{"id":221501,"date":"2003-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003"},"modified":"2018-09-07T22:55:56","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T17:25:56","slug":"ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/11\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM\n\nC.A.No.999 of 1995\n\nRamalingam                                                     ..Appellant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState Rep. by Inspector of Police,\nNagoor, Nagai Quide Millath Dt.\n(Cr.No.343\/93 on the file of the\nThittacherry Police Station)                            ..Respondent.\n\n\n        Appeal filed under Section  374  Cr.P.C.    against  the  judgment  of\nconviction  and  sentence  passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam,\nNagai  Quide  Millath  District  by  his  judgment  dated  1.11.1995  made  in\nS.C.No.112 of 1994.\n\n!For Appellant          :       Mr.  K.  Srinivasan\n\n^For Respondent         :       Mr.  V.  Arul,\n                                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.THANIKACHALAM, J.)<\/p>\n
        The accused in S.C.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the  Sessions  Judge,
\nNagapattinam, is the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Upon   the  complaint  preferred  by  the  respondent  police,
\nalleging that the accused should be convicted for the offences under  Sections
\n3 02 and 326 I.P.C., since he had committed the murder of his wife, Pappathi @
\nMarimuthu  on 7.9.93 at about 10.30 a.m., intentionally by stabbing her with a
\nChisel and that he had also inflicted grievous injuries to P.W.1,  the  sister
\nof  Pappathi  @  Marimuthu, the learned Sessions Judge, satisfying himself, to
\nproceed further, on the basis of the materials, produced  before  him,  framed
\ncharges and questioned the accused, regarding the plea of guilty, for which he
\npleaded not guilty.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The prosecution to satisfy the Court, that the final report is
\nbased on truth and the person, who committed the offence, should be dealt with
\nproperly,  examined  14  witnesses,  seeking buttress from 17 documents and 18
\nmaterial objects.  A  meticulous  scanning  and  proper  appreciation  of  the
\nevidence,  brought  to  surface,  the  guilt  of the accused, according to the
\nconclusion of the learned trial Judge, and in  this  view,  he  convicted  and
\nsentenced  the  accused  to  undergo  life imprisonment, for the offence under
\nSection 302 I.P.C.  and 5 years R.I.  for the offence proved under Section 326
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The prosecution case in a nutshell:\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     The accused\/appellant is the husband of Pappathi  @  Marimuthu
\nand her  sister  is Kamala (P.W.1).  At the time of the incident, Pappathi and
\nthe accused were living at Thirumarugal Village, though they  belong  to  some
\nother village.  Thiru Paneerselvam (P.W.2) and Thiru Ganesan (P.W.8) are their
\nneighbours.   The  accused was not living happily with his wife and he used to
\npick up quarrel with her, when she was residing at Keezha Thanjavur, which  is
\nknown to  P.W.3  also.    Even  after  they have migrated to Thirumarugal, the
\naccused addicted to drinks, tortured the wife, which is known to P.Ws.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     On 7.9.1993 at  about  10.30  a.m.,  there  was  some  dispute
\nbetween  the  accused  and  his  wife,  since  she  refused to help him in the
\ndayto-day work or because of the fact that PW1 requested for his child  to  be
\ntaken to  her  village, for some period, which was not accepted.  Aggrieved by
\nthe conduct of the deceased and PW1, the accused attacked his wife,  by  using
\nM.O.1,  thereby  caused injuries on her left shoulder and right collared bone.
\nOn seeing this incident, when PW1 attempted to save  her  sister,  questioning
\nthe conduct  of the accused, she was also not spared.  The accused stabbed PW1
\nalso over her right arm, as well as left side of the neck.  This incident  was
\nwitnessed  by  PW2,  who  is  the  neighbour  and  P.W.8, who is living on the
\nsouthern side of the accused’s  house.    Thiru  Paneerselvam  (P.W.2),  Thiru
\nGanesan  (P.W.8)  and  others  made  an  arrangement, for the treatment of the
\ninjured Kamala alone, since Pappathi died at the spot itself.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     Dr.  A.R.  Udayasankaran (P.W.5) gave treatment to P.W.1, when
\nshe was brought to the hospital, and noticed the injuries, for which he issued
\nEx.P.4, wound certificate.  The doctor, P.W.6 who was on duty, on the same day
\nalso, gave treatment to her.    The  fact  that  P.W.1  was  admitted  in  the
\nhospital,  was  informed  to  the  out  post police station, attached with the
\nhospital and on information from the said police station, P.W.10 rushed to the
\nhospital, examined P.W.1 at about 2.0 0 p.m.  in the presence of P.W.6.    Her
\nstatement  was  recorded  as Ex.P.1, in which the doctor (P.W.6.) also signed.
\nOn the basis of  Ex.P.1,  P.W.10  registered  a  case  in  Cr.No.343\/93  under
\nSections 324 and 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     The  Inspector of Police, P.W.14 on receipt of the information
\nfrom P.W.10, went to the police station and after  obtaining  a  copy  of  the
\nF.I.R.,  went  to  Thirumarugal  at about 4.00 p.m., where the occurrence took
\nplace and verified the scene of crime, in and around.    He  prepared  Ex.P.2,
\nobservation  mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 and one Ramasamy, in addition to
\npreparation of sketch, Ex.P.16.  At about 4.3 0 p.m., P.W.14 seized M.Os.2  to
\n7 under  Ex.P.3, in the presence of the same witnesses.  Between 5.00 and 8.00
\np.m., in continuation of the investigation, P.W.14 conducted inquest,  in  the
\npresence  of the Panchayatdars and examined the witnesses, also and the result
\nis Ex.P.17.  Thereafter, the body of Pappathi  was  sent  for  postmortem,  to
\nascertain the cause of death.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     P.W.7 Dr.    Sanghamitra, on receipt of the requisition and on
\nidentification of the body, conducted autopsy over the  body  of  Pappathi  at
\nabout 12.00  p.m.    on  8.9.93,  which  revealed  the  following external and
\ninternal injuries.\n<\/p>\n
1.      An elliptical stab wound 3 cm in length 1 c.m.  wide  and  its  centre
\npresent over lateral side of man ubrium sterm on the right below the clavicle.
\nOn  dissection  and  examination of the wound muscles at the site of the wound
\nseen served back of fracture been in the first rib and the fracture  extending
\nupto the  manubrium  stem.    On further careful dissection and examination Rt
\ninternal thoracic vessels and first right intercostal artery found injured and
\ncut.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Another elliptical wound of same dimension over the mid third of upper
\nscapular region on the left.  On probing the wound the wound  extends  upwards
\nand medially about 2 c.m in depth.\n<\/p>\n
Analysing  the effect of external as well as internal injuries, the doctor was
\nof the opinion, that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage, because of
\nthe injuries sustained by her and to that effect, the  doctor  issued  Ex.P.5,
\npostmortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
        (f)     P.W.14  in  continuation  of  the  investigation, examined the
\ninjured, who was unfortunately attacked on 8.3.93, as well as  examined  other
\nwitnesses also  and recorded their statements.  On 14.9.93, on information, he
\narrested the accused at 1.00 p.m.  at Thiruvallur Bus stand in the presence of
\nP.W.9 and one Selvaraj.  On  examination,  the  accused  volunteered  to  give
\nconfession and  the  admissible  portion  is  Ex.P.6.    In  pursuance  of the
\nconfession, the accused  took  P.W.14  and  other  witnesses  to  Thirumarugal
\nVillage,  where he identified the place of concealment of the weapon, took out
\nand handed over the same (M.O.1), which was recovered  under  Ex.P.8,  in  the
\npresence  of  the  same  witnesses in addition to some receipts (M.O.8 series)
\nunder Ex.P.7.  The material objects seized during the investigation also  sent
\nfor chemical examination, for which P.W.13 lent support.  After the conclusion
\nof the investigation, P.W.14 was of the opinion, that the accused had not only
\ncommitted  the  murder  of  his  wife, but also caused grievous hurt to P.W.1.
\nTherefore, in this view, he laid the final report, before the Court concerned,
\nseeking appropriate punishment.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)     After committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam,  at
\nthe culmination of the trial, came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of
\nP.Ws.1,  2  and  8  proved  not only the motive, but also the actual incident.
\nThus, believing the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and others,  which  had  the
\nsupport of the circumstantial evidence also, he found the accused guilty under
\nSections 302 and 326 I.P.C., for which he slapped the sentences as said supra,
\nwhich are under challenge before us.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      Heard the   learned   counsel  for  the  appellant,  Mr.    K.\n<\/p>\n
Srinivasan and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.  side).\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The learned counsel for  the  appellant  submits,  that  P.W.1
\ncould not be the author of Ex.P.1, since the averments therein, were not fully
\nsupported  by  her, but unfortunately, this was not taken note of by the trial
\nCourt.  He further points out, that the motive alleged  is  also  not  proved,
\nsince there was no uniformity in this regard.  It is the further submission of
\nthe  learned  counsel,  that  even  as per the oral evidence of P.W.1, she was
\nunconscious for four  days  or  so,  and  regained  conscious  thereafter  and
\ntherefore,  question  of  her  giving  detailed statement in Ex.P.1, should be
\nruled out.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      It is the further contention of the counsel that according  to
\nthe  prosecution,  some  weapon  was used to cause injuries to the deceased as
\nwell as P.W.1, whereas, the doctors have opined, different kind  of  injuries,
\nwhich would  belie  the  prosecution  case.    He further points out, that the
\narrest and recovery are not proved and the witnesses  examined  to  prove  the
\nsame, being the stock witness of the police, reliance could not be placed upon
\nthem.  The counsel for the appellant, denying the incident, as narrated by the
\nprosecution, would submit that on 7.9.93, because of the suspicion between the
\nsisters,  there  was  a  quarrel between them and in that quarrel, P.W.1 would
\nhave  attacked  the  deceased  for  which,  the  accused  could  not  be  held
\nresponsible.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      The learned  Government  Advocate  (Crl.   side) would submit,
\nthat no reason could be attributed, to ignore the convincing oral evidence  of
\nP.Ws.1, 2 & 8 and the different motive spoken by P.W.1, deviating from Ex.P.1,
\nwould  not  disprove the prosecution case, the fact being, even in the absence
\nof motive, if the occurrence is proved, the accused could be convicted,  well.
\nIn this view, he supports the reasoning and findings of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      According  to  the  prosecution,  the occurrence took place on
\n7.9.19 93 at about 10.30 a.m.  just in front of the houses of the accused  and
\nP.W.2, Paneerselvam.    The  fact,  that  P.W.1 was present at the time of the
\noccurrence, is not in dispute and in fact, it could not be  disputed,  because
\nof the  fact,  she  also  sustained  injuries.    P.W.2  admittedly  being the
\nneighbour, his presence  could  not  be  doubted,  unless  it  is  established
\notherwise.   P.W.8  also  belongs  to  the same place, and he is living on the
\nsouthern side of the accused’s house, which is also noted in Ex.P.16  –  rough
\nsketch.   From  the cross examination of P.Ws.2 and 8, we find no reason, even
\nto doubt their testimony.  Both the witnesses are independent  in  nature  and
\nthey  have no animosity of any kind, against the accused and no affection with
\nthe deceased or P.W.1.  In this view, in our considered opinion, they shine as
\nnatural witnesses, unbiased  and  their  testimony  are  worthy  of  credence.
\nTherefore,  if they have spoken about the incident, and the involvement of the
\naccused, using M.O.1, causing injuries to the deceased, as well as P.W.1, then
\nwe should act upon their testimony, to fix the  culpability  of  the  accused.
\nBefore  scanning the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 supported by P.W.1, now let
\nus take Ex.P.1, since its origin and genesis are questioned, or  at  least  an
\nattempt is made to shadow the same, thereby creating some doubts, in the minds
\nof the court, in order to have a gap, for the escape of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     It  is  not  in dispute that immediately after P.W.1 sustained
\ninjuries, she was admitted in the hospital, on the same  day.    The  hospital
\nauthorities  informed  the  same  to the Sub Inspector of Police, as seen from
\nEx.P.9.  The Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.10), on receipt of the  information,
\nrushed  to  the  hospital,  examined P.W.1, that too in the presence of P.W.6,
\nascertaining her capability, capacity  and  orientation,  to  give  statement.
\nP.W.1  narrated the motive as well as the incident, which took place on 7.9.93
\nat about 10.30 a.m.  and the same was reduced into writing as Ex.P.1.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     The first attack, upon this document by  the  learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellant  is,  that  P.W.1 would not have furnished the information
\ncontained in Ex.P.1 and the reason assigned is,  she  was  unconscious.    For
\nthis, aid  is  sought  from  the  oral  testimony  of P.W.1.  P.W.1 during the
\nexamination in chief, would state, that after sustaining injuries, she  became
\nunconscious and  only  at hospital, she regained conscious.  Therefore, as per
\ndefence, it is clear that when she  had  given  the  statement,  she  was  not
\nunconscious.   But  during  the  cross  examination,  some  snap  answers were
\nelicited, as if she was unconscious through out,  that  too,  for  four  days,
\nwhich is  not the case and it is well proved by the doctor’s evidence.  When a
\nquestion was put to her, about her conscious, she said after  four  days,  she
\nwas all  right.    She would further state, that she was not even able to open
\nher eyes, since she was under sedation.  On  the  basis  of  these  materials,
\nEx.P.1 was  attacked.    While  assessing the evidence of a witness, it is the
\ncardinal principle, that the answers given by  the  said  witness  hither  and
\nthither  alone  should  not  be  considered,  ignoring  the  other part of the
\nevidence.  A proper appreciation of the evidence  should  be,  taking  of  the
\ncumulative  effect  of the evidence, and not the isolated answer given, at the
\ntime of the cross examination.  In this view, if we read the  entire  evidence
\nof P.W.1, it is clear to our mind, that she was not unconscious throughout and
\nif at all, she must have been unconscious, during some interval that too, when
\nshe was under sedation.  That would not mean that she would not have furnished
\nthe information,  as  in  Ex.P.1.  In this regard, it is pertinent to note the
\ndoctor’s evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     P.W.5  is  the  doctor,  who  admitted  P.W.11  at  the  first
\ninstance.  He testified about the condition of P.W.1 and would state that when
\nhe examined  P.W.1,  she  was  conscious.   The suggestion thrown to P.W.5 was
\ndenied and we do find no reason to accept the suggestion.  Ex.  P.4 which came
\ninto being, without the influence of anybody, would say that the  patient  was
\nconscious.   Fitting  in  with  the  recital  alone,  P.W.5 has given evidence
\nregarding the condition of P.W.1.  In the presence of P.W.6 alone,  as  spoken
\nby P.W.10,  Ex.P.1  statement  was  recorded.  P.W.6 also certified, about the
\ncondition of P.W.1.  He was certain and denied the unconsciousness  of  P.W.1.
\nThat  is  why  he has given evidence, that Kamala was conscious and capable of
\ngiving statement and in that way, she gave this statement also.    The  doctor
\nhad  signed  in  Ex.P.1.,  but  not  stated,  that  the injured was conscious,
\noriented, etc.  Taking advantage of the same, the attempt made by the  learned
\ncounsel  for the appellant, to create doubt upon Ex.P.1, failed to inspire our
\nconfidence and we are unable to persuade ourselves also to succumb to the case
\nof the defence.  In this view,  we  conclude  that  only  on  the  information
\nfurnished  by  P.W.1, Ex.P.1 ought to have been recorded and the said document
\ncannot be labelled as tainted one, prepared for  the  purpose  of  this  case,
\nincorporating necessary materials, to rope in the accused, due to enmity.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     The  second attack aimed upon Ex.P.1, to create doubt is, that
\nthe motive described therein was not spoken by P.W.1.    Therefore,  according
\nthe  learned  counsel  for  the appellant, the information available in Ex.P.1
\nwould not have been furnished by P.W.1.  We are unable to agree.   It  is  the
\ncase  of  the prosecution, that the deceased and accused were often quarreling
\nwith each other and to avoid certain problems, it appears they  have  migrated
\nto Thirumarugal.    Therefore, the motive for the subsequent events, could not
\nbe a single motive alone, though one portion alone  is  stated  under  Ex.P.1.
\nWhen  P.W.1  was  examined, due to ignorance or otherwise, forgetting the fact
\nthat what she had stated in Ex.P.1, has given some other motive, probably that
\nbeing the immediate cause of action, for the occurrence.   Therefore,  on  the
\nground that P.W.1 has not corroborated the motive part of Ex.P.1 alone, in our
\nview, would  not  make  Ex.P1  as  a concocted document.  In this view, we are
\nconstrained to reject the  defence.    The  attempt  made  on  behalf  of  the
\nappellant,  to  create doubt upon Ex.P.1, is to ignore this document, since it
\ncontains more or less all the necessary particulars  regarding  the  incident,
\nincluding the presence of the witnesses.  We are unable to persuade ourselves,
\nto  accept  the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for the appellant, and
\nconclude that Ex.P.1 is the genuine complaint, given  by  P.W.1,  recorded  by
\nP.W.10 sincerely, on which basis, the investigation has been initiated.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     The incident  took  place at about 10.30 a.m.  on 7.9.1993 and
\nimmediately, P.W.1 was rushed to the hospital and on information, P.W.10  also
\nreached the  hospital,  recorded the statement at about 2.00 p.m.  There is no
\nmaterial, even by way of suggestion, that somebody intervened between the time
\nof incident and the time of recording the statement.  The position  being  so,
\nit  should be the normal inference that P.W.1 would have narrated the incident
\nas it is, as seen by her, as suffered by her.  Ex.P.1  does  contain  all  the
\ndetails  to  crown  all  these  things;  as  spoken by P.W.1, as seen from the
\nintrinsic evidence available in Ex.P.1, it reached the house of  the  Judicial
\nMagistrate at  about  6.05 p.m.  Considering the distance between the place of
\nincident, place of police station, etc., we find no  delay  of  any  kind,  in
\ninitiating  the  proceedings  for  the  injuries suffered and in this view, we
\nwould rule  out  the  possibility  of  deliberation  and  inclusion  of  false
\ninformation in Ex.P.1.  In this view, if the averments in Ex.  P.1, though not
\nsubstantial  evidence,  are  substantiated  by  the  eye witnesses, then it is
\nimpossible for the accused, to escape from the clutches of law.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     The learned counsel, in  order  to  probabalise  the  defence,
\nthereby  to  create  doubt upon the prosecution case, invited our attention to
\nthe injuries sustained by the deceased  and  P.W.1.    As  seen  from  Ex.P.5,
\npostmortem  certificate,  the  deceased  sustained  stab  wound, elliptical in
\nshape, 3 cm in length, 1cm wide.  The weapon used for causing  these  injuries
\nis M.O.1,  chisel.   It is the case of the prosecution, that by using the same
\nweapon, P.W.1 was also assaulted.  Ex.P.4 would reveal, that  P.W.1  sustained
\nincised wound.    Because  of  the  different  nature of injuries, the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant, submitted that the accused would not have used  the
\nsame  weapon to cause injuries to P.W.1, as well as the deceased and if at all
\nthe injuries sustained by the deceased and P.W.1 ought to have been, inflicted
\nby different weapons, that too in the fighting between the deceased and  P.W.1
\n.  We  are  unable  to  agree.    A  chisel  could  also cause incised wounds,
\ndepending upon its handling.  The size of the wound, whether it is incised  or
\nstab wound,  as  the  case  may  be,  more or less one and the same.  When the
\nocular evidence, which we are going to discuss infra,  are  unassailable,  the
\ninconsistency  available  in  the  medical  evidence,  need  not be given much
\nweight.  In this view, this defence is also liable to be rejected and the same
\nis rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The accused  is  the  maternal  uncle’s  son  of  P.W.1.    By
\nimplicating  the  accused  in  the murder of her sister, P.W.1 is not going to
\ngain anything.  It is suggested to P.W.1, that  the  deceased  suspected  that
\nP.W.1  was having illicit intimacy with the accused and therefore, she shifted
\nthe residence, from Keezha Thanjavur to Thriumarugal.    No  other  motive  is
\nalleged prior to the incident against P.W.1.  If the alleged case projected on
\nbehalf  of  the  accused  is  true,  then P.W.1 should support the accused and
\nshould not have gone against the accused.  It is further  suggested  that  the
\naccused  refused  to marry P.W.1, since he was under the impression that P.W.1
\nwas the cause for the death of wife.  This motive is suggested, to elicit, why
\nP.W.1 has given false evidence against her sister’s husband.  To have  support
\nfor  this  defence,  we  find nothing on record and the materials available on
\nrecord, act against the  suggestion.    Immediately  after  the  incident,  as
\nnarrated in  Ex.P.1.    P.W.1  has  painted  the  entire  occurrence  and  the
\ninvolvement of the accused.  Therefore, the suggestion  thrown  later  on,  as
\naforementioned,  would  not  have the effect of erasing the evidence of P.W.1,
\nwhich is inspiring and convincing.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     For eschewing the oral evidence of P.W.1, the learned  counsel
\nfor the appellant pointed out, some of the omissions or contradictions, as the
\ncase  may be, and they are deviating from the motive projected in Ex.P.1, then
\nthe stay of P.W.1 prior to  the  incident,  in  the  house  of  Atthachi  i.e.
\nP.W.2’s  house  and the non disclosure of present motive or immediate cause of
\naction, spoken for the occurrence.  As aforementioned, though in Ex,.P.1  some
\nother motive is projected, P.W.1 thought it fit, to say the immediate cause of
\naction,  probably,  and in this view, we ignore the deviation, the fact being,
\neven in the absence of proof  of  motive,  in  the  case  of  direct  evidence
\navailable, the  offence  could  be proved legally.  P.W.1 has stated, that she
\ntook bed during the night hours, in the house of Atthachi and returned to  her
\nsister’s house,  only  in  the early morning.  But, P.W.2 would state, that on
\n6.9.1993 night, P.W.1 did not take bed, in his house.  This contradiction  has
\nnothing  to  do with the incident and the contradiction elicited as above, has
\nno direct bearing.    In  our  considered  view,  it  would  not  impeach  the
\ncredibility of  P.W.1.  Hence on the basis of the contradictions or omissions,
\nunbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 is not possible.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     P.W.1 has stated that prior to the incident,  on  7.9.93,  the
\naccused  sought  the help of his wife to lift a log from a pond, for which she
\nrefused.  It is the further case of P.W.1, that on refusal  by  his  wife,  to
\nhelp  the  accused,  he attempted to assault his wife and apprehending danger,
\nshe ran away from the house.  She has further deposed, that the  accused  took
\nthe  chisel from his house and stabbed upon the deceased Pappathi @ Marimuthu,
\nover her shoulder and right collared bone.  On seeing this incident, according
\nto P.W.1, she questioned the conduct of the accused, and  at  that  time,  the
\naccused uttering “cd;ida[k; Fj;Jfpnwd; ghh;@.  stabbed her by the same weapon,
\nnot  only  over  the  right fore arm, but also over the left side of the neck.
\nThe fact that P.W.1 sustained injuries, as spoken by her,is well  corroborated
\nby medical  evidence.  The evidence given by P.W.1, implicating the accused is
\nwell supported by an independent witness, Paneerselvam, who is the neighbour.\n<\/p>\n
        19.     The contention of the learned counsel  that  P.W.2  would  not
\nhave  been available at the time of the incident, is unacceptable to us, since
\nhe has testified about his presence on 7.9.1993, as he had not gone for  work.
\nHe  has  categorically  deposed,  about  the  noise  heard in the house of the
\naccused, then the deceased coming out from the house, as  well  as  P.W.1,  in
\naddition, the  accused  with  chisel in his hand.  He has further spoken, that
\nunexpectedly (to him probably), the accused stabbed  Pappathi  over  her  left
\nshoulder as  well  as over the right collared bone.  It is the further case of
\nP.W.2, that when the act of the accused was questioned by P.W.1,  the  accused
\nstabbed her  over  the  right  wrist,  as  well as over the left neck.  P.W.2,
\nbecause of the sudden development, was upset and regaining sense, according to
\nhim, he attempted to catch the accused, but he  ran  away.    He  has  further
\ndeposed,  when  the  accused  ran  from  the scene of crime, Ganesan also came
\nthere, who is examined as P.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
        20.     The learned counsel for the appellant would submit, that  even
\nas  per  the  case of P.W.2, Ganesan came to the scene of crime only after the
\naccused left the place and therefore, he would not have seen the incident.  It
\nis not the case of P.W.2, that Ganesan has not witnessed the incident  and  he
\nhas spoken  about  his  seeing Ganesan, probably after the accused left.  That
\ndoes not mean, Ganesan would not have seen the incident.  In this view, taking
\nthe snap answer given by P.W.2,  it  is  not  desirable  to  ignore  the  oral
\nevidence of P.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
        21.     P.W.8  is  living  on the southern side of the accused’s house
\nand he has no animosity against the accused.    In  this  view,  his  evidence
\nshould be  viewed as natural one, since untainted.  P.W.8 would state, that he
\nhad seen P.W.1 number of times, he used to come to her sister’s house.  But it
\nis not the case of P.W.1.  Therefore, a submission was made, that his evidence
\nshould be  ignored,  which  we  are  unable  to  agree.    During  the   cross
\nexamination,  he  admits that as Kalasi, he used to go to his job by 7.00 a.m.
\nand used to return only at 6.00 p.m.  But, he has given evidence, as if he had
\nseen the incident at 10.30 a.m.  The  job  undertaken  by  P.W.8  is  not  one
\nconfined to  the  place  and  there is no bar to come to the house.  It is the
\ncase of P.W.8 that on 7.9.1993, he came to his house for taking breakfast  and
\nthere is  nothing  strange.   Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, that P.W.8 would not  have  witnessed  the  incident  also,
\nshould be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        22.     P.W.8  has  spoken  about  the  presence of P.W.1 on 7.9.93 at
\n10.30 p.m.  He has further deposed, that from the house of the accused,  P.W.1
\nand Pappathi  came out followed by the accused.  He has also pointed out, that
\nat that time, P.W.2 and his w present before their house.  According to P.W.8,
\nthe accused, who followed the deceased and P.W.1 with chisel attacked Pappathi
\nover her neck and when she fell down, once again, attacked her, over her right
\ncollared bone, which is the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 also.  P.W.8 further  says,
\nthat  when  P.W.1 attempted to prevent the act of the accused, she was stabbed
\nby the accused, using the same chisel, over her right wrist,  then  left  neck
\nalso.   He  has  further  deposed, that P.W.1 was taken to the hospital by one
\nPalanivelu and therefore, he left the place.    He  has  also  identified  the
\nweapon used by the accused, for stabbing Pappathi and P.  W.1.  The suggestion
\nthrown to P.W.8, that P.W.1 and the deceased had free fight, does not draw any
\nsupport and  therefore,  the same should be ignored.  The above evidence given
\nby P.Ws.2 & 8 stand as a rock and unassailable and it deserves our acceptance,
\nsince we find nothing strange in  their  testimony  or  any  improbability  or
\nunnaturalness.\n<\/p>\n
        23.     The trial Court considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 8 have
\ncome to  an  unerring  conclusion, which deserves acceptance.  This is further
\nsupported by the medical evidence also.  P.W.5, Dr.  Udayakumar,  who  treated
\nP.W.1.   had  noticed  an  incised  wound  on the left upper back paravertibal
\nregion and also an incised wound on the right fore arm, which is in accordance
\nwith the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2 & 8.  P.W.7 at the time  of  the  autopsy
\nover  the  body  of Pappathi, had noticed an elliptical stab wound just on the
\nright clavicle and another elliptical wound on the upper  scapular  region  on
\nthe left  side.  This is also in accordance with the evidence given by P.Ws.1,
\n2 & 8.  Thus in our view, the medical evidence available on record also, fully
\ncorroborates the oral evidence of ocular witnesses, thereby exposing the guilt
\nof the accused, to the Court and not creating any shade of doubt.    When  the
\ndoctor  had  spoken  about  the nature of injury and opined about the cause of
\ndeath of Pappathi, that she would have  died  of  shock  and  hemorrhage,  not
\nchallenged, as  seen  from  the  cross examination.  Therefore, if we read the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1, 2  &  8  coupled  with  the  medical  evidence,  the  only
\nirresistible  conclusion  that  could  be  drawn is, the accused alone was the
\ncause for the stab injuries, sustained by Pappathi, which terminated her  life
\nprematurely and in this view, the accused should be held responsible.\n<\/p>\n
        24.     Dr.U.R.Udayasankar, who examined P.W.1, considering the effect
\nof  the injuries, opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1, are grievous in
\nnature.  His evidence so given, is not challenged,  as  seen  from  the  cross
\nexamination.  However, the court felt some more explanation is required to fix
\nthe  grievous hurt and in that view, the Court had elicited an answer from the
\ndoctor  under  what  circumstances,  these  injuries  could  be  described  as
\ngrievous.   The doctor has stated that since the first injury caused damage to
\nthe lungs, and the muscles are cut, since there is no possibility  of  reunion
\nto the original stage, he was of the opinion that the injuries are grievous in
\nnature.  This  is  not  challenged.   Under Section 320 I.P.C., any hurt which
\nendangers life, also would come under the heading ‘grievous hurt’, in addition
\nto destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any  member  or  joint.
\nIn  this  view,  as  seen  from  the  evidence of doctor, we conclude that the
\ninjuries sustained by P.W.1 in the hands of the accused  are  grievous  hurts,
\nattracting Section 326 I.P.C., as concluded by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
        25.     Dr.   Sangamitra  opined  in  Ex.P.5 that the deceased died of
\nshock and  hemorrhage,  because  of  the  injuries  sustained  by  her.    The
\ninformation  given  by  the  doctor and the reasons assigned in the postmortem
\ncertificate are not under challenge and therefore, it should be held that  the
\ninjuries inflicted by the accused alone, were the case for the death.\n<\/p>\n
        26.     As  rightly urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
\nthe recovery of the weapon on the basis of the confession given by the accused
\nand the fact, human blood Group A was detected in the weapon also, would  lend
\nsupport to  certain  extent  in  strengthening the case of the prosecution.  A
\ndoubt has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, regarding  the
\ndetection  of  human  blood  A  group in the chisel, to certain extent rightly
\nalso.  It is the case of the prosecution, that  the  deceased  used  the  same
\nweapon to  stab  P.W.1.    It is not the case of the prosecution that both the
\nsisters had the same group of blood viz., ‘A’ Group.   Therefore,  it  is  not
\nknown,  how  ‘A’  Group  blood  alone  was detected in the chisel, used by the
\naccused to stab Pappathi as well as P.W.1.  Whatever may be the  detection  of
\nthe  blood  in  the  chisel,  the  fact remains, M.O.1 chisel was used to stab
\nP.W.1, and the deceased.  Since it was  identified  correctly  by  the  ocular
\nwitnesses, it should be accepted even sidelining the Serologist’s report.\n<\/p>\n
        27.     The investigating officer, P.W.14 would state that the accused
\nwas absconding  from  7.9.1993  and he was arrested only on 14.9.1993.  If the
\ncase of the accused, that his wife was murdered,  in  the  fight  between  the
\nsisters,  is  to  be  accepted,  then  what would be the normal conduct of the
\naccused, is the question.  He ought to have  participated  in  the  subsequent
\nevents and in that case, the question of absconding would not arise.  When the
\ninvestigating  officer  has  spoken  about the non availability of the accused
\ni.e.  absconding, it is not challenged.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in order
\nto  explain  the  incriminating  circumstances,  found  in   the   prosecution
\nwitnesses,  he would admit about the presence of P.W.1, but denied the rest of
\nthe portion of the evidence, sometimes exhibiting his ignorance.  He has filed
\na statement, wherein also he has not explained about his  absconding  and  the
\narrest.   Except  generally alleging that since he refused to marry P.W.1, and
\nin order to grab the property also, a false case was foisted, with the aid  of
\nthe the  political party.  The non explanation regarding the arrest also could
\nbe taken into consideration, which would prove  the  conduct  of  the  accused
\nafter the  death  of  wife, as well as sister in law, sustaining injuries.  In
\nthis view,  the  absconding  takes  important  role,  leading  to  arrest  and
\nrecovery.\n<\/p>\n
        29.     According  to P.W.14 on 14.9.1993, the accused was arrested by
\nhim at 12.30 p.m.  on information, in the presence of P.W.9 and one  Selvaraj.
\nHe  has further deposed that the accused gave confession statement voluntarily
\n(Ex.P.6) and in pursuance of the same, from the roof of his  house,  M.O.8  as
\nwell as  M.O.9 were recovered under Ex.P.7.  It is the case of P.W.14, that at
\nabout 5.00 p.m., M.O.1 was recovered at the instance  of  the  accused,  under
\nEx.P.8 in  the  presence  of  P.W.9  and  one Selvaraj.  This weapon alone was
\nidentified by all the eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        30.     The accused is a carpenter by profession and this weapon viz.,
\nChisel should be available with him.  Therefore, there is every possibility to
\nsay, that the accused aggravated by the conduct of the  deceased,  would  have
\ntaken the  chisel, and attacked the wife and her sister.  The oral evidence of
\nP.W.4 is fully corroborated by  the  oral  evidence  of  P.W.9  also,  in  all
\naspects.   Describing P.W.9, as contended on behalf of the appellant, as stock
\nwitness, his testimony could not be  disbelieved.    Thus,  the  investigation
\nrevealed  about the actual involvement of the accused, using M.O.1 and we find
\nno laches or lapses on the part of the investigating officer also,  in  fixing
\naccused and  in  collecting  the  materials,  in  proper way.  The trial Judge
\nproperly considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 8 legally,  had  come  to  an
\nunerring  conclusion,  holding,  that  the  offence under Sections 302 and 326
\nI.P.C.  against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt,  which  should
\nreceive affirmation from us.\n<\/p>\n
        31.     We  find  no merit in the appeal and no case is also made out,
\nto interfere with the finding of the trial Court, which is cogent, convincing,
\nbased on facts and law, deserving our appreciation.\n<\/p>\n
        32.     The result therefore is, the appeal is dismissed as devoid  of
\nmerits,  confirming  the  conviction  and sentence under Sections 302 and 3 26
\nI.P.C.  The accused who is said to be on bail from  3.8.1999  is  directed  to
\nsurrender  before the trial Court and the trial Court is also directed to take
\nappropriate steps to secure the accused, to undergo the  remaining  period  of
\nthe sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nWebsite Yes<\/p>\n
kv<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.      The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
\n        Nagapattinam<\/p>\n
2.      -do- thro’ the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n        Nagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The Sessions Judge,
\n        Nagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The Superintendent, Central Prison,
\n        Cuddalore<\/p>\n
5.      The Superintendent, Central Prison,
\n        Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
6.      The Public Prosecutor, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
7.      The Inspector of Police, Tiruchirapalli P.S.<\/p>\n
        Nagai District.\n<\/p>\n
8.      The District Collector, Nagai Quaide Milleth District.\n<\/p>\n
9.      The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM C.A.No.999 of 1995 Ramalingam ..Appellant. -Vs- State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Nagoor, Nagai Quide Millath […]<\/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-221501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-07T17:25:56+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T17:25:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":5897,\"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\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\",\"name\":\"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T17:25:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 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":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-07T17:25:56+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T17:25:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003"},"wordCount":5897,"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\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003","name":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T17:25:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-on-28-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramalingam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 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\/221501","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=221501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}