{"id":247109,"date":"2007-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-31T19:28:11","modified_gmt":"2015-03-31T13:58:11","slug":"samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 26\/02\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.356 of 2004\n\n\nSamy                                 ..    Appellant\n\nvs.\n\nThe State rep. by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nTenkasi Police Station,\nTirunelveli District.\nCrime No.96 of 2001                   ..    Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 25.09.2003 made in S.C.No.627 of 2001 on the file\nof the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.\n\n!For appellant\t\t: Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\n\n^For respondent       \t: Mr.Daniel Manoharan\n \t\t\t  Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<br \/>\n\tThe sole accused in a case of murder, who stood charged under Section 302<br \/>\nIPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life<br \/>\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default to undergo six months<br \/>\nRigorous Imprisonment  by Judgement dated 25.9.2003 in S.C.No.627 of 2001, has<br \/>\npreferred this appeal challenging the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) PW.1 Subbammal is the wife of the deceased and they were residing in<br \/>\nThilagar Street, Krishnapuram of Kadayanallur within the jurisdiction of<br \/>\nKadayanallur Police Station.  The accused was also belonging to the same place.<br \/>\nThe accused was living with his wife Parvathi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Prior to the date of occurrence, for about 15 days, the said Parvathi<br \/>\nwas found missing and the appellant\/accused entertained a suspicion that it was<br \/>\nthe deceased who would have kidnapped her.  Hence he bore a grudge on the<br \/>\ndeceased.  On the date of occurrence i.e. on 17.2.2001 at about 7.00 p.m. PW.1<br \/>\nand her husband were there in a bus stop i.e. at Tenkasi Koolkadai, to board a<br \/>\nbus, the accused came there, found the deceased and saying &#8220;you have kidnapped<br \/>\nmy wife, you pretend that you do not know any thing&#8221;,  took out a knife and<br \/>\nstabbed him twice as a result of which he fell down.  When PW.1 intervened, he<br \/>\nalso threatened her.  The deceased met with an instantaneous death.  The<br \/>\noccurrence was witnessed by PW.1 and PW.2.  PW.10 saw the accused\/appellant<br \/>\nrunning away from the place of occurrence with the weapon of crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) PW.1 went to Tenkasi Police Station and reported the occurrence to the<br \/>\nSub Inspector of Police  PW.21, who reduced it into writing and the same was<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.P.1.  On the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime<br \/>\nNo.96\/2001 under 302 IPC. Printed F.I.R is Ex.P.11, which was despatched to the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, PW.25 took up further<br \/>\ninvestigation.  He went to the spot and made an inspection and prepared an<br \/>\nObservation Mahazar Ex.P.7 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.18 in the presence of the<br \/>\nwitnesses and he made arrangements for taking photographs.  PW.3 is the<br \/>\nphotographer. The photographs and negatives of the dead body of the deceased was<br \/>\nmarked as MO.4 (Series).  He recovered the Material Objects available at the<br \/>\nplace of occurrence.  He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and<br \/>\nprepared Inquest Report Ex.P.19.  Following the same, the body was subjected to<br \/>\npost-mortem by the Doctor (PW.17) attached to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi.<br \/>\nHe found injuries and he issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he opined<br \/>\nthat the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ (Heart and<br \/>\nLungs), shock and heamorrhage from vital organs (Heart and Lungs).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) Thereafter, on 18.2.2001 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused was arrested<br \/>\nin the presence of V.A.O. (PW.20) and other witnesses. The accused voluntarily<br \/>\ngave his confessional statement and the admissible portion of which was marked<br \/>\nas Ex.P.9, following which, he produced the knife MO.1 and the same was<br \/>\nrecovered under Ex.P.10 mahazar.  On production of the Material Objects<br \/>\nrecovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, they were<br \/>\nsubjected to chemical analysis.  Ex.P.16 is the Chemical Analysis Report.<br \/>\nEx.P.17 is the Serological Report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer PW.25<br \/>\nfiled a final report for the charge of murder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.<br \/>\nNecessary charge was framed.  In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution<br \/>\nhas examined 25 witnesses, marked 20 Exhibits and 11 MOs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(4) On completion of the evidence on  the side of the prosecution, the<br \/>\naccused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating<br \/>\ncircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused<br \/>\ndenied the charges as false.  No defence witness was examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(5) The trial Court, after considering the submissions made on both sides<br \/>\nand after perusing the materials placed on record, and giving an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe accused to address his case, took the view that the prosecution has proved<br \/>\nits case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused\/appellant guilty as per<br \/>\nthe charge of murder, the subject matter of challenge is before this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(6)  Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case<br \/>\non the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and also PW.10.  There are a lot discrepancies in<br \/>\nthe evidence of eye witnesses.  If carefully scrutinised, it will not stand the<br \/>\ntest and hence, the trial Court should have rejected the testimony.  The medical<br \/>\nevidence did not support the case of the prosecution.  The recovery of weapon of<br \/>\nthe crime pursuant to the arrest and alleged confession were all nothing but<br \/>\nsubsequently planted by the prosecution to support its case.  Thus, the<br \/>\nprosecution did not place sufficient evidence or it cannot also be stated that<br \/>\nthe prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(7) Added further the learned counsel that even assuming that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the fact that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased<br \/>\nto death, in the instant case, the act of the accused would not attract the<br \/>\npenal provisions of murder.  Even as per the accused, he was provoked by the<br \/>\nfact that it was the deceased who had taken away his wife and on that<br \/>\nprovocation the accused had stabbed.  Thus, in the instant case, the act of the<br \/>\naccused was neither intentional nor pre-meditated in order to cause the death.<br \/>\nHence the penal provisions of murder cannot be attracted and hence it is only a<br \/>\ncase of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and this point has got to be<br \/>\nconsidered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Court heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It is not in controversy that the deceased is the husband of PW.1 and<br \/>\nthe deceased was done to death but homicide.  In the instant case, the<br \/>\nprosecution has not only relied on the direct evidence  of witnesses but also<br \/>\nrelined on the evidence of the Doctor PW.17, who conducted autopsy on the dead<br \/>\nbody and also relied on the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.3 issued by him and his<br \/>\ncategorical opinion is that the deceased would appear to have died 24 or 25<br \/>\nhours prior to autopsy. Apart from that, the appellant\/ accused never questioned<br \/>\nthis fact at any stage of proceedings before the trial Court and hence, it has<br \/>\ngot to be recorded and recorded so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, unfortunately, out<br \/>\nof the two witnesses first witness is the wife of the deceased.  On that ground,<br \/>\nher evidence cannot be discarded but it must be subjected to a careful scrutiny.<br \/>\nDespite of such exercise, the trial Court has thoroughly satisfied with her<br \/>\nevidence since her evidence has inspired the confidence of the Court.  According<br \/>\nto PW.2,  he was standing at the bus stop to board a bus, at that time, the<br \/>\ndeceased was stabbed to death.  Thus, the occurrence was witnessed by PW.2.<br \/>\nPW.10, who was running a  petty shop 20 ft. away from the scene of occurrence<br \/>\nalso witnessed the accused running with the weapon of crime and stabbing the<br \/>\ndeceased.  Despite the cross-examination of the witnesses, the testimony stood<br \/>\nand thus their evidence has got to be accepted and the trial Court has rightly<br \/>\naccepted their evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The prosecution in its favour has pointed out yet another circumstance<br \/>\nabout the arrest of the accused and pursuant to confessional statement, recovery<br \/>\nof  MO.1 Knife and thus the prosecution has proved to the extent that it was the<br \/>\naccused who stabbed the deceased to death.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Coming to the question of the act of the accused, the Court has<br \/>\nnecessarily to discredit the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant.  The only contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant is that due to sudden provocation the accused had acted.  In the<br \/>\ninstant case, the statement of the accused is that he was under the impression<br \/>\nthat it was the deceased, who had taken his wife away.  Had it been true, the<br \/>\naccused ought to have given a complaint to the police.  Without ascertaining the<br \/>\nfact, he acted in a cruel manner and stabbed the deceased to death.  From the<br \/>\npost-mortem certificate, it could be seen that there are 21 injuries inflicted,<br \/>\nout of which, 19 were cut and stab injuries.  In the opinion of the Court, only<br \/>\non a suspicion, the appellant has acted in a cruel manner even without<br \/>\nascertaining the fact.  In such circumstances, nothing could be inferred that<br \/>\nthere was a sudden provocation and the accused acted on frustration and the act<br \/>\nof the accused would only attract the penal provisions of culpable homicide not<br \/>\namounting to murder.  Under the given circumstances, it would be clear that he<br \/>\nacted naturally attracting the penal provisions of murder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 302<br \/>\nIPC and awarded life imprisonment and it does not require any interference by<br \/>\nthis Court.  The judgment of the trial Court is sustained.  The Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nfails and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The Principal Sessions Court,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nTenkasi Police Station,<br \/>\nTirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Crime No.96\/2001)\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of<br \/>\n  the Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26\/02\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.A.(MD) No.356 of 2004 Samy .. Appellant vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tenkasi Police Station, Tirunelveli [&hellip;]<\/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-247109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-31T13:58:11+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\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T13:58:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1604,\"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\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T13:58:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-31T13:58:11+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\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T13:58:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007"},"wordCount":1604,"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\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007","name":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T13:58:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samy-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samy vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/247109","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=247109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}