{"id":239770,"date":"2006-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006"},"modified":"2016-12-29T11:07:48","modified_gmt":"2016-12-29T05:37:48","slug":"saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 2401 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SAJI, S\/O. KUTTAPPAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE - S.I. OF POLICE, S. BATHERY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :14\/07\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                R. BASANT, J.\n                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006\n                        -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Dated this the 14th  day of   July, 2006\n\n\n                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict<\/p>\n
of guilty,  conviction  and sentence  in  a prosecution,    under Section<\/p>\n
325 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.  The crux of the allegations against the petitioner\/accused is<\/p>\n
that at 1.30 p.m. on 4.8.1998 on account of prior animosity he had an<\/p>\n
altercation   with   PW1.     She   was   pushed   down   and   stabbed   with   a<\/p>\n
knife.   She  suffered  injuries  including  a fracture.   The prosecution<\/p>\n
alleged that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section<\/p>\n
325   I.P.C.         Investigation   commenced   with   Ext.P1   F.I.   statement<\/p>\n
lodged by PW1.  Ext.P4 F.I.R. was registered on the basis of Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
Investigation culminated with the final report submitted by PW9.<\/p>\n
       3.  Consequent to the plea of not guilty raised by the accused,<\/p>\n
prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and proved Exts. P1 to P5.  PWs .<\/p>\n
1 to 3 are the victim, aged about 70 years, her daughter and her grand<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
daughter,   who   all   had   allegedly   witnessed   the   occurrence.     PW4   is   the<\/p>\n
doctor,   to   whom   PW1   was   taken   immediately   after   the   incident.     He<\/p>\n
examined her at 4 p.m. on 4.8.98 and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate, in<\/p>\n
which the allegation  that the petitioner had attacked the victim with a knife<\/p>\n
is unambiguously   stated.     PW5 is an attester   to Ext.P3 scene mahazar.<\/p>\n
PW6 recorded  and registered Ext.P4 F.I.R.  PW7 doctor  was examined to<\/p>\n
prove Ext.P5 discharge certificate and to confirm the fracture.  PWs. 8 and<\/p>\n
9 are  police officials who had roles to play in the registration of the crime<\/p>\n
and its investigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The accused took up a defence of total denial.   A suggestion is<\/p>\n
raised that PW1 must have suffered the injury when she was tying a cow<\/p>\n
and she was taking advantage of the injury suffered  by her to raise false<\/p>\n
allegations   against   the   petitioner.     The   petitioner   did   not   adduce   any<\/p>\n
defence evidence.   The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that safe reliance can be placed on the oral evidence of PW1.  They further<\/p>\n
relied on PWs. 2 and 3 as also Ext.P2 wound certificate issued by PW4 and<\/p>\n
the contents of Ext.P1 F.I. statement lodged on 5.8.98 to draw inspiration<\/p>\n
for the oral evidence of PW1.  Accordingly the courts proceeded to pass the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned concurrent judgments.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.   The petitioner now faces a sentence of R.I. for two years and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- under Section 325 I.P.C.  Out of the fine amount, if<\/p>\n
realised, an amount of Rs.2,500\/- is directed to the released to the victim as<\/p>\n
compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.  Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner<\/p>\n
wants  to   mount   against   the   impugned   concurrent   judgments,   the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for the petitioner contends that the courts below erred grossly  in<\/p>\n
placing  reliance  on the  oral  evidence  of  PW1.   PWs.  1  to  3 are  inter se<\/p>\n
related  closely  and  admittedly    there  is  prior   animosity  also.         In  these<\/p>\n
circumstances     in   the   absence   of   independent   ocular   corroboration,   the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 should have been discarded.  It is further contended<\/p>\n
that there is an incongruity  between the case of the   prosecution and the<\/p>\n
version   of   the   witnesses.     The   injury   was   suffered   on   the   hand   on   the<\/p>\n
forearm by PW1.  The situs of the fracture  is  different from the situs of the<\/p>\n
external injury.  The prosecution has alleged that the fracture was suffered<\/p>\n
in the course of a fall,  whereas, the witnesses asserted that the fracture was<\/p>\n
suffered because of the stab.  This is an irreconcilable  incongruity and the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
benefit  of doubt  must  be conceded  to  the  accused,  it  is contended.    The<\/p>\n
learned counsel further contended that, at any rate, benefit of doubt must be<\/p>\n
conceded  to  the  accused  and  leniency  may  be  shown  on  the  question  of<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.     PWs.   2   and   3   are   interested   undoubtedly.     The   victim   is   their<\/p>\n
mother\/grand mother.  PW1, the victim, is also interested because she is the<\/p>\n
one who had suffered the injury.  Prior animosity is also indicated.  I shall<\/p>\n
for a moment assume that the oral evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 need not be<\/p>\n
considered   at   all.     Even   then   we   have   the   evidence   of   PW1   about   the<\/p>\n
circumstance under which she, a woman aged about 70 years, had suffered<\/p>\n
the injuries.  There was an altercation.  She had fallen on the ground.  There<\/p>\n
was a stab injury also.   This is the allegation made by her.   She is not an<\/p>\n
expert on medicine and her explanation as to whether she had suffered the<\/p>\n
fracture because of the fall or because of the stab injury cannot be given<\/p>\n
undue significance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.       The   prosecution   did   not   make   a   specific   allegation   that   the<\/p>\n
fracture was suffered because of the stab injury and that explains why the<\/p>\n
offence charged against the accused is only under Section 325 I.P.C. and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
not under Section 326 I.P.C.    PW1’s version that she had suffered injuries<\/p>\n
is indicated convincingly by the injury found on her person by the doctor,<\/p>\n
PW4,   which   is   recorded   in   Ext.P2   wound   certificate.     As   to   how   she<\/p>\n
suffered   the   injury,   we   have   the   prompt   version   coming   forth   from   her,<\/p>\n
which  is recorded  in Ext.P2,  which shows the place, the manner and the<\/p>\n
person  who inflicted  the injury.   Ext.P2 affords convincing  assurance for<\/p>\n
the oral evidence of PW1.    Even if one were to assume that the evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs. 2 and 3 need not be accepted the verdict of guilty and conviction is<\/p>\n
eminently supported by the oral evidence of PW1 as also the contents of<\/p>\n
Exts. P1 and P2.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all<\/p>\n
probability   the   injury   was   suffered   in   a   fall.     There   may   have   been   an<\/p>\n
altercation.  The weapon having not been recovered the accused cannot be<\/p>\n
said to have inflicted the injury with any weapon.  Benefit of doubt on this<\/p>\n
aspect may be given to the petitioner it is alleged.  I note that the conviction<\/p>\n
is not entered under Section 326 I.P.C.    An injury inflicted  by a knife is<\/p>\n
convincingly  indicated by the injury noted in Ext.P2 and the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of PW4.  The fact that PW4 stated that the injury could have been suffered<\/p>\n
by a fall is no reason to assume that the oral evidence of PW1 on that aspect<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                6<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be believed.   The inability  of the prosecution to trace the weapon<\/p>\n
cannot in a case like the instant one  deliver any advantage to the indictee or<\/p>\n
help  him to succeed in the plea for benefit  of doubt.     I do not in these<\/p>\n
circumstance find any merit in the challenge raised against the impugned<\/p>\n
verdict of guilty and conviction.  The challenge must and does fail.<\/p>\n
       9.     Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence.<\/p>\n
The petitioner is at present aged 29 years and he is shown to have caused<\/p>\n
injuries to the victim, a woman aged about 70 years.  The counsel prays that<\/p>\n
maximum leniency may be shown in favour of the petitioner and he may be<\/p>\n
saved of a deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment.  I am unable to<\/p>\n
agree with the learned counsel.   I have already found that the allegations<\/p>\n
have been established satisfactorily.   Leniency can,of course, be shown in<\/p>\n
as   much   as   the   petitioner   is   not   shown   to   be   having   any   criminal<\/p>\n
antecedents.     But   a   deterrent   substantive   sentence   of   imprisonment   is<\/p>\n
certainly necessary and warranted.  Deterrence  in a case like the instant one<\/p>\n
does not depend on the length of the term which the offender spends behind<\/p>\n
the bars.  Substantive sentence of imprisonment can be reduced, but cannot<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
be avoided altogether.   I am further satisfied that an appropriate direction<\/p>\n
for payment of compensation, which will ensure the interests of adequate<\/p>\n
compensation of the victim, must also be imposed.   The sentence can be<\/p>\n
modified to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.  In the result:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (a)  This revision petition is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (b)   The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Section 325 I.P.C.   are upheld.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       )     But   the   sentence   imposed   is   modified   and   reduced.     In<\/p>\n
supersession of the  sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below,<\/p>\n
he is sentenced   to undergo S.I. for a period of six months.   He is further<\/p>\n
directed    to pay an  amount  of Rs.15,000\/- as compensation  and in default<\/p>\n
to undergo S.I. for a period of  three months.  If realised the entire amount<\/p>\n
shall be released to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.   The petitioner shall appear   before the learned Magistrate on or<\/p>\n
before   1.9.2006   to   serve   the   modified   sentence   hereby   imposed.         The<\/p>\n
sentence   shall not be executed till that date.    If the petitioner does   not so<\/p>\n
appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter   proceed to take  necessary<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 2401  of   2006          8<\/span><\/p>\n
steps  to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed.<\/p>\n
                                                (R. BASANT)
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 2401 of 2006() 1. SAJI, S\/O. KUTTAPPAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE – S.I. OF POLICE, S. BATHERY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE For Respondent : No Appearance […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSaji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - 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\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-29T05:37:48+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T05:37:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1499,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Saji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T05:37:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Saji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - 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\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-29T05:37:48+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T05:37:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006"},"wordCount":1499,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006","name":"Saji vs State - S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T05:37:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saji-vs-state-s-i-of-police-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saji vs State – S.I. Of Police on 14 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/239770","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=239770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}