{"id":250996,"date":"2004-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004"},"modified":"2017-07-30T16:21:23","modified_gmt":"2017-07-30T10:51:23","slug":"ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED:  30\/03\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI            \n\nCRL.APPEAL No.804 of 1997    \n\nRavichandran                                           ...  Appellant \/\n                                                                Accused\n\n-Vs-\n\nDeputy Superintendent of\nPolice, Annamalai Nagar \nPolice Station,\nChidambaram.                                            ...  Respondent\n\n                This  Criminal  Appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment   dated\n23.10.1997 made in S.C.No.468 of 1992 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,\nChidambaram.  \n\n!For appellant  :  Mr.  A.Padmanabhan\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.  A.N.Thambidurai,\n                        Government Advocate,\n                        (Crl.  Side)\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
                Accused  in  S.C.No.468  of  1992  on  the  file  of Assistant
\nSessions Judge,  Chidambaram  is  the  Appellant.    By  the  Judgment   dated
\n23.10.1997, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted Appellant \/ Accused
\nunder Sec.304-B  I.P.C<\/a>.   for causing death of his wife Subadra subjecting her
\nto dowry harassment.  The trail Court acquitted the  Accused  for  the  charge
\nunder Sec.306 I.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  charges  against the Accused and the findings of the
\ntrial Court are as noted below:-\n<\/p>\n
Charge Number
\nGist of the Charge<\/p>\n
Finding
\nsentence <\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\nUnder Sec.  304 – B IPC<\/a> (2 counts)
\nfor causing death of his wife Subadra subjecting her to cruelty and harassment
\nin connection with dowry.\n<\/p>\n
and also for the death of his child Saranya.\n<\/p>\n
Convicted under Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.(2 counts)
\nSentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Under Sec.  306 IPC<\/a>
\nfor abetment to commit suicide by Subadra and for the death of child Saranya.
\nNot guilty<\/p>\n
Acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Common facts which led to this  appeal  could  briefly  be
\nstated thus:- Deceased Subadra is the daughter of P.W.8 – Shanmugasundaram and
\nP.W.9 –  Saroja.   The Accused was working as Assistant in the Bank of Madura,
\nChidambaram Branch.  Subadra was given  in  marriage  to  the  Accused.    The
\nmarriage of the Accused and deceased was solemnized on 08.12.1989 in Srinivasa
\nKalyana Mandapam,  Tanj  ore.    At the time of marriage, Subadra was given 20
\nsovereigns jewels and cash of Rs.40,000\/- and also  household  utensils  worth
\nabout Rs.30,000\/-.   The  couple  had one girl child by name Saranya.  Accused
\nand deceased Subadra were living in Door No.17,  Sadagopa  Nagar,  Kothangudi,
\nChidambaram within  the  jurisdiction  of Annamalai Nagar Police Station.  One
\nAlamelu is the owner of the said house.  She was residing in the ground floor;
\nwhile the Accused and deceased Subadra were living in the first floor.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   Case  of  prosecution  is  that  the   deceased   Subadra
\nentertained  doubts  on  the  illicit  intimacy  of  the Accused with the said
\nAlamelu, which has resulted in frequent quarrel between them.  P.Ws.8 and 9  –
\nParents  of the deceased Subadra thought of shifting their residence from Door
\nNo.17, Sadagopa Nagar.  P.W.8 – father of deceased was then a retired Personal
\nAssistant to District Collector.  He (P.W.8) has promised to buy  a  plot  for
\nthe couple  either  at  Kumbakonam or Mayavaram.  The Accused was demanding to
\npurchase the plot.  Demanding for plot,  the  Accused  was  treating  deceased
\nSubadra cruelly.    On  14.05.1992,  when  P.W.8 visited his daughter, she has
\ninformed him that the Accused was treating her cruelly demanding for plot.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Occurrence.  On 16.05.1992 –  2.00  p.m.,  Subadra  poured
\nkerosene on  herself and set fire to herself.  She has also poured kerosene on
\nher child Saranya and set fire to her.   Upon  hearing  the  alarm  raised  by
\nSubadra –  “Inah  fhg;ghj;J’;f.   Inah fhg;ghj;J’;f”, the neighbours rushed to
\nthe scene of occurrence.  P.W.1 – Sundaravadivelu,  resident  of  Door  No.16,
\nP.W.2  –  Palanivelu, resident of Door No.24 of Sadagopa Nagar heard the alarm
\nand went to the house and found Subadra burnt and dead.   The  child  Saranya,
\nwho sustained burn injuries was found to be struggling for life.  P.Ws.1 and 2
\nhave immediately  taken  the  child to Chidambaram Government Hospital.  Child
\nSaranya also died of burn injuries at 6.00 p.m.  on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Ex.P.1 – Report by P.W.3 – V.A.O.  P.W.3  (Gunasekaran)  –
\nVillage  Administrative Officer got information that one female – Subadra died
\nof burn injuries and the child Saranya sustained burn injuries and  struggling
\nfor life.    After  confirming  the information, P.W.3 sent Ex.P.1 – Report to
\nAnnamalainagar Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Registration of the case.    P.W.18  –  Sub  Inspector  of
\nPolice received Ex.P.1 – Report from P.W.3 – V.A.O.  On that basis, a case was
\nregistered in  Crime  No.140  of  1992  under Sec.174 Crl.P.C.  under Ex.P.8 –
\nFirst Information Report.  Child Saranya died of burn injuries  at  6.00  p.m.
\nOn receipt  of  Death  Intimation  of  child Saranya, P.W.18 – S.I.  of Police
\naltered the case into Sec.302 I.P.C<\/a>.  under Ex.P.9 – Express Report.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Since death of Subadra was within 2-1\/2 years of marriage,
\nRevenue Divisional Officer was requested  to  hold  Inquest  and  to  take  up
\ninitial investigation.    P.W.19  –  R.D.O (Vridhachalam), who was incharge of
\nChidambaram had taken up the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Inquest and  initial  Investigation.    On  the  night  of
\n16.05.1992, P.W.19 –  R.D.O.    had  taken  up  the investigation.  Parents of
\nSubadra viz., P.Ws.8 and 9 and other witnesses (P.W.1 – Sundaravadivelu, P.W.3\n<\/p>\n
– Gunasekaran and  one  Ganesan)  wer  and  their  statements  were  recorded.
\nInquest was held on the body of deceased Subadra examining the above witnesses
\nin the presence  of  Panchayatdars.    Ex.P.10  is the Inquest Report.  In his
\nreport (Ex.P.18), P.W.19 – R.D.O.  concluded that the death might be homicidal
\nor suicidal due to Dowry Harassment and Domestic Quarrel.  P.W.19 has directed
\nfurther enquiry.  After the inquest, the bodies of Subadra and  child  Saranya
\nwere sent for Autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Post-mortem.   P.W.20 – Dr.Amanullah conducted Autopsy on
\nthe body of the child Saranya.  Noting burn injuries, P.W.20 issued Ex.P.1 9 –
\nPost-mortem Certificate.  P.W.14 – Dr.Balachandran conducted  Autopsy  on  the<\/p>\n
body of  deceased Subadra.  90% to 100% burn injuries were noted on the person
\nof Subadra.  Opining that the death was due to burn  injuries,  P.W.14  issued
\nEx.P.7 – Post – Mortem Certificate.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Further Investigation.  P.W.21 – Assistant Superintendent
\nof Police  has  taken  up  further  investigation.   The scene of occurrence –
\nresidential house of the Accused in Sadagopa Nagar was inspected.    Ex.P.2  –
\nObservation Mahazar  and Ex.P.20 – Rough Plan were prepared.  Upon examination
\nof witnesses, P.W.21 – A.S.P.  had  initially  altered  the  case  to  Sec.302
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  under Ex.P.24 – Report.  Then, P.W.21 changed the case to Ss.304-B and
\n306 I.P.C<\/a>.    for  dowry  death and abetment to commit suicide under Ex.P.25 –
\nReport.  On completion of investigation, charge sheet was  filed  against  the
\nAccused on 21.10.1992.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   To  substantiate  the charge against the Accused, in the
\ntrial Court, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1  to  21.    Exs.P.1  to  25  were
\nmarked.  M.O.1  was  produced.    The  Accused  was  questioned  under Sec.313
\nCrl.P.C.  about the incriminating circumstances and  evidence.    The  Accused
\ndenied the  same.   The Accused filed statement in writing denying any illicit
\nintimacy between him and  the  said  Alamelu.    He  has  also  denied  having
\ncontrolled his wife from writing letters to her parents.  Denying the evidence
\nof  P.Ws.8  to 12, the Accused pleaded that he has never demanded any house or
\nplot from the deceased and never illtreated her.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court found
\nthat there was demand of dowry in the form of insistence to  purchase  a  plot
\nand that  the  deceased  Subadra  was  subjected  to  harassment.  Evidence of
\nparents of the deceased (P.Ws.8 and 9) was accepted as reliable and  on  their
\nevidence,  it  was  held  that  the  deceased  was subjected to harassment and
\ncruelty by the Accused in insisting for plot.    Placing  much  reliance  upon
\nEx.P.5 – Suicidal Note, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that Ex.P.5
\nclearly  brings  out  the  frustration  and  dejection in the mind of Subadra.
\nFinding that there was demand of dowry and that deceased Subadra was subjected
\nto harassment and cruelty in insistence for purchase  of  a  plot,  the  trial
\nCourt convicted  the  Accused  under  Sec.304-B  I.P.C<\/a>.   and sentenced him as
\naforesaid in para (2).\n<\/p>\n
                14.  The reasonings and the conviction  are  assailed  by  the
\nAccused contending that in the absence of any evidence of demand of dowry, the
\nconviction under Sec.304-B  I.P.C<\/a>.  is unsustainable.  Seriously assailing the
\nevidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 – Parents of the deceased, the  learned  counsel  for
\nthe Appellant \/ Accused interalia raised the following contentions:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) Evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and the letter –           Ex.P.3     and
\nSuicidal Notes – Exs.P.4 and P.5                – do not bring out the  demand
\nof dowry or             establish the cruelty;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) P.Ws.8 and 9 have developed ill-will and           grudge towards
\ntheir son-in-law, whom they             consider  responsible for the death of
\ntheir           daughter and their      evidence suffers from
\nimprovements and infirmities and the trial              Court erred in  basing
\nthe conviction on               the highly interested testimony of P.Ws.8  and
\n9;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) Exs.P.4 and P.5 – Suicidal Notes do not           contain   that
\nthe deceased suffered cruelty           at the hands of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
Contending that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not  sufficient  to
\nestablish  the  essential ingredients of Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>., the learned counsel
\nfor the Appellant \/ Accused submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting
\nthe Accused.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  Countering the arguments of the Appellant \/  Accused  and
\ntaking  me  through  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.8  and  9, the learned Government
\nAdvocate contended that the demand of dowry and that Subadra was subjected  to
\ndowry  harassment and cruelty are well proved by the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9.
\nIt is further submitted that the misunderstanding and differences between  the
\ndeceased  and the Accused due to illicit intimacy of the Accused with the said
\nAlamelu is well proved, which has caused the serious frustration in  the  mind
\nof the deceased and which has driven her to commit suicide and the trial Court
\nhas correctly  convicted  the  Accused.    It  is  further  submitted that the
\nreasonings of the trial Court for  convicting  the  Accused  are  unassailable
\nwarranting no interference.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   Upon  careful reassessment of the evidence and materials
\non record, Judgment of the trial Court and  submissions  of  both  sides,  the
\nfollowing points arise for consideration in this appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Whether  the prosecution has proved that Subadra was subjected to
\ncruelty and harassment in connection with dowry “soon before her death”?\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) Whether the frustration and  dejection  caused  in  the  mind  of
\ndeceased Subadra due to the alleged friendship between the Accused and Alamelu
\nwould fall within the purview of Sec.  304-B I.P.C<\/a>.  ?\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) Whether the conviction of the Accused under Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.  is
\nsustainable ?\n<\/p>\n
                17.   Case  of  prosecution proceeds on these common grounds:-
\nDeceased Subadra is the daughter of P.W.8 –  Shanmugasundaram.    Accused  was
\nworking as  Assistant  in the Bank of Madura, Chidambaram Branch.  Marriage of
\nthe Accused and deceased was solemnized on  08.12.1989  at  Srinivasa  Kalyana
\nMandapam, Tanjore.    At  the  time of marriage, deceased Subadra was given 20
\nsovereigns jewels, cash of Rs.40,000\/-  and  household  utensils  worth  about
\nRs.30,000\/-.   Accused and deceased were living in Door No.17, Sadagopa Nagar,
\nKothangudi.  The said house belongs to one Alamelu, who is none other than the
\nManager of the Bank of Madura,  Chidambaram  Branch,  where  the  Accused  was
\nworking.   Alamelu  was  residing  in  the ground floor, while the Accused and
\ndeceased were living in the  first  floor.    After  some  time,  Alamelu  was
\ntransferred to  Madras.   After her transfer to Madras, Alamelu was frequently
\nvisiting Sadagopa Nagar.  During her visit, she used  to  stay  in  the  first
\nfloor in  a  room, where deceased and Accused were living.  From the evidence,
\nit is brought on record that the deceased had serious doubts about the illicit
\nintimacy and friendship of the Accused with the said Alamelu, which has caused
\nstress and strain in the matrimonial relationship which resulted  in  frequent
\nquarrel.\n<\/p>\n
                18.    On   16.05.1992   –   2.00   p.m.,   Subadra   died  of
\nself-immolation.  She also poured kerosene on her child  Saranya,  aged  about
\n1-1\/2 years  and set fire to the child.  For the death of Subadra and Saranya,
\ninitially a case of ‘Suspicious death’ was registered in Crime No.140 of  1992
\nunder Sec.174 Crl.P.C.    under  Ex.P.8 – First Information Report.  Death was
\nwithin period of seven years.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  By Sec.113-B Evidence  Act,  the  Court  is  to  raise  a
\npresumption  of  Dowry death if the same has taken place within seven years of
\nmarriage and there is evidence of the women having been subjected  to  cruelty
\nor harassment.  Presumption under Sec.113-B is a presumption of law.  On proof
\nof  the  essentials  mentioned  therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to
\nraise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  Elaborately discussing Sec.113-B of the Evidence Act  and
\nSec.30 4(B)  I.P.C<\/a>.   and the necessity of proving the expression “soon before
\nher death” in 2003 SCC (Crl.) 2016 – Hiralal v.  State<\/a>, the Supreme Court held
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
“A conjoint reading of Section 113-B<\/a> of the Evidence  Act  and  Section  304-B<\/a>
\nI.P.C.   shows  that there must be material to show that soon before her death
\nthe victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment.  The  prosecution  has  to
\nrule  out  the  possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it
\nwithin the purview of ” death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances
\n“.  The expression ” Soon before ” is very relevant where Section 113-B<\/a> of the
\nEvidence Act and Section  304-B<\/a>  I.P.C.    are  pressed  into  service.    The
\nprosecution  is  obliged  to  show  that  soon before the occurrence there was
\ncruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates.  Evidence in
\nthat regard has to be let by the prosecution.  ” Soon before”  is  a  relative
\nterm  and  it  would  depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait
\njacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period  of  soon
\nbefore the  occurrence.    It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period,
\nand that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an
\noffence of dowry death as well as for  raising  a  presumption  under  Section
\n113-B<\/a> of  the  Evidence Act.  The expression ” Soon before her death ” used in
\nthe substantive Section 30<\/a> 4-B<\/a> I.P.C.  and Section 113-B<\/a> of the  Evidence  Act
\nis present  with  the  ideal  of  proximity test.  No definite period has been
\nindicated and the expression ” Soon before ” is not defined.  A  reference  to
\nthe  expression  ”  Soon  before ” used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the
\nEvidence Act<\/a> is relevant.  It lays down that a Court may presume  that  a  man
\nwho  is in the possession of goods ” Soon after the theft, is either the thief
\nor has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for
\ntheir possession “.  The determination of the period which can come within the
\nterm “Soon before ” is left to be determined by  the  Courts,  depending  upon
\nfacts and  circumstances of each case.  Suffice, however, to indicate that the
\nexpression ” Soon before ” would normally imply that the interval  should  not
\nbe much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question.
\nThere  must  be  existence  of a proximate and live link between the effect of
\ncruelty based on dowry demand  and  the  death  concerned.    If  the  alleged
\nincident  of  cruelty  is  remote  in  time and has become stale enough not to
\ndisturb the mental equilibrium of the woman  concerned,  it  would  be  of  no
\nconsequence.” (Emphasis added)   <\/p>\n
The essential  ingredient  of  Sec.304-B  I.P.C<\/a>.  “soon before death” was also
\nemphasised in JT 1997(3) SC 91 – Sham Lal v.  State of Haryana<\/a> followed by the
\nsingle Judge of this Court reported  in  1999-1-LW  (Crl)  127  –  Famaiah  v.
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   Now the main point to be determined is whether there was
\ndemand of dowry and whether deceased Subadra was subjected to illtreatment and
\ncruelty having immediate proximity to the date of death of  deceased  Subadra.
\nElaborate  consideration  of  the evidence and determination of this point has
\nbecome necessary in this appeal, since the trial  Court  has  not  tested  the
\nevidence in the light of the essential ingredients.\n<\/p>\n
                22.   Case  of  prosecution is that demand of dowry was in the
\nform of “to purchase a plot and that Subadra was  subjected  to  ill-treatment
\nand cruelty “.  Prosecution relies upon the following evidence:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) evidence of parents of Subadra – P.Ws.8 and         9    and   the
\nevidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, who         have married the sisters of Subadra;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) Ex.P.3 - letter and Exs.P.4 and P.5 -              Suicidal\nNotes;\n\n        (iii) evidence of P.W.5 (Amudha), a co-resident         in Door  No.17\nin the ground floor and         evidence of P.W.7 (Annakkili), the Servant-\nmaid of the Accused and deceased;  \n\n        (iv) P.W.19 - R.D.O's Report - Ex.P.18 and the          basis  of  his\nopinion.\n\n<\/pre>\n
It is to be considered  whether  the  above  evidence  and  facts  are  firmly
\nestablished  in  bringing  home  guilt  of  the  Accused  for  sustaining  the
\nconviction for dowry death.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  We may firstly refer to the evidence of P.W.5 (Amudha)  –
\na  co-resident,  residing  in  the  ground floor after Alamelu has vacated the
\nhouse in the ground floor.  P.W.7 – Annakkili, is said to be the  Servant-maid
\nin the house of the Accused and deceased Subadra.  P.W.5 was examined to bring
\nhome  the  point  that even after vacating the house, the said Alamelu used to
\nvisit the house of Accused and deceased in Chidambaram and would stay  in  the
\nfirst  floor  and  that  the  she used to go about in a Scooter along with the
\nAccused.  But P.W.5 had turned hostile.   Her  evidence  is  confined  to  the
\nlimited  extent  of  saying that she resided in the first floor of Door No.17,
\nSadagopa Nagar, which is owned by  Alamelu.    On  the  material  aspect  that
\nAlamelu used to frequently visit the house of Accused and that she insisted to
\nsend  child  Saranya  to Madras, which resulted in frequent quarrel, P.W.5 had
\nturned hostile.  Evidence of P.W.5 is of no assistance to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  Likewise, P.W.7 –  Annakkili,  who  is  said  to  be  the
\nServantmaid  of  the  deceased Subadra and Accused was examined to speak about
\nthe frequent quarrel between the Accused and deceased Subadra  on  account  of
\nthe frequent  visit  of  Alamelu.    P.W.7  also  turned hostile denying being
\nemployed in the house of the Accused.    With  the  hostility  of  P.W.7,  the
\nprosecution  is  further handicapped in bringing the evidence on the aspect of
\ncruelty from independent source.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  P.W.1 – Sundharavadivelu and P.W.2 – Palanivelu  are  the
\nresidents of  Door  No.16 and 24 of Sadagopa Nagar respectively.  P.Ws.1 and 2
\nare the only witnesses to occurrence.  According to them, on 16.05 .1992, they
\nheard the alarm raised by Subadra, Inah fhg;ghj;J’;f.  Inah  fhg;ghj;J’;f  and
\nwent  to  the  house  and  found  Subadra burnt and dead and the child Saranya
\nstruggling for life.  Thus the evidence of neighbours, viz.  P.Ws.1 and  2  is
\nalso of no consequence to establish the cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
                26.   Prosecution case revolves around the evidence of parents
\nof deceased Subadra – P.Ws.8 and 9.  Subadra was  given  in  marriage  to  the
\nAccused on  08.12.1989.   Even within 2-1\/2 years of marriage, they lost their
\ndaughter and grand-daughter.  In view of  the  close  relationship  and  their
\naffection  towards  Subadra,  P.Ws.8  and 9 would naturally have a tendency to
\nexaggerate the facts.  The love and affection for the deceased would create  a
\npsychological  hatred  in  their  minds  against  their  son-in-law, whom they
\nconsider responsible for the death  of  Subadra.    Therefore,  Court  has  to
\nexamine the  evidence  of P.Ws.8 and 9 with great care and caution.  In A.I.R.
\n1984 SUPREME COURT 1622 – Sharad v.  State of Maharashtra<\/a>, the  Supreme  Court
\nhas  laid down that the evidence of the parents is to be scrutinised with care
\nand caution to exclude exaggeration and laid thus:-\n<\/p>\n
” In view of the close relationship and affection any person in  the  position
\nof  the  witness  would  naturally  have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts
\nwhich may not have been stated to  them  at  all.    Not  that  this  is  done
\nconsciously  but  even  unconsciously  the love and affection for the deceased
\nwould create  a  psychological  hatred  against  the  supposed  murderer  and,
\ntherefore,  the  Court  has  to examine such evidence with very great care and
\ncaution.  Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth  or  perhaps
\nthe  whole  of  it,  they  would  be  guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis
\nagainst the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not  or
\ncould  not  have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously
\nby the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished.  This is human
\npsychology and no one can help it.  ”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 is to be carefully scrutinised to find out
\nwhether their evidence  satisfies  the  essential  requirements  of  Sec.304-B
\nI.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   Before  adverting  to  the evidence, we may refer to the
\nbackground and status of P.W.8 – Shanmugasundaram.  P.W.8 is a fairly educated
\nperson.   He  is  a  retired  Personal  Assistant   to   District   Collector,
\nPudukkottai.   P.W.8  being  an official of the Revenue Department, is worldly
\nwise more familiar with the  dowry  death  related  cases  and  the  procedure
\ntherefor.   Firstly, we may refer to his tendency in trying to make out a case
\nof Homicide in the initial stages of investigation.  That apart, he  was  also
\ntrying to implicate the said Alamelu as co-accused.  His tendency to implicate
\nthe Accused and Alamelu as accused in a case of Homicide is clearly manifested
\nin Ex.P.11 – his statement recorded by the Tahsildar.\n<\/p>\n
                28.   In  Ex.P.11  –  Statement  before the Tahsildar, P.W.8 –
\nShanmugasundaram had stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                (VERNACULAR OMITTED) <\/p>\n
                29.  P.W.9 (Saroja) – mother of the deceased Subadra had  also
\nreiterated the  same in Ex.P.17 – her Statement before the Tahsildar.  For the
\npurpose of showing their tendency to exaggerate and adding facts from  out  of
\ntheir  thinking, it is necessary to extract the relevant part of the statement
\nof P.W.9 in Ex.P.11 – Statement which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                (VERNACULAR OMITTED) <\/p>\n
Thus,  in  their  statements  before  Tahsildar, P.Ws.8 and 9 have stated that
\nSubadra is not a coward to  commit  suicide  and  she  would  have  only  been
\nmurdered.   Such  statement emanating from the thinking of P.Ws.8 and 9 is not
\nbased on any material.  In fact, the same is opposed to Ex.P.5 – Suicidal Note
\nitself.  Subadra herself has left the Suicidal Note stating that  she  herself
\nis responsible  for  ending  her  life by committing suicide.  The tendency of
\nP.Ws.8 and 9 in exaggerating or adding facts is to  be  borne  in  mind  while
\nscrutinising their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   Ex.P.18  is  the  report  of P.W.19 – Revenue Divisional
\nOfficer.  On the basis of statements of P.Ws.8 and 9, P.W.19 –  R.D.O.    also
\nformed an  opinion  that death of Subadra might be Homicide.  Ex.P.18 – Report
\nrefers to statement of one Johnsirani  for  forming  opinion  of  ”  Death  of
\nSubadra as  Homicide  “.  The statement of Johnsirani is not before the Court;
\nnor was she examined in the Court.  Opinion of P.W.19 –  R.D.O.    in  Ex.P.10
\nreads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                (VERNACULAR OMITTED) <\/p>\n
The above opinion of P.W.19 – R.D.O.  in Ex.P.10 is absolutely unsupported  by
\nany other material.\n<\/p>\n
                31.   In  the  initial  stages  of  the investigation, P.W.8 –
\nfather of the deceased Subadra has taken vigorous steps to implead Alamelu  as
\nco-accused.   In  his  cross-examination,  P.W.8 has admitted having preferred
\npetition before the Sessions Court, Cuddalore and thereafter, before the  High
\nCourt for impleading the said Alamelu as co-accused.  That he bore deep grudge
\ntowards  the  Accused  is also clear from his conduct in sending complaints to
\nTamil Nadu Chief  Minister  and  the  Chief  Secretary.    He  has  also  sent
\ncomplaints alleging  dowry  death  to  the  higher  Police  Officers.    Those
\ncomplaints were sent immediately on the next day of occurrence.    Considering
\nthe hatred in the mind of P.  W.8 towards the Accused and his tendency to make
\nimprovements,  cautious  approach has to be adopted in analysing his evidence.
\nBut the trial Court had not kept  with  cautious  approach  in  assessing  the
\nevidence of  P.Ws.8  and  9.  The trial Court seems to have virtually accepted
\nthe evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 without insisting for  corroboration  from  other
\nindependent source and circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
                32.   In  the  above backdrop, let us consider the evidence of
\nP.Ws.8 and 9 and P.Ws.10 and 11.  Of course, the marriage was an arranged one.
\nAt the time of  marriage,  20  sovereigns  jewels,  cash  of  Rs.40,000\/-  and
\nhousehold utensils  worth  about Rs.30,000\/- were given.  Accused was employed
\nin Bank of Madura, Chidambaram Branch.  The  said  Alamelu  is  said  to  have
\narranged for the marriage.  While the Accused and deceased Subadra were living
\nin Door No.17, Sadagopa Nagar, the deceased is said to have entertained doubts
\non  the  illicit  intimacy  of  the  Accused  with  Alamelu, which resulted in
\nfrequent quarrel between them.  It is alleged that Subadra has also  seen  the
\nAccused  and  the  said  Alamelu  in  a  compromising  position, which she had
\ninformed to her parents.  According to P.Ws.8 and 9,  Subadra  has  frequently
\ncomplained  of  the  quarrel  between  her and Accused on account of his close
\nrelationship with Alamelu.  The entire evidence of  cruelty  and  illtreatment
\nthus  proceeds  on  the footing that the frequent quarrel was due to the close
\nfriendship of Accused with Alamelu.  Absolutely there is no  evidence  on  the
\ndemand of dowry and that Subadra was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty in
\nconnection with dowry harassment having proximate link with the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                33.  Proposal  for  purchase of plot.  The only instance which
\nP.Ws.8 and 9 refers in their evidence is the proposal for purchase of plot  in
\nKumbakoman or  in  Tanjore.   This proposal was arrived at after having talked
\nwith the parents of the Accused.  According to P.W.8  –  Shanmugasundaram,  he
\nhad  complained  about  the  conduct  of the Accused to his parents and sought
\ntheir intervention to settle  the  problem  of  his  close  relationship  with
\nAlamelu  for  which  the  parents of the accused is said to have suggested for
\npurchase of plot in some other place so that the close relationship of Alamelu
\nand Accused would be severed.  P.W.8 has also agreed to purchase a plot.    As
\nper  his  statement,  vd;  kfs;  ed;whf  thH  ntz;Lk;  vd;gjw;fhf  ehd; Vw;ghL
\nbra;tjhfr; brhd; ndd;\/ Thus the proposal  for  purchase  of  plot  is  of  own
\nvolition  and  willingness of P.W.8 – father of the deceased to enable Subadra
\nto live happily with the Accused.  There is no demand by accused  to  purchase
\nthe plot.\n<\/p>\n
                34.   In  their  evidence,  P.Ws.8  and  9 have spoken about a
\nparticular instance.  When they went to Sadagopa Nagar, they found  the  house
\nlocked.   After  enquiring  the  neighbours  and being learnt that Subadra and
\nchild Saranya had been to Vadoor (house of the parents of the Accused), P.Ws.8
\nand 9 went to Vadoor.  According to P.Ws.8 and 9, Subadra  had  uncontrollably
\nwept alleging that she was confined in the house of the parents of the Accused
\nand pleaded her parents (P.Ws.8 and 9 ) to purchase a plot soon.  P.Ws.8 and 9
\npacified her  and  left  Vadoor.    Had  there been any such ill-treatment and
\nconfinement in Vadoor, P.Ws.8 and 9 would have definitely mentioned  the  same
\nin their  earlier statements – Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.17 before P.W.19 – R.D.O.  But
\nthey did not do so.  P.Ws.8 and 9 have only stated about:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) illicit intimacy of the Accused and Alamelu;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) proposal to purchase a plot and shifting           their\nresidence;\n\n        (iii)frequent quarrel between the accused and           deceased    on\naccount of illicit intimacy of          the accused with Alamelu.\n\n<\/pre>\n
The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 in the witness box on demand to purchase plot and
\nthat there  was  cruelty on that score is nothing but an improved version.  No
\nweight could be attached to their evidence that there was demand of  dowry  in
\nthe form of purchase of plot and that Subadra was subjected to cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
                35.   P.Ws.8 and 9 referred to their stay in the house at Door
\nNo.17 , Sadagopa Nagar on 14.05.1992 –  two  days  prior  to  the  occurrence.
\nAccording  to  them,  for  attending a marriage in Chidambaram on 15.05.19 92,
\nthey went to Sadagopa Nagar and stayed at the house of their daughter  on  the
\nnight of  14.05.1992.    At  that  time,  deceased  Subadra  is  said  to have
\ncomplained to P.Ws.8 and 9 on the alleged beating by the Accused in the  delay
\nin getting  the plot.  P.Ws.8 and 9 have stated that they pacified Subadra and
\nreturned back.  It is pertinent to note that had there been any such complaint
\nby Subadra, it would have been fresh in the mind of P.W.8 when he was examined
\nby P.W.19 – R.D.O.  But P.W.8 has not stated anything about the occurrence  on
\nthe night  of 14.05.1992.  In Ex.P.17 – Statement, P.W.9 only has stated about
\ntheir stay on the night of 14.05.1992 in Sadagopa Nagar and the  complaint  of
\nSubadra  that  the  deceased  was ill-treating her and subjecting her cruelly.
\nEven in the earlier  statement  of  P.W.9,  the  alleged  cruelty  is  not  in
\nconnection with  demand  of  dowry.    Subadra  is said to have complained the
\nconduct of the Accused in threatening her and in  trying  to  take  the  child
\nSaranya to  Madras  and  keep her in the custody of Alamelu.  Thus, it emerges
\nthat the mental agony caused to deceased Subadra was only on  account  of  the
\ncontact of  the  Accused  with  the said Alamelu.  Evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 is
\nabsolutely wanting to establish demand of dowry.  The proposal for purchase of
\nplot in Kumbakoman or in Tanjore is only voluntary.\n<\/p>\n
                36.  P.Ws.10  –  Venkatajalam  and  P.W.11  –  Natarajan  have
\nmarried sisters  of  deceased  Subadra.    According to P.W.11, he had been to
\nChidambaram about one week prior to the occurrence and  Subadra  informed  him
\nabout the problems in the delay in purchase of house or plot.  P.Ws.1 0 and 11
\nare also  interested witnesses.  As discussed earlier, the purchase of plot or
\nhouse is the proposal of the family members to sever his ties  (accused)  with
\nAlamelu.   On  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.10 and 11 , no cruelty or ill-treatment
\ncould be attributed to the Accused.\n<\/p>\n
                37.  Ex.P.3 is the  letter  written  by  deceased  Subadra  on
\n16.05.1992  about  the  restriction placed on her in visiting Tanjore (Parents
\nhouse).  In Ex.P.3 also Subadra only refers her  resentment  against  Alamelu,
\nthat  Alamelu  was influencing the Accused to impose condition not to send her
\nto Tanjore.  Extract of the above is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                (VERNACULAR OMITTED) <\/p>\n
Witnesses have admitted that the word ” nga;  ”  in  Ex.P.3 refers to the said
\nAlamelu.  Nothing is forthcoming from Ex.P.3 on the alleged demand of dowry or
\nthat Subadra was subjected to cruelty.  Likewise in Exs.P.4 and P.5 – Suicidal
\nNotes to her parents and to the Accused respectively,  nowhere  is  there  any
\niota of indication on demand of dowry.  In Ex.P.5 – Suicidal Note, Subadra has
\nonly stated,  ”  vd;Dila  Kothy;  ahUk;  fc&;lg;glnth.  tUj;jg;glnth ntz;lhk;\/
\neP’;fs; vy;nyhUk; ed;whf thHntz;Lk; vd;W epidf;fpnwd; “.  Evidence  of  P.Ws.8
\nand  9  and  the  letter  Ex.P.3  and  Suicidal Notes – Exs.P.4 and P.5 do not
\ncontain any convincing and satisfactory evidence about the demand for dowry or
\ncruelty.\n<\/p>\n
                38.  It appears from the evidence that there was strain in the
\nmatrimonial relationship only due to the close friendship of the Accused  with
\nAlamelu.   It  is  brought  on  evidence that Alamelu visited Chidambaram from
\n08.05.1992 – 10.05.1992 and the Accused joined her in going out, due to  which
\nSubadra  must  have  been greatly disturbed, driving her to commit the suicide
\nand also setting fire to the child.  Of course, the occurrence is  a  gruesome
\none.   The  Accused  is  mainly instrumental for causing such mental agony and
\ndejection in the mind of Subadra driving her to commit suicide.  But it cannot
\nbe the reason to convict the  Accused  for  dowry  death  when  the  essential
\ningredients are not proved.\n<\/p>\n
                39.   Of  course,  the  conduct  of  the Accused clearly falls
\nwithin the ambit of Sec.306 I.P.C<\/a>.  Though the trial Court framed  the  charge
\nunder  Sec.306 I.P.C<\/a>., unfortunately the trial Court had acquitted the Accused
\nunder Sec.306 I.P.C<\/a>.  Even in charge No.2 – abetment to  commit  suicide,  the
\nlanguage  proceeds  on  the  footing  of demand of dowry and the ill-treatment
\nthereon.  It is well proved  that  Subadra  was  harassed  by  the  persistent
\nconduct of  the  Accused  in  having  close relationship with Alamelu.  Direct
\nnexus between cruelty and abetment to commit suicide is  well  proved.    But,
\nunfortunately,  the  trial  Court has acquitted the Accused of this charge and
\nproceeded to convict him under Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                40.  The conviction under Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.  cannot be  altered
\ninto Sec.306  I.P.C<\/a>.,  since  the  essential  ingredients  are  different.  As
\nagainst the acquittal of the Accused under Sec.306 I.P.C<\/a>., the State  has  not
\npreferred any  appeal.    At  this  distant  point  of time, this Court is not
\ninclined to issue notice to the Accused to reverse the acquittal under Sec.306
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  Suffice it to point out that the trial Court erred in ignoring  direct
\nnexus of cruelty and suicide and erred in acquitting the Accused under Sec.306
\nI.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                41.   There is no satisfactory evidence on demand of dowry and
\nthat Subadra was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty ” soon before death  ”
\n.   Proximate  live  link between the demand and the cruelty prior to death is
\nnot convincingly established by the prosecution.  Conviction  of  the  Accused
\nunder Sec.304-B  I.P.C<\/a>.    is not in conformity with the facts and evidence on
\nrecord.  Hence, the finding of guilt and the conviction of the  Accused  under
\nSec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.  cannot be sustained and this appeal is to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                42.   Therefore,  the  Judgment  of  Assistant Sessions Court,
\nChidambaram in S.C.No.468 of 1992 (dated 23.10.1997) convicting the  Appellant
\n\/ Accused under Sec.304-B I.P.C<\/a>.  (two counts) is set aside and this appeal is
\nallowed.   The  Appellant \/ Accused is acquitted of the charge under Sec.304-B
\nI.P.C<\/a>.(2 counts).\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
sbi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Assistant Sessions Judge,
\nChidambaram.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Assistant Sessions Judge,
\nChidambaram, Through  <\/p>\n
The Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\nAnnamalai Nagar Police Station,
\nChidambaram.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI CRL.APPEAL No.804 of 1997 Ravichandran … Appellant \/ Accused -Vs- Deputy Superintendent of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station, Chidambaram. … Respondent This Criminal Appeal arises out of […]<\/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-250996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - 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\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-30T10:51:23+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T10:51:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5609,\"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\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T10:51:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - 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\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-30T10:51:23+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T10:51:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004"},"wordCount":5609,"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\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004","name":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T10:51:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-deputy-superintendent-of-on-30-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravichandran vs Deputy Superintendent Of on 30 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/250996","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=250996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}