{"id":226156,"date":"2008-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-04T06:53:59","modified_gmt":"2017-12-04T01:23:59","slug":"j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 08\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.No.156 of 2007\nand\nCrl.A.No.309 of 2007\n\n1.J.Chezhian\n2.Elian alias Ezhilan    .. Appellants\/A2& A3 in\n\t\t\t    C.A.No.156\/2007\n\n1.Ravi    \t         .. Appellants\/A4 and A6 in\n2.Anton          \t    C.A.No.1159\/2000\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState represented by\nInspector of Police,\nUvari Police Station,\nTirunelveli District.\n(Crime No.27 of 2001)\t .. Respondent in<\/pre>\n
                            the above appeals.\n<\/p>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
These criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C
\nagainst the judgment dated 28.02.2007 made in S.C.No.237 of 2004 by the
\nAdditional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Tirunelveli.<\/p>\n
\n\n!For Appellants  in\nC.A.No.156\/2007   \t...  Mr.G.R.Edmund\n                             for Mr.K.Vinayagam\n\nFor Appellants in\nC.A.No.309\/2007\t\t... Mr.V.Kathirvelu\n\n\t\n^For Respondent      \t...  Mr.N.Senthurpandian,\n\t\t      \t     Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n(The judgment of the court was\n   made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern these two appeals viz., C.A.Nos.156 and 309 of
\n2007.  These appeals challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division,
\nTirunelveli dated 28.2.2007 made in S.C.No.237 of 2004 whereby A.2, A.3, who are
\nthe appellants in the first appeal, and A.4 and A.6, who are the appellants in
\nthe second appeal, along with four others stood charged and tried for the
\nfollowing charges:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1st charge\t: A.1 to A.8 u\/s. 148 IPC
\n\t2nd charge  \t: A.1 u\/s. 3 and 5 of the Indian
\n\t\t\t\tExplosives and
\n                      \t\tSubstance Act 1908<\/p>\n
\t3rd charge\t: A.1 to A.7 u\/s. 302 IPC<\/p>\n
\t4th charge\t: A.1 to A.7 u\/s. 341 IPC<\/p>\n
\t5th charge\t: A.1 to A.7 u\/s. 302 IPC<\/p>\n
\t6th charge\t: A.1 to A.7 u\/s. 341 IPC<\/p>\n
\t7th charge\t: A.1 to A.7 u\/s. 302 IPC<\/p>\n
\t8th charge\t: A.8 u\/s.302 r\/w 149 IPC<\/p>\n
On trial, the trial Court acquitted A.1, A.5, A.7 and A.8 of all the charges.
\nHowever, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6 were found guilty of the charges and each of them
\nhave been convicted under sections 148, 341 IPC (2) Counts and 302 IPC (3
\ncounts); and awarded one year rigorous imprisonment each under section 148 IPC;
\neach one month rigorous imprisonment for each counts under Section 341 IPC; and
\neach life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000\/- in default to undergo two years
\nrigorous imprisonment for 3 counts under Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Sans of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution can be stated
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) PW.1 and PW.2 are the cousins of all the three deceased.  The deceased
\nJames, Charles and Benedict are brothers.  PW.3 and PW.4 are the wives of PW.1
\nand PW.2 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The father of A.1, a few years prior to the occurrence was murdered
\nin which there was accusation made against PW.1 and PW.2 and the deceased.  On
\ntrial, they were acquitted of the charges.  Aggrieved over the same, the accused
\nhave committed the instant crime, according to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) On the date of occurrence i.e. on 3.3.2001 at about 12.00 noon, PW.1
\nto PW.5 and all the three deceased James, Charles and Benedict stood chatting in
\nfront of a fish market.  At that time, A.1 armed with country bombs and all
\nothers armed with swords and knives came to the place of occurrence.  It was
\nA.1, who threw country bombs on the deceased.  All the accused first surrounded
\nthe first deceased Benedict and all of them indiscriminately cut him and as a
\ndirect consequence, he met an end instantaneously.  At that time, the other two
\ndeceased James and Charles, in order to escape, were running towards their
\ncoastal area.  All the accused chased them.  At first, they attacked Charles
\nindiscriminately and caused his death and following the same, they also cut
\nJames indiscriminately and caused his death.  Thus, all the three deceased were
\ndone to death at the spot.  After the occurrence was over, all the accused fled
\naway from the place of occurrence.  The entire incident was witnessed by PW.1 to
\nPW.5 and PW.9.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) PW.1 accompanied by PW.2 proceeded to the respondent police station
\nand gave Ex.P.1 report.  On the strength of Ex.P.1 report, PW.13 the Sub-
\nInspector of Police, who was on duty on 3.3.2001, registered a case in Crime
\nNo.27\/2001 under sections 147, 148, 302 of the I.P.C and sections 3 and 5 of the
\nIndian Explosives and Substance Act.  He prepared a Printed F.I.R., which was
\nmarked as Ex.P.24.  Ex.P.24 along with Ex.P.1 report was sent to the Judicial
\nMagistrate, Valliyoor through a Grade I Constable.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,  PW.17 the Inspector of Police,
\ntook up the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an
\ninspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared an Observation Mahazar
\nEx.P.19 and also a rough sketch Ex.P.34. In the presence of witnesses and
\npanchayatdars, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Benedict, James and
\nCharles and prepared inquest reports Exs.P.35, P.36 and P.37 in respect of the
\nrespective deceased.  He recovered bloodstained earth MO.10 and sample earth
\nMO.11 from the place where Benedict was done to death; bloodstained earth MO.15
\nand sample earth MO.16 from the place where James was done to death and
\nbloodstained earth MO.17 and sample earth MO.18 from the place where Charles was
\ndone to death. He also recovered other material objects available from the place
\nof occurrence under a cover of mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Following the inquests, the dead bodies of all the deceased were sent
\nfor the purpose of autopsy.  PW.14, Doctor, attached to Radhapuram Government
\nHospital, on receipt of requisition along with three dead bodies, conducted
\nautopsy on all the three dead bodies and has given Post-Mortem Certificates
\nunder Exs.P.26, P.28 and P.30 wherein he has opined that all the deceased would
\nappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained, about 20
\nhours prior to autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii)  On 5.3.2001, on an information, PW.7, the Inspector of Police,
\narrested A.1 to A.7 including the absconding accused, Ramesh in the presence of
\nwitnesses.  During the course of investigation, A.1 to A.7 volunteered to give
\nconfessional statements separately and the same were recorded separately in the
\npresence of witnesses and the admissible part of that confessional statements
\nwere marked as Ex.P.2 to Exs.P.7 and Ex.P.9 respectively.  Pursuant to his
\nconfession, A.1 produced a Silver Bucket MO.3, country bombs MO.20 and they were
\nseized under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.10. A.1 also produced a sword MO.4, which
\nwas seized under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.11.  Pursuant to his confession, A.2
\nproduced a Sword MO.5, which was seized by the Investigating officer under cover
\nof mahazar Ex.P.12.   Pursuant to his confession, A.3 produced a Sword MO.6,
\nwhich was seized by the Investigating officer under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.12.
\nPursuant to his confession, A.4 produced a Sword MO.8, which was seized by the
\nInvestigating officer under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.15.   Pursuant to his
\nconfession, A.6 produced a Sword MO.9, which was seized by the Investigating
\nofficer under cover of mahazar Ex.P.16.  Pursuant to his confession, A.5
\nproduced a Sword MO.5, which was seized by the Investigating officer under cover
\nof mahazar Ex.P.17.    Pursuant to his confession, A.7 produced a Vettukathi
\nMO.1, which was seized by the Investigating officer under a cover of mahazar
\nEx.P.18.  He sent all the accused for judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii)  Further investigation was taken up by PW.18.  He examined the
\nwitnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.7, PW.8, PW.11 and PW.12 and recorded
\ntheir statements.  On 3.4.2001, A.8 was arrested in the presence of witnesses
\nand his statement was recorded and he was also sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead bodies of the deceased and the Material Objects recovered from the
\naccused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition Ex.P.42,
\ngiven by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and they
\nwere subjected to Chemical Analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a
\nrequisition made by the Court and gave two certificates viz., Chemical analysis
\nreport Ex.P.46, and  Serologist report Ex.P.47.\n<\/p>\n
\t(x)  Followed by PW.18, PW.19 took up further investigation, who has filed
\nthe final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, which in turn,
\ncommitted the case to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 19 witnesses and relied on 48 exhibits and 44 MOs.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused\/appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the
\nincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They
\ndenied them as false.  No defence witness was examined. After hearing the
\narguments of the counsel and looking into the materials available meticulously,
\nthe lower court, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
\nreasonable doubts insofar as A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6 and awarded imprisonment as
\nreferred to above.  But, the lower Court acquitted the other accused viz., A.1,
\nA.5, A.7 and A.8 of the entire charges.  Hence, these two appeals at the
\ninstance of A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Advancing their arguments on behalf of   the appellants, Mr. Edward,
\nlearned counsel appearing for A.2 and A.3 and Mr. V.Kathirvelu, learned counsel
\nappearing for A.4 and A.6 made the following submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place, according to the
\nprosecution, at about 12.00 noon on 3.3.2001.  Though a number of witnesses
\nviz., PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.9 were marched as witnesses, PW.9 has turned hostile.
\nInsofar as PW.1 to PW.4, they could not have been in the place of occurrence for
\nmore reasons than one.  PW.1 and PW.2 are the brothers.  PW.3 and PW.4 are their
\nwives respectively.  The conduct of PW.1 and PW.2 would clearly indicate that
\nthey could not have been at the place of occurrence.  In their evidence, they
\nhave categorically stated that all the three deceased were surrounded by eight
\npersons at a time and indiscriminately cut the deceased.  PW.1 and PW.2 were
\nunable to narrate the overt-acts attributed to each of the accused.  The overt-
\nacts attributed to those accused at the time of evidence by the witnesses, were
\nnot spelt out in the earliest document i.e. Ex.P.1, which came into existence
\nwithin 30 minutes after the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Insofar as PW.3 and PW.4, who would claim to be the occurrence
\nwitnesses, according to them, immediately after the occurrence, they went to
\ntheir respective homes.  The natural conduct of the witnesses, who are the wives
\nof the cousins of the deceased, should be to go over to the house of the
\ndeceased and inform to their family members, but not done so.  But, they went to
\ntheir respective homes.  All these would indicate that they could not have been
\nat the place of occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Further, in the instant case, the F.I.R. could not have come into
\nexistence as put-forth by the prosecution at about 12.30 p.m., on the date of
\noccurrence within 30 minutes, after the occurrence was over, as the police
\nstation was situated 3 Kms away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Added further, the F.I.R. though came into existence by 12.30 p.m.,
\nit has reached the Judicial Magistrate concerned on 3.3.2001 at about 9.15 p.m.,
\nafter a delay of 8 hours.  This would be indicative of the fact that F.I.R.
\ncould not have come into existence as put-forth by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) Though the inquest, which were claimed to have been conducted by the
\ninvestigating officer, between 2.00 p.m., and 7.00 p.m., on 3.3.2001 itself in
\nrespect of the three dead bodies, the inquest reports reached the Court on the
\nnext day at about 5.00 p.m., thus, there is delay of 26 hours.  If the inquests
\nhave been conducted as claimed by the investigating officer, there is no reason
\nfor the inquest reports to reach the Court after 26 hours.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Added further, the learned counsel that the entire commencement of
\nthe occurrence, according to the witnesses, was actually after A.1 hurling
\ncountry bombs on one of the accused. But, at the time of evidence, PW.1 has
\nstated that A.1 also cut the deceased.  But, the lower Court was not prepared to
\naccept his evidence.  Apart from that, once the evidence of all the eye-
\nwitnesses were rejected in respect of the other accused, it is equally
\napplicable to the present appellants also.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) As could be seen from the evidence, PW.1 to PW.4, the eye-witnesses,
\nat the time of cross-examination have categorically deposed that they could not
\ngive correct count of inflicts on the deceased made by each of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Further, the names of PW.3 and PW.4 were not found place in the
\nF.I.R.,.  They are the wives of PW.1 and PW.2.  If the F.I.R. has come into
\nexistence as put-forth by the prosecution, there is no impediment for mentioning
\nthe names of PW.3 and PW.4 but not stated so.  A perusal of the evidence of PW.3
\nand PW.4, would cast a doubt whether they could have been in the place of
\noccurrence.  According to PW.3 and PW.4, they went to the place of occurrence
\nimmediately after hearing a noise but PW.1 and PW.2 were not found at the place
\nof occurrence.  This would indicate that the occurrence could have taken place
\nmuch earlier.  It is true, the deceased were murdered but the prosecution has
\nmiserably failed to bring home the nexus between the accused and the crime in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix)  In the instant case, all those recoveries pursuant to the alleged
\nconfessional statement were nothing but a false introduction.\n<\/p>\n
\t(x) Though the prosecution came forward with the statement that A.1
\ncommitted an offence under the Indian Explosives and Substance Act for
\npossessing country bombs and also using the same in the occurrence, the lower
\nCourt has thoroughly disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses.  If to be
\nso, the evidences are nothing but an imagination of the witnesses.  It is true,
\nall the entire family members of the accused were roped in the case.  A.1 to A.3
\nare brothers and A.8 is their mother.  The lower Court has clearly pointed out
\nthe reasons for acquittal of A.1, A.5, A.7 and A.8 and those reasons are equally
\napplicable to the present appellants also.\n<\/p>\n
\t(xi)  According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at abut
\n12.00 noon on 3.3.2001.  The post-mortem had commenced at about 9.00 a.m.,.  The
\nDoctor has given his opinion that the deceased would have died about 20 hours
\nprior to autopsy.  If to be so, the occurrence should have taken place, much
\nearlier than the alleged time of occurrence, viz., 12.00 noon on the date of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(xii) The lower Court should have disbelieved their evidence since the
\neye-witnesses are all closely related to the deceased also.  If the test of
\ncareful scrutiny is applied, the lower Court should have rejected their evidence
\nin toto but it found the appellants guilty and hence, they are entitled for
\nacquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a
\nthorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is not a fact in controversy that three persons viz., Benedict,
\nJames and Charles were done to death in the instant case on 3.3.2001 at 12.00
\nnoon.  Following the inquests made by PW.17 the Investigating Officer, all the
\nthree dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem by PW.14 Doctor, who has given
\npost mortem certificates Exs.P.26, P.28 and P.30 respectively wherein he has
\nopined that all the three deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to
\ninjuries sustained.  The fact that all the three deceased died out of homicidal
\nviolence was never questioned by the appellants at any stage of the proceedings
\nbefore the lower Court and hence, it has got to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against all the accused
\nincluding one absconding accused Ramesh, the prosecution examined five witnesses
\nas the occurrence witnesses, who were PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.9.  Out of whom, PW.9
\nturned hostile.  However, the prosecution to its advantage had the evidence of
\nPW.1 to PW.4 as the eye-witnesses.   It is true that PW.1 and PW.2 are the
\nbrothers and they are the cousin brothers of the deceased and the three deceased
\nwere brothers.  PW.3 and PW.4 are the wives of PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and
\nthus, it would be quite clear that they are closely related to each other.  It
\nis a settled law that merely on the relationship of the witnesses with the
\ndeceased, their evidence can not be discarded.  All the eye-witnesses have
\nspoken in one voice that the assailants were the accused.  At the time of
\noccurrence, these accused came with a common object and in that process, the
\naccused surrounded all these three deceased and attacked one after another and
\nbrought their end.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Originally, based on the earliest document Ex.P.1, the case was
\nregistered at about 12.30 p.m. i.e. within half an hour after the occurrence was
\nover.  It is pertinent to point out that Ex.P.1, which has come into existence
\nmuch earlier, contains the names of PW.3 and PW.4 and the accused Nos.2, 3, 4
\nand 6 who are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. F.I.R. was despatched to the Court through a Head Constable No.1335.
\nIn order to explain the delay in reaching the Court, he was the only competent
\nperson.  He was not alive to be examined in the Court at that time.  At this
\njuncture, it is pertinent to point out that PW.1, who was the author of Ex.P.1
\nhas been examined and also PW.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police who has registered
\nthe case has also been examined.  According to PW.1 and PW.2, immediately after
\nthe occurrence was over, they reached the respondent police station, which was 3
\nkms away from the place of occurrence and gave a report, which was reduced into
\nwriting by PW.13 and the case came to be registered and the names of A.2, A.3,
\nA.4 and A.6 were found place in the F.I.R.,.  The lower Court has marshalled the
\nevidence proper.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Insofar as A.1, the lower Court has not found him guilty because the
\nevidence was insufficient.  Insofar as the charge that he threw country bombs,
\nthe evidence  produced, in the opinion of the Court, was insufficient and
\nfurther the F.I.R. did not speak about A.1 having any sword at the time of
\noccurrence.  The fact that he also joined others in attacking the deceased could
\nnot be believed.  Therefore, the lower Court has acquitted A.1 of the charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Insofar as A.8, her name does not find place in the F.I.R.,.  However,
\nshe has been introduced subsequently.  Similarly, the lower Court did not
\nbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses in respect of A.5 and A.7 also.
\nHence, it has recorded an order of acquittal in respect of A.1, A.5, A.7 and A.8
\nbut it can not be stated that these accused\/appellants should also be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Insofar as the inquests, it has been urged by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that inquests could not have been conducted as claimed by the
\ninvestigator between 2.00p.m., and 5.00p.m., on 3.3.2001, because there was 26
\nhours delay in reaching the Inquest Reports to the  Court concerned.  It is
\npertinent to point out that no suggestion was put to the investigator
\nquestioning the time of the inquests as claimed by him and thus, the evidence of
\nthe investigator in this regard remains intact.  Hence, the evidence of the
\ninvestigator that the inquests had been conducted between 2.00 p.m. and 5.00
\np.m., on 3.3.2001 has got to be accepted.  Merely because there was delay in the
\ninquest reports reaching the Court, the case of the prosecution can not be
\nrejected since inquests have been proved to have taken place as put-forth by the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. For the recovery of weapons of the crime, the prosecution has examined
\nthe mahazar witnesses and they have also spoken to the effect that the weapons
\nof the crime have been recovered pursuant to the confessional statements given
\nby the accused.  The lower Court has also pointed out the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel for the appellants  contended that at the time of
\nF.I.R., no overt-act has been described, but at the time of evidence, overt-acts
\nhave been described.  It is pertinent to point out that,  the complaint was
\ngiven within 30 minutes after the occurrence was over and it is a case of triple
\nmurder and at that moment, persons were armed with weapons and have attacked the
\ndeceased indiscriminately.   The Court has to look into the mental frame of mind
\nof the witnesses with which they had rushed to the police station to give the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Further, much comment was made on the conduct of PW.1 to PW.4
\ncommenting that  PW.1 and PW.2 did not wait at the place of occurrence and  PW.3
\nand PW.4 immediately rushed to their respective houses.  The contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants does not merit<\/p>\n
acceptance.   Immediately after the occurrence, PW.1 and PW.2 have rushed to the
\npolice station, which was situated 3 kms away from the place of occurrence, to
\ngive the complaint, which would speak to the truth of the case.  Insofar as PW.3
\nand PW.4, who were women folk, on seeing such an occurrence, they got freightend
\nby the same and in such circumstances, the next option for them would be rushing
\nto their respective homes.  Thus, PW.3 and PW.4 would have gone to their houses.
\nHence, the contention that, immediately on seeing the occurrence, they did not
\ninform to the family members of the deceased and hence, their natural conduct
\ncan not be believed, can not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Insofar as the medical evidence, it is in full corroboration with the
\nocular testimony.  The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
\nthe time of occurrence as put-forth by the prosecution did not tally with the
\nmedical evidence can not be accepted.  According to the prosecution, the
\noccurrence had taken place at 12.00 noon on 3.3.2001 and the post-mortem was
\nconducted at 9.00 a.m. on 4.3.2001.  The medical person has given a certificate
\nto the effect that the death would have happened about 20 hours prior to the
\nautopsy and a slighter variation is possible.  In such circumstances, it can not
\nbe stated that occurrence time did not tally with the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The lower Court has marshalled the evidence proper.  Insofar as the
\nacquittal part, it has given sound and acceptable reasons for recording the
\njudgment of acquittal.  Insofar as A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6, it has clearly pointed
\nout the reasons to accept the evidence of the eye-witnesses, which in the
\nconsidered opinion of the Court, do not require any interference either
\nfactually or legally.   Thus, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the
\nappellants herein.  The judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained and
\naccordingly, it is sustained.  Both the Criminal Appeals fail and the same are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The  Additional Sessions Court
\n  (Fast Track Court No.2),
\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.Inspector of Police,
\n  Uvari Police Station,
\n  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
  (Crime No.27 of 2001)<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of
\n  the Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.No.156 of 2007 and Crl.A.No.309 of 2007 1.J.Chezhian 2.Elian alias Ezhilan .. Appellants\/A2& A3 in C.A.No.156\/2007 1.Ravi .. Appellants\/A4 and A6 in […]<\/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-226156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-04T01:23:59+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T01:23:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3783,\"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\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\",\"name\":\"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T01:23:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-04T01:23:59+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T01:23:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008"},"wordCount":3783,"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\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008","name":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T01:23:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chezhian-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Chezhian vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226156","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=226156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}