{"id":252705,"date":"2008-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-02T17:03:51","modified_gmt":"2018-06-02T11:33:51","slug":"alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 15\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.No.634 of 2007\n\n1.Alexander\n2.Chandran\n3.Mani\n4.Rose\n5.Muthunayagam \t\t\t\t..  Appellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState represented through\nThe Inspector of Police,\nKuzhithurai Police Station,\nCr.No.132 of 2003\nKanyakumari District\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C<\/a>\nagainst the judgment dated 11.10.2007 made in S.C.No.224 of 2003 by the Sessions\nJudge Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu\n\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.C.Daniel Manoharan,\n\t\t     Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants five in number have challenged the judgment of the Sessions
\nJudge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, made in S.C.No.224 of 2003, dated
\n11.10.2007, whereby the accused\/appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty
\nand awarded punishment as  follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)A-1 and A-2 were found guilty under Sections 148<\/a>,341<\/a>,294(b)<\/a>,307<\/a> and 302<\/a>
\nIPC and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148<\/a> IPC;
\n1 month simple imprisonment under Section 341<\/a> IPC; 3 months rigorous
\nimprisonment under section 294(b)<\/a> IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also to
\npay a fine of Rs.2,000\/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment under
\nsection 307<\/a> IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a
\ndefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tb).A3 was found guilty under Sections 148<\/a>,341<\/a>,294(b)<\/a>,307<\/a> read with 149 and
\n302 IPC<\/a> and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148<\/a>
\nIPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC<\/a>; 3 months rigorous imprisonment
\nunder section 294(b)<\/a> IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine
\nof Rs.2,000\/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment under section 307<\/a>
\nread with 149 IPC<\/a> and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a
\ndefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)A4 was found guilty under Sections 148<\/a>,341<\/a>,294(b)<\/a>,324<\/a>(2 counts), 307
\nread with 149 and 302 IPC<\/a> and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment
\nunder Section 148<\/a> IPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC<\/a>; 3 months
\nrigorous imprisonment under section 294(b)<\/a> IPC; 1 year rigorous imprisonment for
\neach counts under Section 324<\/a>(2 counts) IPC<\/a>; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and
\nalso to pay a fine of Rs.2,000\/- with a default of 3 months rigorous
\nimprisonment under section 307<\/a> read with 149 IPC<\/a> and life imprisonment and to
\npay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorous
\nimprisonment under section 302<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\td)A5 was found guilty under Sections 148<\/a>,341<\/a>,294(b)<\/a>,324<\/a>, 307<\/a> read with 149
\nand 302 IPC<\/a> and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section
\n148<\/a> IPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC<\/a>; 3 months rigorous
\nimprisonment under section 294(b)<\/a> IPC; 1 year rigorous imprisonment under
\nSection 324<\/a> IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of
\nRs.2,000\/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment under section 307<\/a>
\nread with 149 IPC<\/a> and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a
\ndefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302<\/a> IPC.  All
\nthe above said sentences are to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The facts, sans unnecessary details, require for the disposal of the
\nappeal can be stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) P.W.1 and P.W.2 are brothers of the deceased Muthaiyan.  P.W.3 is the
\nwife of P.W.1.  P.W.4 is the son of P.W.2.  P.W.5 was a driver belonged to the
\nvillage of the deceased.  A1 and A2 are brothers, likewise A3 and A5 are
\nbrothers.  A4 is the wife of A3.  There was a long pending dispute between the
\nprosecution party and the accused party over a pathway and certain criminal
\ncases were registered by the respective police against the accused alleging that
\nthey were selling Madhu Kasayam and the proceedings in those were pending and it
\nwas passing in the minds of the accused above that P.Ws are responsible for the
\nsame and hence they were all in inimical terms.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)While the matter stood thus, on 09.03.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., A1 to A5,
\narmed with deadly weapons, came with a common object of attacking and causing
\ndeath of the deceased.  P.Ws.1 to 5 were present along with the deceased at the
\nbackyard of the house.  At that time, A1 armed with Vettukathi, A2 and A3 with
\niron rod, A4 and A5 with sticks came over there and immediately on reaching the
\nplace,  A-3 uttered words “cut and kill them”.  A1 attacked the deceased with
\nVettukathi on his head, while A2 attacked with iron rod on his head and A3 also
\njoined with him to attack the deceased on the head.  A1 and A2 attacked P.W.2
\ncausing grievous injuries.  A4 attacked P.Ws.1 and 3 with sticks and caused
\nsimple injuries.  A5 attacked P.W.1 by  rice pounder and caused injuries.  On
\nhearing the distressing cry, all the accused fled away from the place of
\noccurrence.  P.Ws.1 to 3, who were injured in the incident, took the severely
\ninjured to the hospital of One Issac, examined as P.W.22.  He examined the said
\nMuthayyan, gave first aid and sent him to the Government Hospital, Kottar, where
\nhe died on 10.03.2003 at about 1.15 am.  P.Ws.1 to 3 were all medically examined
\nby P.W.22. P.W.22 has given wound certificates Ex.P.27, Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.28 in
\nrespect of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 respectively, where he noted the injuries found on
\nthem. An intimation was given to the respondent police, where P.W.19 was the Sub
\nInspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n
\tc) On receipt of the intimation, P.W.19 proceeded to the hospital and
\nrecorded the statement of P.W.1 at about 10.30 p.m on 09.03.2003.  On the
\nstrength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in the respondent Police Station
\nin Crime No.132 of 2003 under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 323<\/a>, 324<\/a> and 307<\/a> IPC.
\nExpress FIR Ex.P.17 was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\td)On receipt of copy of the FIR, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, took up
\nthe investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in
\nthe presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the Observation mahazar and
\nEx.P.18, the rough sketch. Further, he enquired some witnesses and recorded
\ntheir statements.  He recovered  sample earth, bloodstained earth and also other
\nmaterial objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazer.  The
\nentire place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.20, the photographer and
\nall the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.9 series.  The investigator
\nconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the
\nwitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, which is marked as
\nEx.P.21.\n<\/p>\n
\te)Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the
\ngovernment hospital, for the purpose of autopsy.  P.W.12, the Doctor, attached
\nto Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, on receipt of the
\nrequisition Ex.P.8, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and
\nissued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate,  an opining that the deceased would
\nappear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage and also due to the head
\ninjuries sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) Pending investigation, on 11.03.2003 at about 12.00 hours, the
\ninvestigator arrested A3 and A4. A3 gave a confessional statement voluntarily
\nand the admissible part of the said confession was marked as Ex.P.4, consequent
\nupon the same he produced M.Os 4 and 6, which were recovered under a cover of
\nmahazar.  A3 and A4 were sent for judicial remand.  A5 surrendered before the
\nJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and an application for taking him on police
\ncustody was made. Accordingly he was taken in to police custody and on enquiry
\nA5 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the admissible
\npart of the said confession was marked as Ex.P.6, consequent upon the same the
\nmaterial objects were recovered from him under a cover of mahazar. He was also
\nsent for judicial remand. A1 and A2 also surrendered before the Judicial
\nMagistrate No.1, Nagercoil on 13.03.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tg) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead body of the deceased and the Material Objects recovered from the
\naccused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition, Ex.P.23,
\ngiven by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Two
\nreports were received.  One is Ex.P.30, the Serologist’s report and the other is
\nEx.P.31,the Chemical analyst’s report.  On completion of the investigation, the
\nInvestigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court,
\nwhich in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed, and the case was taken up for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\th) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 32 exhibits and 10 M.Os.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused\/appellants were questioned under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C. as to the
\nincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He
\ndenied them as false.  No defence witness was examined. After hearing the
\narguments of the counsel and looking into the material available meticulously,
\nthe lower court, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
\nreasonable doubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment as
\nreferred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at
\nthe instance of the accused\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Advancing arguments on behalf of all the appellants, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, in
\nhis sincere attempt of assailing the judgment of the Court below, made the
\nfollowing submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\ta)The prosecution rested its case by examining five witnesses as
\noccurrence witnesses.  Out of those five witnesses, P.W.5 turned hostile.
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 and
\nthus they are closely related inter se and thus they are interested and partisan
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Added further, if the test of careful scrutiny was applied to the
\nevidence of those witnesses, their evidence should have been rejected by the
\nlower Court for the reason that since their evidence was not only inconsistent
\nto each other but also self contradictory.  The case of the prosecution is that
\nall the accused constituted an unlawful assembly to commit an offence. But,
\nthere is nothing to indicate or prove or to point out or even to infer that they
\nhad any common object either to commit the act of murder or to commit any
\nillegal act.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Added further, in the instant case, the earliest documents which came
\ninto existence even before first information report was registered were Exs.P.26
\nto 28, the wound certificates which were issued by P.W.22 in respect of P.Ws.2,1
\nand 3 respectively and a perusal of those documents would go to show that P.W.22
\nDr.Issac has stated that they were attacked by a known person.  Therefore, it
\nwas in singular and thus they were attacked by a number of persons who are the
\naccused, is highly improbable and only acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Further, in the instant case there was all possibility for improvement
\nand embellishment of FIR for the simple reason that the occurrence has taken
\nplace at about 7.30 pm at 09.03.2003 and P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police,
\nhas gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at about 10.30 pm.,
\nand a case came to be registered under Section 307<\/a> and other provisions of
\nI.P.C<\/a>. but the first information reached the Court only on the next day and
\nthere was a delay of 12 hours and the prosecution has no explanation to offer
\nthis 12 hours delay when the Judicial Magistrate Court is situated within a
\nshort distance from the Police Station and this would go to show that the entire
\nprosecution case was only a fabricated one.\n<\/p>\n
\te) Added further, in the instant case, if these evidence are  scrutinized
\ncarefully, it would clearly reveal that they have spoken and narrated the
\noccurrence in a graphic manner and more so, in a dramatic way and it can be
\neasily inferred that these witnesses have been tutored. Learned counsel in
\nsupport of his contention relies upon the decision reported in 1981 Supreme
\nCourt Cases (Cri) 679 (Sevi and another V. State of Tamil Nadu and another<\/a>) and
\ncontends that if the said judgment is applied, the prosecution case must be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)Added further, the learned counsel that in the instant case, the medical
\nevidence did not support the case of prosecution.  The occurrence has taken
\nplace at about 7.30 p.m. night hours and even the investigator has made
\ninspection of the occurrence place and prepared observation magazar with the
\nhelp of torch light and when that was the situation, the alleged eye witnesses
\ncould not have witnessed the occurrence as spoken in their evidence before the
\nCourt.  If the first information report is compared with the evidence, it would
\nbe clear that it was full of discrepancies, which discrepancy would be suffice
\nto  reject the case of prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)Added further, even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, there is
\nnothing to indicate that the accused have got common object either to cause
\ndeath of the deceased or to cause grievous injury to the witnesses and thus no
\nquestion of invoking Sections 148<\/a>  and 149<\/a> IPC would arise.  So far as A4 and 5
\nare concerned, they did not attack the deceased at all.  A4 attacked P.Ws.1 and
\n3, A5 attacked P.W.1 and those injuries are simple in nature and hence they have
\nto be dealt with accordingly and in so far as A1 to A3 are concerned, there is
\ndiscrepancy between the FIR and the evidence and in the FIR it is found stated
\nthat A2 attacked with  iron rod and caused injuries which is above the eye brow
\nbut in the evidence before the Court, it is stated that he has caused grievous
\ninjury on the head of the deceased and further no corresponding injuries were
\nfound noted in the post-mortem certificate. Thus, all would go to show that A2
\nhas nothing to do with the act of the accused and injury caused by A-2 was not a
\nfatal one to cause death. Under the circumstances, A-2 has also got to be dealt
\nwith accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\th)Added further the learned counsel for the appellants that the
\nprosecution is unable to say that the accused have got any common object or any
\nintention to cause death of the deceased and therefore they could not be found
\nguilty under Section 302<\/a> IPC and they should be dealt with for the injuries
\ncaused and if the Court comes to a conclusion that the factual positions are
\ntrue, this Court has to find them guilty under Section 326<\/a> IPC and accordingly
\njudgment has got to be rendered by the Court  taking into consideration the
\nfacts and legal position of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also
\nscrutinized the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.It is not the fact in controversy that the deceased Muthayyan, brother
\nof P.Ws.1 and 2, who was attacked in an occurrence that took place on
\n09.03.2003, was taken to the hospital of P.W.22 and thereafter to the Government
\nHospital, Kottar and he died at 1.15 am on 10.03.03 as a direct consequence of
\nthe injuries suffered in the incident.  Following the inquest made by the
\ninvestigator, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.12, the doctor,
\nwho has given an opinion not only in the post-mortem report but also deposed
\nbefore the Court that the death occurred due to the shock and hemorrhage due to
\nthe injuries sustained on the head. This fact that Muthayyan died out of
\nhomicidal violence was never the subject matter of controversy before the lower
\nCourt and hence, without impediment it could be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the
\nappellants\/accused, the prosecution marched five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5, as
\noccurrence witnesses, out of whom, P.W.5 has turned hostile.  The prosecution to
\nits advantage had the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.  Out of P.Ws.1 to 4, P.Ws.1 to 3
\nwere injured witnesses.  It is well settled position of law that in a given case
\nlike this, where the injured witnesses happened to be eye witnesses, their
\nevidence should not be discarded, unless and until strong circumstances are
\nnoticed or reasons are brought about, but in the instant case, absolutely not
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that
\nall these witnesses have given evidence in a graphic and dramatic manner cannot
\nbe accepted as their evidence is found to be with minor contradictions. All
\nthese witnesses have clearly spoken about the overt acts attributed to the
\naccused.  If they have not spoken so, the prosecution should have miserably
\nfailed. Under such circumstances, merely because, the eye witnesses have given
\naccounts for the entire overt acts attributed to the accused, it cannot be said
\nthat in every case, they should give a dramatic or graphic version, as stated by
\nthe learned counsel for the appellants.  The decision cited by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants has no application to the present facts of the case
\nand hence such contention cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.It is true that all these persons, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were
\ntaken to the private hospital of one Dr.Issac, who has been examined as P.W.22,
\nwhere they were all treated and the wound certificates issued to them were also
\nmarked as Exs.P.26 to 28, wherein it is found stated that they were assaulted by
\nknown persons and it does not say by a known person.  But, it says known
\npersons. They were taken to the private hospital along with the deceased, whose
\ncondition was serious and therefore all the  statements given by the persons in
\nanxiety and recorded by the doctor cannot be given much importance and in the
\nopinion of the Court, while, the other evidences are sufficient for the
\nprosecution to put forth its case.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In the instant case, it is true, there was a delay in FIR reaching the
\nCourt. It is settled position of law that mere delay in the registration of the
\ncase or despatching FIR to the court by itself would not be a reason to reject
\nthe prosecution case, if the other evidence available are acceptable by the
\nCourt. In a given case like this, the defence must be able to show that
\nprejudice has been caused to them because of delay.  In the opinion of the
\nCourt,  the delay caused by itself is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution
\ncase in the absence of any prejudice noticed by the Court. Therefore, that
\ncontention is also cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Further, so far as P.Ws.1 to 3 are concerned, they have spoken about
\nthe occurrence in detail and their evidence was also fully corroborated with the
\npost-mortem certificate issued by the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body
\nof the deceased as well as the wound certificates issued to them and also by the
\noral evidence of Doctors.\n<\/p>\n
\t 11.Yet another circumstance was the recovery of weapons of crime pursuant
\nto the confessional statements given by the accused, which, in the opinion of
\nthe Court, are pointing to the guilt of the accused and hence, the first line of
\ncontention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t  12.Insofar as the second line of contention is concerned, the Court is
\nable to see force in the contention put forth by the counsel for appellants.  In
\nthe instant case, there is nothing to hold or find or infer that the accused
\nhave got common object of murdering of the said deceased or to cause any
\nserious injuries and thus the common object as put-forth by the prosecution can
\nnot be accepted. In a situation like this, they have got to be dealt with
\nindividually. As rightly pointed out by the counsel, so far as, A-4 and A5 are
\nconcerned, they did not attack the  deceased and hence the charges levelled
\nagainst them have got to be dealt with accordingly.  A4 attacked P.Ws.1 and 3
\nand A5 attacked P.W.1 and they caused simple injuries on them and hence they
\nhave got to be dealt with under Section 324<\/a> of IPC and awarding punishment of
\none year Rigorous Imprisonment would meet ends of justice.  Sofar as A1 to 3 are
\nconcerned, the contention put forth by the learned counsel that they were not
\nthe members of the unlawful assembly nor they have got common object and
\ntherefore they should be brought to 324 IPC<\/a> cannot be accepted.  The doctor has
\ngiven his clear opinion that shock and hemorrhage due to the injury sustained on
\nthe head was the cause for death and thus there is no doubt in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.There is clear evidence that A-1 attacked the deceased with vettukathi,
\nA-2 and A-3 attacked with iron rod on the head and caused injuries and due to
\ncumulative effect, the deceased died.  Hence A1 to A3, under the circumstances,
\nhave got to be held that they shared the common intention and thus they have got
\nto be found guilty under Section 302<\/a> read with 34 IPC<\/a>.  A1 and A2  attacked
\nP.W.2 and caused grievous injuries and hence they have got to be dealt with
\nunder Section 326<\/a> IPC also and awarding punishment two years rigorous
\nimprisonment would meet ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the
\nconviction and sentences imposed on the appellants\/accused are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)A1 and A2 are convicted under Section 302<\/a> read with 34 I.P.C<\/a> instead of
\n302 I.P.C<\/a> and each of them are sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment thereunder
\nand to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorous
\nimprisonment.  They are also convicted under Section 326<\/a> I.P.C instead of 307
\nI.P.C<\/a> and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.2000\/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment.  Their conviction
\nand sentences under other provisions of law are all confirmed.  All the
\nsentences are run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)A3 is convicted under Section 302<\/a> read with 34 I.P.C<\/a> instead of 302
\nI.P.C<\/a> and each of them are sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment thereunder and
\nto pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorous
\nimprisonment.  He is acquitted of the charge under Section 307<\/a> read with 149 of
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  In respect of other provisions of law, the conviction and sentences
\nimposed on him are confirmed.  All the sentences are run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)The conviction and sentenced imposed on A4 and A5 under Section 307<\/a> read
\nwith 149 of I.P.C<\/a> are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge.
\nWhile confirming the conviction of A4 under Section 324<\/a> I.P.C (2 counts), the
\nsentence is modified to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and the other
\nconviction and sentences are all confirmed.  While confirming the conviction of
\nA5 under Section 324<\/a> I.P.C, the sentence is modified to undergo one year
\nrigorous imprisonment and the other conviction and sentences are all confirmed.
\nAll the sentences are run concurrently.  The period of sentence already
\nundergone by A4 and A5 shall be given set off.\n<\/p>\n
ssm\/arul<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Sessions Judge,
\n  Kanyakumari Division, at
\n     Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.No.634 of 2007 1.Alexander 2.Chandran 3.Mani 4.Rose 5.Muthunayagam .. Appellants Vs. State represented through The Inspector of Police, Kuzhithurai Police Station, Cr.No.132 […]<\/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-252705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - 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\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-02T11:33:51+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-02T11:33:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3803,\"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\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-02T11:33:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - 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\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-02T11:33:51+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-02T11:33:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008"},"wordCount":3803,"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\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008","name":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-02T11:33:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alexander-vs-state-represented-through-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alexander vs State Represented Through on 15 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/252705","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=252705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}