  our attention that P.W.4 had neither made an attempt to trace his
\nsister nor informed the police immediately,  when  regard  being  had  to  the
\nnatural  course  of  human  conduct,  one  would  be anxious to get his mother
\nadmitted to the hospital at the earliest for treatment and  therefore,  we  do
\nnot see any unnatural conduct on the part of P.W.4 in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   The  complaint  Ex.P-18  was  recorded  by P.W.14 Sub Inspector,
\nValparai Police Station from Thangammal at  5.30  A.M.    on  14.5.1997  under
\nEx.P-10 intimation  given  by  P.W.9 doctor at 5.00 A.M.  soon after admitting
\nThangammal to the hospital for treatment and Ex.P-10 discloses that  the  same
\nwas received  by  P.W.14 at 5.30 A.M.  Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 14
\ncoupled with Exs.P-10 and P-11 would speak volume of testimony to  corroborate
\nthe evidence  of  both  P.Ws.1  and  2  regarding  the  occurrence.  As stated
\nearlier, the author of the complainant, Ex.P-18  Thagammal  died  subsequently
\nand  therefore  the evidence of P.W.14 would cure the lacunae in this context.
\nHaving regard to the above evidence both oral and documentary, we are  of  the
\nfirm  view  that  the  prosecution  has succeeded in proving the occurrence by
\nadducing satisfactory evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  The learned counsel for the accused has drawn  our  attention  to
\nEx.D-2   the  statement  recorded  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  D.W.1  from
\nThangammal (since deceased) when she was admitted to the hospital  immediately
\nafter  the occurrence in support of his argument that the sum and substance of
\nsuch statement would belie the prosecution case in entirety.  He would contend
\nthat Ex.D-2 may be considered as a  dying  declaration  of  Thangammal  (since
\ndeceased)  and  therefore  the  same  sanctity  attached  to dying declaration
\ndeserves to be given in respect of the same so  as  to  arrive  at  the  right
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  to  extract  the relevant
\nprovision under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act so as  to  appreciate
\nsuch contention.\n<\/p>\n
        “32.   Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead
\nor cannot be found, etc., is relevant.– Statements,  written  or  verbal,  or
\nrelevant  facts  made  by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who
\nhas become incapable  of  giving  evidence,  or  whose  attendance  cannot  be
\nprocured  without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances
\nof the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant  facts
\nin the following cases:–\n<\/p>\n
        (1) When it relates to cause of death.– When the statement is made by
\na  person  as  to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of
\nthe transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which  the  cause  of
\nthat person’s death comes into question.\n<\/p>\n
        Such  statements  are relevant whether the person who made them was or
\nwas not, at the time when they were made,  under  expectation  of  death,  and
\nwhatever  may  be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death
\ncomes into question.”\n<\/p>\n
        27.  In this case, admittedly Ex.D-2 was recorded on 14.5.1997 at  9.3
\n0 A.M.    in  the  Government  Hospital,  Valparai  and  according  to P.W.16,
\nInvestigating  Officer,  Thangammal  the  deponent  under  Ex.D-2  died  on  2
\n3.12.1997, about  7  months after recording the said statement.  It is not the
\ncase of either the prosecution or  the  defence  that  she  died  due  to  the
\ninjuries caused at the time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  It is therefore urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
\nplacing reliance on the ratio in the decision rendered by the Hon’ ble Supreme
\nCourt in RATTAN  SINGH  v.  STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (AIR<\/a> 19 97 S.C.  768) as
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act renders a statement relevant which was made
\nby a person who is dead in cases in  which  cause  of  his  death  comes  into
\nquestion,  but  its  admissibility  depends  upon  one  of the two conditions:
\nEither such statement should relate to the cause of his  death  or  it  should
\nrelate to any of the circumstances or transaction which resulted in his death.
\nThe   collocation  of  the  words  in  Section  32(1)  “circumstances  of  the
\ntransaction which resulted in his death” is apparently of wider amplitude than
\nsaying “circumstances which caused his death”.  There need not necessarily  be
\na direct nexus between “circumstances” and “death”.  It is enough if the words
\nspoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstance which has connection
\nwith  any  of  the  transactions  which ended up in the death of the deceased.
\nSuch statement would also fall within the purview  of  Section  32(1)  of  the
\nEvidence Act.    In  other  words,  it is not necessary that such circumstance
\nshould  be  proximate,  for,  even  distant  circumstances  can  also   become
\nadmissible  under  the sub-section, provided it has nexus with the transaction
\nwhich resulted in the death.”\n<\/p>\n
        29.  A fair reading of the proposition of law laid down  as  above  by
\nthe  Apex  Court  would  indicate  clearly that at any stretch of imagination,
\nEx.D-2 cannot be considered as a dying declaration of Thangammal who died long
\ntime after the occurrence due to natural causes.    Hence  we  are  unable  to
\nendorse  the  view  put  forth  by  the  learned  counsel for the accused with
\nreference to Ex.D-2, the statement of Thangammal which in our opinion  is  not
\nhelpful to the accused in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   The  next  contention  of the learned counsel for the accused is
\nthat the trial court was not correct in rendering the finding that the accused
\nis guilty of the offence  under  Section  201  I.P.C.    as  the  evidence  of
\nphotographer,  P.W.11  shows  that at the time of taking photographs, the dead
\nbody of Saraswathi was exposed partly and buried half way.  On  the  contrary,
\nthe  learned  Additional  Public  Prosecutor  has  drawn  our attention to the
\nevidence of P.W.8, Tahsildar who exhumed  the  dead  body  and  conducted  the
\ninquest  (vide)  Ex.P-8  inquest  report  and  the evidence of P.W.10, Autopsy
\nSurgeon, who conducted the postmortem at the place of  occurrence  itself  and
\nissued the  post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-12.  He has therefore contended that
\nin  view  of  such  evidence,  only  after  the  body  was  exhumed,   P.W.11,
\nphotographer could  have  taken the photographs.  Hence, he has urged that the
\nprosecution has proved that since the dead body of Saraswathi  was  buried  by
\nthe  accused and exhumed later during the course of investigation, the offence
\nunder Section 201 has also been made out in this case.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  In this context, the learned counsel for  the  accused  has  also
\ncited the decision  of  this  Court, JOTHI BEGUM v.  STATE (1990 L.W.  ( Crl.)\n<\/p>\n
132) which in our opinion will not be applicable to the facts of  the  present
\ncase as the dead body in the said case was found on the road side, but here in
\nthis case,  it  was  totally buried under the earth in the tea garden.  Hence,
\nthe ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable to this case.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred
\nto the principle laid down by the Apex court  on  this  aspect  in  VIJAYA  v.
\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2003 Crl.L.J.  4318) as hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
“What  Section 201 requires is that the accused must have had the intention of
\nscreening the offender.  To put it differently, the intention  to  screen  the
\noffender, must  be  the primary and sole object of the accused.  The fact that
\nthe concealment was likely to have that effect is not sufficient, for  Section
\n201 speaks  of  intention as distinct from a mere likelihood.  The ingredients
\nof offence under Section 201 are:–\n<\/p>\n
        (i) that an offence has been committed.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission  of
\nsuch an offence.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) that with such knowledge or belief he–\n<\/p>\n
        (a)  caused  any  evidence  of  the  commission  of  that  offence  to
\ndisappear, or   (b) gave any information relating to  that  offence  which  he
\nthen knew or believed to be false.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)  that  he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the
\noffender from legal punishment.”\n<\/p>\n
        33.  If the evidence on record  relating  to  the  commission  of  the
\noffence under Section 201 I.P.C.  is scanned through in the light of the above
\nratio enunciated by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to conclude that the
\nguilt of  the  accused  under  Section 201 I.P.C.  has also been proved beyond
\ndoubt.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  The last contention put forth by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\naccused is with reference to lack of blood stain found on the weapon, M.O.2 by
\nthe Chemical Examiner (vide) Ex.P-16 and therefore he would urge that the same
\nhas not been used for the commission of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  On a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.7, Supervisor working
\nin  Nadumalai  Estate  regarding the recovery of material objects inclusive of
\nM.O.2, iron rod and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.15  in  the
\nlight  of  the  admissible portion of the confession statement, Ex.P-5 and the
\nmahazar for recovery of the articles Ex.P-3, we have no other option except to
\nhold that such evidence has not been challenged by the accused in any  manner.
\nHence  we  have  no  hesitation to come to the conclusion that even though the
\nSerologist report, Ex.P-16 does not disclose that M.O.2,  iron  rod  contained
\nthe  same  blood  group  of  the deceased, the same had been well connected by
\ncogent evidence adduced by the prosecution that the  accused  used  the  same,
\nwhile committing the offence of murder of the deceased Saraswathi.\n<\/p>\n
        36.  For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the
\nlearned  Principal  Sessions Judge, Coimbatore having analysed the evidence of
\nthe prosecution, both oral and documentary arrived at  the  proper  conclusion
\nthat  the charges levelled against the accused, the appellant herein have been
\nproved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
        37.  Thus, we find  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the  judgment  of
\nconviction  and  sentence  rendered  by  the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
\nCoimbatore in this case.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index  :  Yes\/No
\nWebsite:  Yes\/No
\ndpp<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Inspector of Police,Valparai Police Station,Valparai.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
4. The District Collector, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
5. The Director General of Police, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20\/10\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ and The Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI C.A. No.196 of 2002 Teakon .. Appellant -vs- State by Inspector of Police, Valparai Police Station Valparai, […]<\/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-220382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTeakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - 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\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-16T18:27:05+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-16T18:27:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5164,\"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\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-16T18:27:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - 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\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-16T18:27:05+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-16T18:27:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004"},"wordCount":5164,"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\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004","name":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-16T18:27:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/teakon-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Teakon vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/220382","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=220382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}