{"id":239875,"date":"2009-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-10T05:36:55","modified_gmt":"2018-05-10T00:06:55","slug":"paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED : 29.06.2009\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nCRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.586 & 682 of  2007\n\n\t\t\t\n1. Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1)\n2. Arul Kumar @ Arul(A3)\n3. Manikandan @ Mani\t(A4)\n4. Vijaykanth(A5)\t\t\t..  Appellants in Crl.A.586\/2007\n\n5. Sivakumar @ Siva(A2)\t\t.. Appellant in Crl.A.682\/2007\n\n\n\tVs.\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police,\nB-9, Saravanampatti Police Station,\nCoimbatore.\t\t\t\t.. Respondent in both the Appeals.\n \t\n\tThese criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District  Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore made  in S.C.No.242 of 2006 dated 14.6.2007.   \n\t\tFor Appellants\n\t        in Crl.A.No.586\/2007    : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra \n\n\t\tFor Appellant\n\t        in Crl.A.No.682\/2007    : Mr. A.R.Suresh\n\n\t\tFor Respondent  \t\t : Mr.N.R.Elango, APP \n\n\nCOMMON  JUDGMENT\n\n(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)\t\t\n\tThis judgement shall govern these two appeals viz., Crl.A.No.586\/2007 filed by A1, A3 , A4 &  A5  and Crl.A.No.682\/2007 filed by A2, whereby these appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:\n\nACCUSED\nCHARGES\nFINDINGS\nSENTENCE\nA1\nS.120(b)IPC\nGuilty\n2 years R.I.\nA1\nS.147 IPC\nNot Guilty\n...\n<\/pre>\n
A1
\nS.148 IPC
\nGuilty
\n3 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A1
\nS.302 IPC
\nGuilty
\nLife imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000\/- i\/d three months R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A2
\nS.120(b) IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A2
\nS.147 IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A2
\nS.302 r\/w 109 and 120(b)IPC
\nGuilty u\/s
\n302 IPC<\/p>\n
Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000\/- i\/d three months R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A3
\nS.120(b) IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A3
\nS.147 IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A3
\nS.302 r\/w 109 and 120(b)IPC
\nGuilty u\/s
\n302 IPC
\nLife imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000\/- i\/d three months R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A4
\n120(b) IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A4
\nS.147 IPC<\/p>\n
Not Guilty
\n….\n<\/p>\n
A4
\nS.148 IPC
\nGuilty
\n3 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A4
\nS.302 IPC
\nGuilty
\nLife imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000\/- i\/d three months R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A5
\nS.120(b) IPC
\nGuilty
\n2 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A5
\nS.147 IPC
\nNot Guilty
\n….\n<\/p>\n
A5
\nS. 148 IPC
\nGuilty
\n3 years R.I.\n<\/p>\n
A5
\nS.302 IPC
\nGuilty
\nLife imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000\/- i\/d three months R.I.\n<\/p>\n
The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The deceased Babu, P.W.2- Alagendran and A1 to A5 were friends and all are residing in the same place. One year prior to the date of occurrence, on a  festive occasion of Mariamman temple at Chokkan garden, the deceased Babu stamped the leg of the first accused while  dancing, for which, all the accused beat the deceased Babu. Hence, the relationship between the accused and the deceased became strained.  On 27.2.2006 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased went to Autokaran wine shop and consumed liquor and when they came out, they saw A1  crossing them and on seeing him, the deceased Babu kicked A1. A1 got angry, scolded him and left the place.   Thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased went to a tea stall and they had tea. At that time, A2 came there and told the deceased  that regarding the earlier incident,  the matter has to be solved between the deceased and A1 and on saying so,  A2    took the deceased Babu along with him. P.W.1, entertaining suspicion, accompanied them. When they came near the occurrence place, A1  armed with aruval  stabbed the deceased Babu at difference parts of the body and A4 got the knife from A1 and stabbed the deceased and A5 also snatched the knife from A4 and stabbed the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 to 4. When they raised alarm, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) Immediately, the matter was informed to the relatives. The severely injured Babu was taken  in the auto of P.W.14 and he was taken to different hospitals and final, he was taken to Kovai Medical Centre where the doctor declared him dead. Immediately,  intimation was given to the respondent Police Station. P.W.22, Sub- Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1  which was marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime No.268\/2006 under Section 302 I.P.C. The express F.I.R., Ex.P13 was despatched to Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)  P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made and inspection and prepared the observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch Ex.P21. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Babu in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P15- inquest report. The dead body was subjected to post mortem and P.W.20 doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion in Ex.P11 post mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple stab injuries  sustained by him. \t(d) All the accused were arrested. A1 gave confessional statement and the admissible part of the confession made by A1 was marked as Ex.P8. He also produced M.O.1 knife which was recovered under a  cover  of mahazar. All the accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects  recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and M.O.1  recovered from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in the chemical report and the serologist report and they were also placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 23 witnesses and relied on 21 exhibits and 5 material objects.  On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined and no documents were marked.   The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgement of conviction and sentence  as stated above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t 3. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants learned counsel would submit,  according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 27.2.2006 at 8.00 p.m. Though  P.Ws.1 to 4 were shown as eye witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have turned hostile. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have spoken about the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Learned counsel further submitted that according to P.W.1, both himself and the deceased went to Autokaran Wine shop and took liquor and they came out of the shop. At that time, A1 came there and on seeing him, the deceased kicked him. A1 left the place with anger. Then, P.W.1 and the deceased Babu proceeded in a cycle to a tea stall and had tea.    A2 came there and took the deceased to the scene of occurrence under the guise of pacifying the entire affairs between A1 and the deceased.  P.W.1 also accompanied him. At that time, the  occurrence has  taken  place. Learned counsel would further add that a reading of the earliest document Ex.P1- report would not indicate  the names of A4 and A5 and no overt act was shown against them. Thus, it is quite clear that A4 and A5 could not have been  in the place of occurrence at all. Ex.P1 refers to  the names of A1 and A2 only and it does not speak about the name of A3 but would state that a black person with curly hair.  As far as A3 was concerned, no identification parade was  conducted and it  does  not   refer  to  the   presence of P.W.2 at all. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have turned hostile. The learned counsel would further add,  it is highly doubtful whether P.W.1 could have seen  the occurrence. According to P.W.1, he and the deceased went inside the wine shop and both had liquor  but he has categorically stated in the cross examination that he did not have liquor at all along with the deceased and the statement made in Ex.P1 report was false. The learned counsel would add that even the post mortem  doctor has categorically opinion that there is nothing to indicate that the deceased consumed alcohol.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Added further learned counsel, all the answers given by P.W.1 at the time of cross examination would indicate that he could  not have been present at the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that he did not give the names of the accused in Ex.P1 report but their names are found. All would go to show that P.W.1 would not have seen the occurrence at all. Only after the occurrence had taken place, P.W.1 would have been informed about the occurrence and then,  he would have gone to the place of occurrence and after seeing the dead body, he has given the false report. Even the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution through the post mortem doctor that Babu died of homicidal death will not help the prosecution case  to bring home the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Added further learned counsel, the prosecution relied on the alleged recovery of M.O.1- knife, following the confession statement given by A1. It is settled principle of law  that the recovery of weapon of crime alone would not be suffice to sustain conviction.  Under such circumstances, the lower Court has taken an erroneous view  and found the accused guilty. Hence, it has got to be set aside by this court and the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration of the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is not in controversy that one Babu, following the incident that  had taken place at 8.00 p.m. on 27.2.2006 was taken to the hospital  where he was declared  dead and following the inquest made by P.Ws. 23 investigating officer, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.20 doctor gave categoric opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple stab injuries  sustained by him.  The said fact was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court. Hence, it could be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In order to substantiate that at the time of occurrence it was A2 and A3 facilitated the crime of murder by catching hold of the deceased  Babu and A1, A4 and A5 stabbed the deceased Babu, the prosecution marched 4 witnesses but a perusal of the testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 4 would clearly indicate that they exposed hostile attitude. Thus,  the witnesses available for the  prosecution are P.Ws.1 and 2 only. A reading of the earliest document Ex.P1 would indicate that the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence was not found. The scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 would show that he accompanied the deceased,  went to the autokaran wine shop and had brandy and when they came out of the shop,they saw A1 and it was the deceased who kicked A1 and A1 got angry but he left the place and thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased Babu proceeded to a tea stall and had tea and A2 came there and took the deceased with him to the place of occurrence and following the same, the incident had taken place at the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 throws  the following doubts in the mind of the Court which in the opinion of the Court are reasonable doubts  which are not clarified by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. According to P.W.1, he accompanied the deceased to liquor shop and had liquor but  at the time of cross examination he has stated neither he nor the deceased had liquor and he did not have liquor with the deceased and the averment in Ex.P1 would be nothing but false. Hence, it cast a doubt whether P.W.1 could have accompanied the deceased and witnessed the occurrence. Further, P.W.20 the post mortem doctor deposed that nothing was found in the stomache to indicate consumption of alcohol by the deceased. The other point raised by the learned counsel is that P.W.1 has categorically admitted that when he went to the police station and gave Ex.P1  report, he did not  give the names of the accused but the names of A1 and A2 were actually found in Ex.P1 report. Further, the prosecution came forward to speak about 5 accused persons  but  P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken that A4 and A5 were present at the time of occurrence but in Ex.P1 report there is no indication about the presence of A4 and A5. Further, when the evidence of P.W.1  was carefully scrutinised, it does not stand the scrutiny test, since, in the opinion of the Court, when reasonable doubts are available, duty is cast upon the prosecution to explain the same but the prosecution miserably failed to do so.  In the absence of such reasonable doubts which remains not clarified, even before this Court, the Court is afraid whether it could sustain the conviction as done by the lower Court. Hence, benefit of doubts must be given to the appellants\/accused to which they are entitled to. The Court is of the considered opinion that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on the evidence brought forth by the prosecution.  The lower court, without considering all the above aspects, has erroneously found the appellants guilty and hence, the judgment of the lower court has got to be made undone only by upsetting the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the court below. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds if any executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and the fine amounts if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.\n<\/p>\n
vsi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The  Additional District  Sessions Judge,
\n   Fast Track Court No.III  Coimbatore<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n   B-9, Saravanampatti Police Station,
\n   Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n   High Court,
\n   Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.586 & 682 of 2007 1. Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) 2. Arul Kumar […]<\/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-239875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPaneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - 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\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-10T00:06:55+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\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T00:06:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2261,\"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\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T00:06:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - 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\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-10T00:06:55+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\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T00:06:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009"},"wordCount":2261,"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\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009","name":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T00:06:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paneer-selvam-paneer-a1-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paneer Selvam @ Paneer (A1) vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/239875","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=239875"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239875\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}