{"id":239627,"date":"2003-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-20T17:12:41","modified_gmt":"2016-02-20T11:42:41","slug":"virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 09\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCRL. APPEAL NO.1176  of 2002 AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 1260 of 2002\n\nVirumandi                              ..  Appellant in CA.1176\/2002\n\nV.Alagarsamy                            ..  Appellant in CA.1260\/2002\n\n-Vs-\n\nState\nby the Inspector of Police\nPerundurai Police Station\nErode District                          ..  Respondent in both appeals<\/pre>\n
        These criminal appeals are preferred  under  Section  374  of  Cr.P.C.
\nagainst  the  judgment  of  learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and
\nFast Track Court No.I, Erode in S.C.No.26 of 2002 dated 26.6.2002 .\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellants :  Mr.  K.  Jeganathan in CA.1176\/2002
\n                Mr.P.Venkatrasubramaniam
\n                in CA.1260\/2002<\/p>\n
^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan
\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  side)<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
        This Judgment shall govern both the  criminal  appeals,  namely,  C.A.
\nNo.1176 of 2002 and C.A.No.1260 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The appellants in both these appeals, who were ranked as A1 and A2
\nbefore  Sessions  Court where they stood charged, tried and found guilty under
\nSection 395 I.P.C.  and sentenced to undergo R.I.  for  10  years  along  with
\nfine of Rs.1000\/- in default 6 months R.I., have brought forth these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be
\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        a)  P.W.1,  Annadurai,  is  a Lorry driver and P.W.2, Vediyappan, is a
\nCleaner working under  P.W.1.    Both  were  proceeding  in  a  lorry  bearing
\nRegistration No.  PY-01\/C 0200 towards Coimbatore.  On 13.7.2000 at about 2.00
\na.m.   they  stopped  the lorry along with cotton bales worth Rs.12 lakhs near
\nVijayamangalam NH 47 Main Road and were sleeping in  the  vehicle.    At  that
\ntime,  accused  Nos.1  and  2 along with three other accused came there with a
\ncommon intention of committing dacoity and attacked P.W.1 with torch light and
\ncaused simple injuries on the head of P.W.1 and  snatched  sum  of  Rs.1000\/-.
\nThe accused torn the lungi of P.W.2 and tied P.Ws.1 and 2’s eyes, so that they
\ncould not  see  and brought them into their lorry.  The accused took the lorry
\nfor some distance.  Thereafter, P.W.2 was left in an isolated  place  and  the
\naccused proceeded  with P.W.1 to some distance.  Thereafter, they brought down
\nP.W.1 from the lorry and tied the hands and legs of P.W.1.  Leaving P.W.1, the
\nappellants herein along with others took away  the  lorry  with  cotton  bales
\nworth Rs.12 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
        b)  However,  P.W.1 untied himself and informed the same to his owner.
\nThereafter, he proceeded to  the  Perunthurai  Police  Station  and  lodged  a
\ncomplaint under Ex.P.1  at  about 7.00 a.m.  on 13.7.2000.  On the strength of
\nwhich, P.w.7, Head Constable registered a case in Crime No.    276\/2000  under
\nSection 397 I.P.C., prepared Ex.P.6 printed F.I.R.  and despatched the same to
\nthe concerned  Judicial  Magistrate.    P.W.1 was sent to Government Hospital,
\nPerundurai where he was given treatment by P.W.6 and Ex.P.5 was  the  copy  of
\nAccident  Register  showing  the  injuries  sustained  by P.w.1 at the time of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        c) On 13.7.2000 at about 7.00 a.m.  P.W.9  Inspector  of  Police,  who
\ntook  up investigation in this case, received the copy of F.I.R., proceeded to
\nthe site of occurrence and prepared  Ex.P.7  observation  mahazar  and  Ex.P.8
\nrough sketch.    He  examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements.
\nThen,  he   proceeded   to   the   second   place   of   occurrence,   namely,
\nPollakoundanpalayam  near  Muniappan  Koil  and  prepared  Ex.P.9  observation
\nmahazar and Ex.P.10 rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses.   Then,  he
\nproceeded to  the  third part of the occurrence place at about 10.30 a.m.  and
\nprepared Ex.P.11 observation mahazar and Ex.P.12 rough sketch.   He  recovered
\nM.Os.1 to  3  under Ex.P.13 in the presence of the witnesses.  The observation
\nmahazar under Ex.P.14 and rough sketch Ex.P.15  were  prepared  at  the  place
\nwhere the  lorry  was  missing.    He recovered M.O.5, abandoned lorry bearing
\nregistration No.    PY  01\/C  0200,  M.O.6  (series)  Polyester  bales,  M.O.7
\nTharpalin and M.O.8 Stepney under Ex.p.16 in the presence of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        d) On  12.9.2000  at  about  2.00  a.m.    P.W.8, Inspector of Police,
\nVathalagundu Police Station during his regular vehicle check up at  Periakulam
\nRoad found  the accused 1 and 2 along with other accused in TATA Sumo Car.  On
\narrest of A1 and A2, A1 volunteered to give a  confessional  statement  before
\nP.W.8.   A1  produced  Rs.1000\/-, which was marked as M.O.4 series in front of
\nthe witnesses.  Based on his confessional statement, their involvement in  the
\ninstant case came to light and P.W.8 informed the same to P.W.9 Investi gating
\nOfficer.   On  receipt of information on 12.9.2000, P.W.9 brought P.ws.1 and 2
\nto Vathalagundu Police Station where P.ws.1 and 2 identified the accused 1 and\n<\/p>\n
2.  On 6.2.2001, P.W.9 took the custody  of  A1  and  after  enquiry,  he  was
\nremanded to  judicial  custody.  The Inspector of Police, who succeeded to the
\noffice, on completion filed a charge sheet against the accused  under  Section
\n395 r\/w 397 and 400 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   In  order  to  prove  the  charges  levelled against the accused\/
\nappellants, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and  8
\nM.Os.  After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the appellants\/accused
\nwere questioned  under  Section  313  of  Cr.P.C.    as  to  the incriminating
\ncircumstances found in the  evidence  of  prosecution  witnesses,  which  they
\nflatly denied as   false.     No  defence  witnesses  were  examined.    After
\nconsideration  of  the  rival  submissions  and  scrutiny  of  the   materials
\navailable,  the trial court found the accused\/ appellants guilty under Section
\n395 I.P.C.  and sentenced  them  to  undergo  imprisonment  as  stated  above.
\nHence, these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Arguing for the appellants, the learned counsel made the following
\nsubmissions :\n<\/p>\n
        The prosecution, in order to prove its case, relied on the evidence of
\nP.Ws.1   and   2,   who   did  not  have  any  previous  knowledge  about  the
\nappellants\/accused.   Under  such  circumstances,  the  identification  parade
\nshould have  been done, but it was not done so.  From the evidence of P.W.1 it
\nwould be clear that after two months from the date of occurrence, both  P.Ws.1
\nand  2 were taken to police station where A1 and A2 were identified clearly by
\nthe police.  Under the stated circumstances,  it  would  be  very  easier  for
\nP.Ws.1 and  2  to identify the said persons before the Court.  Thus, they have
\nidentified.  Hence, the identification of A1 and  A2  made  by  P.Ws.1  and  2
\nbefore the  Court  cannot  be of any significance whatsoever.  The prosecution
\nhas relied on the confessional statement given by A1 and recovery of Rs.1000\/-
\nfrom him.  But, P.W.3, has clearly spoken in his evidence that the said amount
\nwas not recovered in his presence, but after the  recovery,  he  came  to  the
\npolice  station,  and  hence, his evidence in respect of recovery cannot be of
\nany avail to the prosecution.  At the time of occurrence, both the  appellants
\nwere  not  having  any deadly weapon nor had they caused any grievous injuries
\nand the injury  sustained  by  P.W.1,  according  to  P.W.6  Doctor,  was  not
\nsuperlative in  nature.    The  trial court has much relied on the evidence of
\nP.Ws.1 and 2.  But, in view of the  contradictions  made  and  the  discrepant
\nevidence,  the trial court should have rejected the prosecution case outright,
\nand hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Stoutly opposing all the contentions put forth by the  appellants’
\nside,  the  learned  Government Advocate would submit that in the instant case
\nthe occurrence has taken place though in the night hours, a street  light  was
\nvery  well available there and the occurrence has taken place for a particular
\ntime; that the accused had taken Rs.1000\/- from P.W.1; that  apart  from  that
\nthe  accused  torn  the  lungi of P.W.2 and tied P.Ws.1 and 2’s eyes; that the
\naccused took P.Ws.1 and 2 in their lorry for some distance; that there  was  a
\npossibility  of  P.W.1 to identify the accused clearly; that even in the First
\nInformation Report, though P.W.1 has not given particulars as to the  identity
\nof the accused, he has clearly stated that he could well identify the accused,
\nif  they  are  shown to him; that the identification parade was not conducted,
\nsince P.W.1 has clearly identified the culprits before  the  court;  that  the
\nsaid evidence would be suffice to prove the prosecution case; that pursuant to
\nthe  confessional  statement, M.Os were recovered from the accused; that it is
\nnot in dispute that the properties were recovered from the lorry where it  was
\nabandoned; that it is not in dispute that Rs.1000\/- belonged to P.w.1; that it
\nis  not  the  case  of  the  accused that Rs.1000\/- that was recovered from A1
\nbelonged to him; that the medical evidence has  also  been  brought  forth  to
\nsupport the case of the prosecution; that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 at
\nthe time of occurrence and that in view of available evidence, the lower court
\nwas perfectly  correct  in finding the accused guilty.  Hence, the judgment of
\nthe lower court has got to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  This Court paid its full attention on the  rival  submissions  and
\nhad  a close scrutiny on the materials available and is of the considered view
\nthat these appeals do not carry any substance.  In the instant case, it is not
\nin dispute that P.W.1, driver accompanied by P.W.2 cleaner was proceeding in a
\nlorry bearing Registration  No.    PY-01\/C  0  200  towards  Coimbatore.    On
\n13.7.2000 at  about  2.00 a.m.  they stopped the lorry along with cotton bales
\nworth Rs.12 lakhs near Vijayamangalam NH 47 Main Road and were sleeping in the
\nvehicle.  At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 along  with  three  other  accused
\ncame  there with the common intention of committing dacoity and attacked P.W.1
\nwith torch light and caused simple injuries on the head of P.W.1 and  snatched
\nsum of  Rs.1000\/-  from  P.W.1.   The accused torn the lungi of P.W.2 and tied
\nP.Ws.1 and 2’s eyes.  P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to a particular place  therefrom
\nand they  were  left there.  The appellants herein along with others took away
\nthe lorry with cotton bales worth Rs.12 lakhs and abandoned the same  in  some
\nother place.    At  this juncture, it has got to be pointed out that the lorry
\nbearing registration No.PY-01-C-0200 was driven by P.W.1  and  P.W.2  was  the
\ncleaner was not  in  dispute.    A  case  was  registered  at  7.00  a.m.  and
\ninvestigation was also taken up.  At the time of investigation, the said lorry
\nalong with entire cotton bales have been recovered and  they  have  also  been
\nmarked before  the  court.    The  contention  of the appellants’ side that no
\nidentification parade was conducted and it would affect the  prosecution  case
\nhas got  to  be  discountenanced.   Taking into consideration of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the occurrence could  have  taken  place  over  the
\nperiod of  time.    From the available evidence it could be well seen that the
\nlorry was stopped and P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping there.  There  was  a  street
\nlamp in  that  place  and the same was burning at that time.  A perusal of the
\nrough sketch would clearly show  the  availability  of  light  at  that  time.
\nTaking  into  consideration  the  said aspect, P.Ws.1 and 2 could have clearly
\nseen the accused at that time and thus there was no difficulty for P.Ws.1  and
\n2 to identify the accused before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   It  is  pertinent  to  note  that  it  is  not the case where the
\nidentification parade was conducted and P.Ws.1 and 2 could  not  identify  the
\naccused.  The prosecution has come forward to state that after two months from
\nthe date of occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 on information went to police station and
\nidentified the   appellants\/accused   there   itself.      Under   the  stated
\ncircumstances, there is no doubt that could prevail as to whether P.Ws.1 and 2
\ncould have seen the appellants at the time of occurrence.  Further, during the
\ntime of investigation A1 and A2 were arrested and pursuant to the confessional
\nstatement given by A1 Rs.1000\/- was recovered from him.  It is true  that  the
\nevidence of P.    W.3, V.A.O.  casts a doubt whether he witnessed the recovery
\nof Rs.1000 \/-, but the appellants’ side  is  unable  to  show  any  reason  or
\ncircumstance  to  disbelieve  the  evidence of police official before whom the
\naccused made such a statement and recovery has been done.  Merely because  the
\nevidence  of  P.W.3  has failed, it cannot be stated that the prosecution case
\nhas got to be rejected.  P.W.1 who sustained simple injury was taken to  P.W.6
\nDoctor.   P.W.6 has given treatment to P.W.1 and has recorded the statement of
\nP.W.1 that P.W.1 was assaulted by unknown persons with torch light as  alleged
\nby the prosecution.  The accident register has also been filed in that regard.
\nThis  medical  evidence  has  corroborated  the ocular evidence adduced by the
\nprosecution.  Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of  the
\ncase,  this  court  is  of  the  view that the prosecution has proved its case
\nbeyond all reasonable doubt.  The trial court was perfectly correct in finding
\nthe accused guilty under Section 395 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Coming to the question of sentence, the trial  court  has  awarded
\nten years R.I.   and fine of Rs.1000\/- in default 6 months R.I.  This Court is
\nof the considered view that awarding punishment of 7 years R.I.    would  meet
\nthe ends  of justice.  Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial court on
\nthe accused 1 and 2 is reduced to 7 years R.I.  In other respect, the judgment
\nof the trial court is confirmed.    With  the  above  modification,  both  the
\ncriminal appeals are dismissed.  The Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit
\nthe  accused No.1 to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining period
\nof sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes
\nvvk<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti
\nthrough the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and Erode\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Addl.Dist.Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.1),Erode\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Dy.  Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4\n<\/p>\n
8.  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt.  Advocate(Crl side)
\nHigh Court, Madras\n<\/p>\n
9.  The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM CRL. APPEAL NO.1176 of 2002 AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 1260 of 2002 Virumandi .. Appellant in CA.1176\/2002 V.Alagarsamy .. Appellant in CA.1260\/2002 -Vs- State by the Inspector of Police […]<\/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-239627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVirumandi vs State on 9 July, 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\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-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=\"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-20T11:42:41+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-20T11:42:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2351,\"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\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-20T11:42:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 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":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 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\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-20T11:42:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-20T11:42:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003"},"wordCount":2351,"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\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003","name":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-20T11:42:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virumandi-vs-state-on-9-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virumandi vs State on 9 July, 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\/239627","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=239627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}