{"id":247576,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-12-05T12:45:01","modified_gmt":"2014-12-05T07:15:01","slug":"senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                      DATE : 29.01.2007\n\n                           CORAM:\n\n    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n                    Crl.A.No.328 of 2000\n\nSenthilvel                                   .. Appellant\n\n                             vs.\n\nState by\nStation House Officer,\nAll Women Police Station,\nPondicherry.                                 ..Respondent\n\n\n\nPrayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against  the\n\nJudgment  in C.C.No.245 of 1997 dated 29.2.2000 on the  file\n\nof   the   Additional   District  Judge-cum-Chief   Judicial\n\nMagistrate, Pondicherry.\n\n\n     For Appellant         : Mr.C.P.Palanisamy\n\n     For Respondent        : Mr.M.P.Thangavel\n                             Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)\n\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.245\/1997 on the file of the Court of  Chief  Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Puducherry.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      2.  The  short facts of the prosecution case  is  that<\/p>\n
seven  months  prior to 8.7.1997 at Door No.40,  Rangapillai<\/p>\n
Street,   Puducherry,   infurthrece  of   common   intention<\/p>\n
subjected  the  complainant Malathi to cruelty  by  beating,<\/p>\n
also demanding a Hero Honda Motor Cycle,  cash of Rs.50,000\/-<\/p>\n
,   and  a water heater as dowry.  A case was registered  on<\/p>\n
the  complaint preferred by P.W.1.  The case  was  taken  on<\/p>\n
file  by  the  learned  Judicial Magistrate,  Puducherry  in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.245\/1997   against   the   A1,   husband    of    the<\/p>\n
complainant(P.W.1),     and   A2,   mother-in-law   of   the<\/p>\n
complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      3.  On appearance of the accused on summons the copies<\/p>\n
under  Section 207<\/a> of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the  accused<\/p>\n
and charges as indicated above were framed.  When questioned<\/p>\n
the   accused  pleaded  no  guilty.   On  the  side  of  the<\/p>\n
prosecution  P.W.1  to  P.W.8 were examined  and  Ex.P.1  to<\/p>\n
Ex.P.10 were marked.  No material objects were marked.<\/p>\n
      4.  P.W.1  is the complainant, wife of A1,  who  would<\/p>\n
depose  that the marriage between herself and A1 took  place<\/p>\n
on  10.11.1995 as per the Hindu customs and at the  time  of<\/p>\n
marriage her parents presented 37 sovereign of gold and cash<\/p>\n
of  Rs.50,000\/- and other ‘Sreethana’ properties worth about<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/-  and the marriage took place at  Puducherry  and<\/p>\n
after  the marriage she was residing along with her husband.<\/p>\n
After  15  days of marriage her husband demanded Hero  Honda<\/p>\n
Motor cycle and this was informed by her to her parents  and<\/p>\n
her  husband  had  also demanded cash of Rs.50,000\/-.    But<\/p>\n
her(P.w.1)  parents  have declined to  accede  to  the  said<\/p>\n
demand.   She went to her parent’s house for Pongal  and  at<\/p>\n
that  time  she  was two months of pregnancy.   Due  to  the<\/p>\n
impact  of  travel she developed bleeding which resulted  in<\/p>\n
abortion  of  the  fetus in hospital.  After  treatment  her<\/p>\n
husband  returned  to  his house.   A  week  thereafter  she<\/p>\n
returned  to her husband’s house along with her  mother  but<\/p>\n
she was not permitted to go inside the house but sent out of<\/p>\n
the  house by her husband accusing that she had aborted  the<\/p>\n
child   without  the  permission  of  her  husband.   Elders<\/p>\n
pacified  him  and after compromise, she was allowed  to  go<\/p>\n
inside the house of the accused and that the 1st accused had<\/p>\n
insisted  her  to  give  in writing that  only  out  of  her<\/p>\n
volition  she had aborted the child.    According to  P.W.1,<\/p>\n
her husband does not allow her to go out of the house and he<\/p>\n
used  to keep her under lock and key and there was no proper<\/p>\n
food  given  to  her  and that she was ill-treated  and  her<\/p>\n
mother-in-law kicked her while she was sleeping and she  was<\/p>\n
also  compelled to give consent in writing for  A1’s  second<\/p>\n
marriage.     After  coming to know about  this,  her(P.w.1)<\/p>\n
sister came to her house, but her husband did not permit her<\/p>\n
to  go inside the house.  On 29.6.1996 late night the A1 and<\/p>\n
his  mother were discussing about the second marriage of her<\/p>\n
husband and also planed to kill her,   on 30.6.1996 she gave<\/p>\n
a  telegram  to  her brother Magesh with  the  help  of  her<\/p>\n
neighbour.   Her  brother came and asked her  husband  about<\/p>\n
this.   Her  husband informed Magesh that he wants  to  live<\/p>\n
separately  in the house and that she(P.W.1) shall  give  in<\/p>\n
writing   that  she  does not like  her  husband.   But  she<\/p>\n
refused  to give such a letter and then she went along  with<\/p>\n
her brother to her parent’s house.  She went to Women Police<\/p>\n
Cell  and complained of the cruelty meted out to her at  the<\/p>\n
hands  of  her  husband.  On 8.7.1996 she  had  preferred  a<\/p>\n
complaint-Ex.P.1 with the Women Police.  Ex.P.2 is  marriage<\/p>\n
invitation dated 10.11.1995 between P.W.1 and A1.  Ex.P.3 is<\/p>\n
the  letter  dated 8.5.1996 written by her  to  her  mother.<\/p>\n
Ex.P.4  is  dated 11.5.1996  written by her to  her  mother.<\/p>\n
Ex.P.5  is the letter dated 5.6.1996 written by her  to  her<\/p>\n
mother.  Ex.P.6 is the letter dated 7.6.1996 written by  her<\/p>\n
to  her  brother.   Ex.P.7  is the  letter  dated  14.6.1996<\/p>\n
written by her to her brother.  Ex.P.8 is the letter written<\/p>\n
by her to her mother.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      5.  P.W.2 is the mother of the complainant.  P.W.2 has<\/p>\n
deposed  to  the  effect  that her  husband  is  working  in<\/p>\n
Malaysia   and  that  the  marriage  between  A1   and   the<\/p>\n
complainant(P.W.1)  was  solemnized   through  friends  like<\/p>\n
Balasubraminan   and   Gandhimohan  and   that   after   the<\/p>\n
solemnization of the marriage her daughter P.W.1 and A1 were<\/p>\n
living happily for ten or fifteen days.  Thereafter both  A1<\/p>\n
&  A2  used to comment upon the mode of service rendered  by<\/p>\n
the  complainant and scolded her like anything and that  she<\/p>\n
had  visited her daughter’s house only thrice and  that  she<\/p>\n
stayed only for a duration of two hours each and during that<\/p>\n
time  P.W.1  used  to complain about the treatment  she  had<\/p>\n
received  at the hands of the accused and that as  requested<\/p>\n
by  P.W.1,  she(P.W.2) had also informed this to the  senior<\/p>\n
paternal  uncle of A1 and that the accused used to keep  her<\/p>\n
daughter under lock and key and  A1 never allowed her to  go<\/p>\n
to  purchase milk.    On one occasion one of the sisters  of<\/p>\n
P.w.1  was also not allowed to see P.W.1 and that P.W.1  has<\/p>\n
informed  her that the accused were demanding fan and  other<\/p>\n
items.    P.W.1  informed that she is not feeling  well  and<\/p>\n
hence  she was taken to a doctor.  She went along  with  her<\/p>\n
daughter(P.W.1)  to  Puducherry for Thaippoosam.  When  they<\/p>\n
returned to the house of the accused,  they were not allowed<\/p>\n
to  go  inside the house.  The daughter of A1’s sister  came<\/p>\n
and  opened  the gate after a long time and on seeing  P.W.1<\/p>\n
and  her mother P.W.2,  the accused abused them and the said<\/p>\n
matter  was  reported to Nattamai at Thittai  Village.   The<\/p>\n
accused 1 and 2 compelled P.W.1 to write a letter of release<\/p>\n
to enable A1 to marry for the second time.   The said demand<\/p>\n
was refuted by her and her daughter(P.w.1).  A2 kicked P.W.1<\/p>\n
and also teased her.  P.W.1 also gave a telegram to Thittai,<\/p>\n
which was received by her(P.W.2) son.  The son of P.W.2 also<\/p>\n
went  to  Puducherry and witnessed the ill-treatment  meeted<\/p>\n
out by P.W.1 at the hands of A1.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.   P.W.3 is the elder sister of P.W.1.   P.W.3 would<\/p>\n
depose  that P.W.1 and A1  lived together happily for  about<\/p>\n
15 days after the marriage and in that 15 days P.W.1 and her<\/p>\n
husband  A1  visited her(P.W.3) house  three  times.    Both<\/p>\n
P.W.1 and her mother came to Puducherry for Thaippoosam  and<\/p>\n
also informed about the ill-treatment metted out to P.W.1 at<\/p>\n
the  hands  of  her husband and that she also  informed  the<\/p>\n
person  who  solemnized the marriage and  also  she  visited<\/p>\n
P.W.1’s house with her father and since P.W.1 was very weak,<\/p>\n
she  made a request to A1 and mother of A1 to allow  her  to<\/p>\n
take  P.W.1  to her house.  But they refused to allow  P.W.1<\/p>\n
along  with her and that during the month of Margazhi, P.W.1<\/p>\n
was  brought by A1 and A2 and others to Thittai  for  “Thali<\/p>\n
prithu  kattuthal  function” and  at  that  time  P.W.1  has<\/p>\n
informed  that  the accused were demanding  one  Hero  Honda<\/p>\n
motor cycle, a water heater and cash of Rs.50,000\/-  But the<\/p>\n
accused  were  pacified and were sent  back  to  Puducherry.<\/p>\n
During  her(P.w.3) visit to the house of the accused,  P.w.1<\/p>\n
was  found inside the house under lock and key and she stood<\/p>\n
at  the  entrence of the house and spoken to with P.w.1  and<\/p>\n
returned  back  and  that  P.w.1  also  informed  her   that<\/p>\n
her(P.w.1)  dress materials were kept by A1 under  lock  and<\/p>\n
key and that P.W.1 was sleeping along with the mother of the<\/p>\n
accused and the accused was sleeping in the first floor  and<\/p>\n
that  the accused were responsible for abortion which   took<\/p>\n
place   to  P.W.1.  She has further deposed that  P.W.1  has<\/p>\n
also  informed about the cruel treatment of  A2.   She  also<\/p>\n
speaks  about  the frequent quarrel between  P.W.1  and  the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1.  P.W.4 also speaks<\/p>\n
about the marriage  between P.W.1 and A1 and also about  the<\/p>\n
presentation given to P.W.1 at the time of marriage and that<\/p>\n
P.w.1  had written a letter Ex.P.3 stating that A1 had  beat<\/p>\n
her,  demanding Hero Honda Motor Cycle and on  one  occasion<\/p>\n
while  he visited the house of P.W.1, A1 has necked him  out<\/p>\n
of  the  house  and  that  he also speaks  about  the  cruel<\/p>\n
attitude of A1 towards P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
     8. P.W.5 is a neighbour of P.W.1.  P.W.5 deposed to the<\/p>\n
effect  that  P.W.1 used to complaint about her husband  and<\/p>\n
that  P.W.1 informed her about the torture received  at  the<\/p>\n
hands of the accused and also about the demand of dowry.<\/p>\n
     9.  P.W.6 is the mahazar witness, who would depose that<\/p>\n
Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8 were seized on 25.7.1996 by the police from<\/p>\n
the  house  of Magesh and that Ex.P.9 is seizure mahazar  in<\/p>\n
which he has signed as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      10.   P.W.7 is the Inspector of Police of Women Police<\/p>\n
Station.  She would state that P.W.1 came to the station  on<\/p>\n
8.7.1996 at about 11.15 hours and preferred a complaint  for<\/p>\n
demanding dowry by her husband and her mother-in-law to  the<\/p>\n
tune  of Rs.50,000\/- cash and a water heater and also a Hero<\/p>\n
Honda  motor  cycle  and on the basis of the  complaint  she<\/p>\n
registered a case in Cr.No.3\/1996 under Section 498(1)<\/a>A  IPC<\/p>\n
and  under   Section 4<\/a> of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 r\/w  34<\/p>\n
IPC<\/a>.    Ex.P.10 is the FIR.  She has examined the  witnesses<\/p>\n
and  visited  the place of occurrence and seized  Ex.P.2  to<\/p>\n
Ex.P.8 letters and seizure mahazar is Ex.P.9.   P.W.8 is the<\/p>\n
successor  of  P.w.7, who had taken up further investigation<\/p>\n
and after completing the investigation, she has filed charge<\/p>\n
sheet against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      11.  When incriminating circumstances were put to  the<\/p>\n
accused,  they denied their complicity with the  crime.   On<\/p>\n
the  side  of the accused D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined  and<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D12 were marked.  After going through the  oral<\/p>\n
and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court,  the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge has held that A2 is not guilty under the<\/p>\n
charge  levelled against her and consequently acquitted  A2,<\/p>\n
but  convicted A1 under Section 498<\/a> A IPC and sentenced  him<\/p>\n
to undergo imprisonment till raising of the court and a fine<\/p>\n
of  Rs.5,000\/-  with  default sentence.   Aggrieved  by  the<\/p>\n
findings of the learned trial Judge,   A1 has preferred this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      12. Now the point for determination in this appeal  is<\/p>\n
whether the conviction and sentence under Section 498<\/a> A  IPC<\/p>\n
against A1 is sustainable?\n<\/p>\n
\n
     13.The Point:- Section 498<\/a> A IPC runs as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Whoever, being the husband or the relative
\n     of the husband of a women, subjects such woman to
\n     cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
\n     term  which may extend to three years  and  shall
\n     also be liable to fine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation  –  For the purpose of this  section,
\n     “cruelty” means\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (a)  any willful conduct which is of such  a
\n     nature  as is likely to drive the woman to commit
\n     suicide  or  to cause grave injury or  danger  to
\n     life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
\n     of the woman; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)  harassment  of the woman  where  such
\n     harassment is with a view to coercing her or  any
\n     person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
\n     for  any property or valuable security or  is  on
\n     account  of failure by her or any person  related
\n     to her to meet such demand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  allegation  against A12 by her wife P.W.1  is  that  A1<\/p>\n
often  harassed her  to give cash of Rs.50,000\/- and also  a<\/p>\n
Hero  Honda  motor  cycle and a water heater.   Even  though<\/p>\n
P.W.2  to P.W.4 are relatives of P.W.1,  P.W.5 is a neighbor<\/p>\n
who  is  not a relation of P.W.1.  P.W.5 has deposed to  the<\/p>\n
effect  that  only  at  the instance of  P.W.1  she  gave  a<\/p>\n
telegram  to  the  brother  of P.W.1  stating  that  A1  had<\/p>\n
intimidated  P.W.1 to kill and there is no  safety  for  her<\/p>\n
life.    P.W.5  has  categorically stated   that  P.W.1  has<\/p>\n
informed her about the way in which A1 has treated P.W.1  so<\/p>\n
cruelly  and also demanding a motor cycle and money  towards<\/p>\n
dowry.   There is no motive attributed upon P.W.5 to  depose<\/p>\n
falsehood  against  A1.   The evidence  of  P.W.1  has  been<\/p>\n
corroborated   by   P.W.2  to  P.W.5.    Only   under   such<\/p>\n
circumstances,  the  learned  trial  Judge  has  come  to  a<\/p>\n
conclusion that an offence under Section 498<\/a> A IPC has  been<\/p>\n
proved against A1.  But the learned trial Judge has taken  a<\/p>\n
lenient  view  while awarding sentence to A1.   The  learned<\/p>\n
trial  judge has given punishment of imprisonment  till  the<\/p>\n
raising of the Court and also a fine of Rs.15,000\/-  with  a<\/p>\n
direction that if the fine amount is paid, the same shall be<\/p>\n
given to P.W.1 towards compensation under Section 357(1)<\/a>  of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.  I do not find any reason to interfere with the well<\/p>\n
considered  judgment  of the trial  Court,  which  does  not<\/p>\n
warrant  any interference from this Court. Point is answered<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      14.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming<\/p>\n
the  decree and judgment in C.C.No.245\/1997 on the  file  of<\/p>\n
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.<\/p>\n
\nssv<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nPuducherry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 29.01.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl.A.No.328 of 2000 Senthilvel .. Appellant vs. State by Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Pondicherry. ..Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the […]<\/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-247576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSenthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - 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\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-05T07:15:01+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\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-05T07:15:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2333,\"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\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-05T07:15:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 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":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - 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\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-05T07:15:01+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\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-05T07:15:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":2333,"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\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007","name":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-05T07:15:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthilvel-vs-state-by-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Senthilvel vs State By on 29 January, 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\/247576","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=247576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}