{"id":253496,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-25T18:50:43","modified_gmt":"2018-03-25T13:20:43","slug":"deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 09\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.189 of 2009\nand\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.322 of 2009\n\nDeivendran\t\t\t\t... Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t    Crl.A.No.189\/2009\n\n\nUrangapuli\t\t\t\t... Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t    Crl.A.No.322\/2009\n\nVs\n\nState represented by,\nThe Inspector of Police,\nOomachikulam Police Station,\nin Cr.No.584 of 2004,\t\t       ... Respondent in both<\/pre>\n
Madurai District.\t\t           the appeals<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2)<\/a> of Cr.P.C. against the
\njudgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge \/ Fast Track Court No.3,
\nMadurai in S.C. No.317 of 2007 dated 03.07.2009.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellants\t… Mr.W.Peter Rameshkumar for
\n\t\t    appellant in Crl.A.No.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    189 of 2009<\/p>\n
 \t\t    Mr.R.Venkateswaran for
\n\t\t    appellant in Crl.A.No.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    322 of 2009<\/p>\n
^For Respondent\t… Mr.Isaac Manuel,
\n\t\t    Addl. Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern these two appeals, viz. Crl.A. (MD)No.189 of
\n2009 by the second accused and Crl.A.(MD) No.322 of 2009 by the first accused,
\nwho have stood, charged, tried and found guilty by the Additional District &
\nSessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai in S.C. No.317 of 2007 under
\nSections 302<\/a> r\/w 34 and 380 r\/w 34 IPC<\/a> and both of them were awarded life
\nimprisonment under Section 302<\/a> r\/w 34 IPC<\/a> and 5 years R.I. under Section 380<\/a> r\/w
\n34 IPC<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals
\ncan be stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) P.W.1-Krishnaveni is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Ramasamy.  She
\nwas employed as a Lecturer in Madurai Kamaraj University. She was residing in
\nPlot No.7, Surya Nagar Extension, Madurai within the jurisdiction of the
\nrespondent-Police. P.W.2-Gurusamy is her husband. Both herself and her husband
\nused to leave the house by 8.00 a.m. leaving the deceased in the house alone.
\nShe used to return by about 2.00 p.m. everyday for  lunch. As usual, on
\n11.08.2004, both P.Ws.1 and 2 left the house in the morning hours and P.W.1
\nreturned at about 1.45 p.m. When she was just entering the house, she found both
\nthe accused persons coming out.  Immediately, she questioned them as to whether
\nthey came for any work, but without giving any answer to her, they jumped out of
\nthe house through the northern portion. When she entered the house, she found
\nthe dead body of her father-in-law and also found the Seiko watch gifted to her
\nhusband at the time of marriage and kept in the bureau, missing. Immediately,
\nshe informed the matter to P.W.2, who rushed over there.  Then, accompanied by
\nher husband, she went to the respondent-Police Station where P.W.7-Head
\nConstable received Ex.P1-Complaint from her. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case
\ncame to be registered under Section 302<\/a> of the Code, in Crime No.584 of 2004.
\nEx.P15-Express F.I.R. was despatched to the Court and the copies were sent to
\nthe higher-ups.\n<\/p>\n
\tb) P.W.19-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R., proceeded
\nto the spot, made inspection and prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P16-
\nRough Sketch. Then, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the
\npresence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P17-Inquest Report. He
\nrecovered M.O2-Pair of chappals which were found outside the house and M.O.3-
\nSand containing the impression of foot, from the place of occurrence under a
\ncover of Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar, and sent the dead body to the Madurai Medical
\nCollege Hospital, Madurai for conducting autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\tc) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.18-
\nDoctor, attached to the Madurai Medical College Hospital, Madurai and he issued
\nEx.P12-Post Mortem Certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear
\nto have died of Asphyxia due to smothering associated with compression of neck
\n18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Thereafter, material objects were recovered
\nfrom the dead body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\td) Pending the investigation, the Investigator arrested both the accused
\non 12.08.2004 at Varichur Bus Stand. The first accused gave a confessional
\nstatement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.
\nThe admissible portion of the confessional statement of the first accused is
\nmarked as Ex.P18. On the basis of the confessional statement, M.O.1-Watch was
\nrecovered under a cover of Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
\te) P.W.12-Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Science Department,
\ninspected the place of occurrence and took out a print of the right foot using
\nplaster of paris. Thereafter, she took out a print of the right foot of both the
\naccused in the laboratory and instructed the police to send the foot print taken
\nat the place of occurrence and the foot print taken in the Forensic Lab to the
\nForensic Science Department at Chennai, for comparison and get a report. A
\nsniffer dog was also brought. Thereafter, the investigator also recovered M.O.4-
\nplaster impression of right leg and M.O.5-red soil which was taken by P.W.12-
\nScientific Assistant, under a cover of Ex.P4-Seizure Mahazar. Then, he sent both
\nthe accused for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) Thereafter, the investigator sent all the material objects to the
\nForensic Lab for conducting chemical examination. He also sent a requisition to
\nthe Judicial Magistrate No.3, Madurai for the purpose of conducting
\nIdentification Parade, under Ex.P7. The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Madurai
\nconducted Identification Parade where P.W.1 identified both the accused.  The
\nIdentification Parade Report is marked as Ex.P9.\n<\/p>\n
\tg) Pursuant to the requisition given by the investigator for conducting
\nchemical examination, two reports were received. One is Ex.P10-Chemical
\nAnalyst’s Report and Ex.P20-Serologist’s Report.\n<\/p>\n
\th) P.W.19-Inspector of Police, on completion of the investigation, filed
\nthe final report on 30.12.2004 under Sections 120-B<\/a>, 393<\/a> and 302<\/a> IPC against the
\naccused  before the concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the
\nCourt of sessions and necessary charges were framed.\n<\/p>\n
\ti) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 19 witnesses and relied on 20 exhibits and 8 material
\nobjects. On the side of the defence, Ex.D1 was marked through P.W.7 and Ex.D2
\nwas marked through P.W.19. On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of
\nthe prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313<\/a> of Cr.P.C. as to
\nthe incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
\nThey denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the
\narguments of the counsel and looking into the available materials, the Trial
\nCourt took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
\ndoubt, and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence, these Criminal
\nAppeals at the instance of the accused \/ appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused \/ appellants, the learned
\ncounsel, inter alia, have submitted that the prosecution came up with a story
\nthat the occurrence has taken place on 11.08.2004 between 12.00 and 1.30 p.m.,
\nin which the deceased, aged about 84, was killed by the accused, for which the
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer. The learned counsel further added
\nthat the only evidence available for the prosecution was that of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Learned counsel for both the accused, have further added that in Ex.P1,
\nP.W.1, the Lecturer attached to the Madurai Kamaraj University, even though
\noriginally has stated that she used to go to the college in the morning hours
\nand return to the house to take lunch at about 2.00 p.m., she categorically
\ndeposed at the time of cross-examination that she was attached to the Evening
\nCollege. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no need for her
\nto go to the college in the morning hours and to return back to the house to
\ntake lunch in the afternoon. Also, according to Ex.P1, she came to the house at
\n2.00 p.m., but she categorically deposed in her evidence that she came back at
\nabout 1.45 p.m. and at that time she saw both the accused.  Hence, according to
\nthe learned counsel, P.W.1 could not have seen the accused at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Added further the learned counsel for both the accused, in the instant
\ncase, that according to P.W.1, the first accused was actually working in her
\nhouse as mason at the time of construction of the compound wall and therefore,
\nshe would have very well knew the accused and under the circumstances, there was
\nno need for conducting any Identification Parade, but the same was conducted,
\nwhich creates a doubt in the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Learned counsel for both the accused, would further add that a perusal
\nof Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that there is no description given as to the
\nidentity of the accused persons, as it has been simply stated in Ex.P1 that two
\npersons aged about 25, were found coming out of the house, and what was all
\nstolen even according to the prosecution, was only a 15-year old seiko watch-
\nM.O.1. The counsel have further submitted that even according to P.W.1, the
\nbureau was kept opened and she used to keep the bureau in open condition.
\nTherefore, all these would go to show that the accused could not have been seen
\nby P.W.1. and the so-called confessional statement recorded from the first
\naccused, pursuant to which material objects were recovered, was a false document
\nand it was created only to suit the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Learned counsel for the second accused \/ appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.189
\nof 2009 would submit that insofar as A2 is concerned, he was actually sitting
\nand he had no link with the other accused and also he had no intention to share
\nwith the other accused, to commit the offence of murder or to steal anything. In
\nsuch circumstance, according to the counsel for the second accused, the evidence
\nput forth on the side of the prosecution, certainly is unbelievable and
\ntherefore, it would be highly unsafe to sustain a conviction and the sentences
\nimposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Learned counsel for the first accused \/ appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.322
\nof 2009 would submit that the date of birth of the first accused is 24.08.1986,
\nand therefore, the first accused had not completed the age of 18 years at the
\ntime of occurrence, i.e. on 11.08.2004 and hence it is a fit case where the case
\nshould have been split up and it should have been placed before the Juvenile
\nJustice Board for conduct of the trial, since he was a juvenile at the time of
\noccurrence, but the same was not done. In such circumstance, the learned counsel
\nwould submit, that even when the conviction is sustained, the sentences have to
\nbe set aside, and this has to be considered by the Court. He also relied on a
\ndecision of Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Kachharu @ Sushil v. State
\nof Chhattisgarh<\/a>, reported in 2010(1) Crimes 352, in support of his contention.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also
\nscrutinised the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It is not in controversy that one Ramasamy, aged 84 years, the father-
\nin-law of P.W.1 and the father of P.W.2, was done to death in an incident which
\nhad taken place in the house of P.W.1 between 12.00 and 1.30 p.m. on 11.08.2004.
\nFollowing the inquest made by the Investigating Officer and preparation of
\nEx.P17-Inquest Report, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of
\nautopsy.  The dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.18-Doctor, attached to
\nthe Madurai Medical College Hospital, Madurai and he issued Ex.P12-Post Mortem
\nCertificate, wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of
\nAsphyxia due to smothering associated with compression of neck 18 to 24 hours
\nprior to autopsy. Further, he has also been examined before the Court as P.W.18,
\nand Ex.P12-Post Mortem Certificate also reveals that the deceased died of
\nhomicidal violence. These facts were not disputed by the accused \/ appellants
\nbefore the Trial Court and hence, the Trial Court had no legal impediment in
\nrecording so.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In order to substantiate that the accused persons got entry into the
\nhouse and committed murder for gain, the prosecution had no direct evidence. It
\nrelied only on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 is a part-time Lecturer attached to
\nthe Madurai Kamaraj University. She used to leave the house by 8’O clock in the
\nmorning and her husband also used to leave in the morning hours and all of them
\nused to leave the house, leaving the deceased alone in the house. On the date of
\noccurrence, according to P.W.1, she left for the college and returned by 1.45
\np.m. as usual for taking lunch and when she was just entering the house, she saw
\nboth the accused coming out and immediately, she also asked both of them,
\nwhether they came for any work.  Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point
\nout that it is an admitted position that A1 was actually employed in the house
\nas a mason, one month prior to the occurrence.  In that circumstance, in the
\ninstant case, it is quite natural  for her to ask those persons as to whether
\nthey came for any work, but without giving any answer, they left the place.
\nImmediately, entertaining suspicion, she entered the house and found the dead
\nbody of her father-in-law and she also found a seiko watch stolen. Thereafter
\nshe informed the matter to P.W.2, who came to the house and both of them went to
\nthe respondent-Police Station and gave Ex.P1-Complaint. On the strength of
\nEx.P1, a case came to be registered within a short span of time.  At this
\njuncture, it is pertinent to point that, it is true that the prosecution had
\nonly the evidence of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, she found both of them going out
\nof the house; A1 was already working in the house construction and A2 was a new
\nperson. The situation warranted for the conduct of an Identification Parade in
\nthe instant case and it was also conducted by the Judicial Magistrate No.3,
\nMadurai and the Identification Parade Report has also been marked as Ex.P9 and
\nno infirmities or illegalities are found in Ex.P9. Even though the learned
\ncounsel for both the accused \/ appellants, have brought to the notice of this
\nCourt certain discrepancies that when P.W.1 was able to identify all the accused
\npersons within a reasonable time from the time of occurrence, no separate
\nidentification of the accused persons was necessary by way of Identification
\nParade, this Court is of the considered opinion that such Parade conducted by
\nthe prosecution would only further support the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The added circumstances are the recovery of material objects and the
\nconfessional statement given by A1 to the Investigator in the presence of
\nwitnesses, which would only point out the nexus of the accused with the crime in
\nquestion. It is also pertinent to point out that in the confessional statement
\nmarked as Ex.P18, A1 has categorically spoken about A2.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the instant case, the contention put forth by the learned counsel
\nfor the second accused that the second accused was only just standing and he had
\nnothing to do with the offence, cannot be countenanced, because A1 was actually
\nworking as mason in the construction of the house and he had an idea that 84-
\nyear old man used to stay in the house alone and he sought the help of another
\nperson and both of them have got into the house, which would be clearly
\nindicative of the common intention shared by them for committing the crime of
\nmurder. The common intention shared by both the accused has been properly
\nestablished through the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution in the
\nmanner known to law.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The above reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, would
\nsuffice to sustain the conviction and thus, the prosecution had sufficient
\nevidence in finding the accused \/ appellants, guilty under Sections 302<\/a> r\/w 34
\nand 380 r\/w 34 IPC<\/a>. Insofar as the judgment of the Trial Court, convicting both
\nthe accused under Sections 302<\/a> r\/w 34 and 380 r\/w 34 IPC<\/a> are concerned, nothing
\nis available to disturb the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Therefore, insofar as Crl.A.(MD)No.189 of 2009 is concerned, this
\nCourt is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentences imposed on
\nthe second accused \/ appellant, under Sections 302<\/a> r\/w 34 and 380 r\/w 34 IPC<\/a>
\nhave got to be sustained.  Accordingly, the conviction and sentences imposed on
\nthe second accused \/ appellant, are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Regarding the first accused \/ appellant in Crl.A(MD) No.322 of 2009,
\nas stated earlier, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
\ncounsel for the first accused, that the date of birth of the first accused is
\n24.08.1986 and the occurrence took place on 11.08.2004, and thus on the date of
\noccurrence, the first accused was a juvenile and hence the sentences imposed on
\nhim have to be set aside.  A memo verifying and confirming the date of birth of
\nthe first accused as 24.08.1986 has also been filed by the learned Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor, to that effect. The decision of Chhattisgarh High Court, in
\nthe case of Kachharu @ Sushil v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/a>, reported in 2010(1)
\nCrimes 352, which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the first
\naccused, in the considered opinion of this Court, is squarely applicable to the
\nfacts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraphs 13 to 18 of the above
\njudgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“13. We have already observed in the foregoing paragraphs that the
\nappellant was juvenile on the date and time of the incident as is established
\nfrom the report of the trial Court on the basis of enquiry conducted under
\nSection 7A of the Act, 2000. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302<\/a> of
\nIPC by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has not been challenged and challenge is
\nonly to the sentence part, whereby a juvenile has been sentenced to undergo life
\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In the matter of Jayendra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized of the
\nmatter where a juvenile was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence
\ncommitted by him during his childhood. Considering the fact that the offence was
\ncommitted while the appellant was child and that he had attained the age of 23
\nyears when the appeal was decided, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding his
\nconviction, quashed the sentence imposed upon him and directed his release
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In the case of Bhola Bhagat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon
\nthe decision of three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep
\nKumar v. State of U.P<\/a>., held that since on the date of occurrence, the
\nappellants had not completed 16 years of age, they should have been dealt with
\nunder the U.P. Children Act instead of being sentenced to imprisonment on
\nconviction under Section 302\/34 of the Act. However, considering that the
\nappellants were more than 30 years at the time of delivery of judgment, the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court while sustaining conviction of the appellants under all
\nthe charges framed against them, quashed the sentences awarded to them and
\ndirected their release forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In Babban Rai also, the appellants were convicted for murder and
\nsentenced to life imprisonment. Age of the accused persons on the date of
\noccurrence was found to be below 16 years, they were held entitled to protection
\nof 2000 Act and in these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the
\norder passed by the High Court whereby conviction of the appellants by the trial
\nCourt was upheld and sentence imposed on them was set aside. It has been held in
\npara 5 thus:\n<\/p>\n
“So for as convictions of these two appellants, as confirmed by the High Court,
\nare concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is not in a
\nposition to point out any error in the order of the High Court whereby
\nconvictions of the appellants have been confirmed. Having gone through the
\nimpugned judgment and the records, we also do not find any ground to hold that
\nthe High Court was not justified in upholding the convictions of the appellants.
\nThis being the position, we are of the view that the High Court has not
\ncommitted any error in upholding convictions of the appellants. Now, the
\nquestion arises in relation to sentences. In view of our aforesaid finding that
\nthese two appellants were juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence and they
\nhave now attained majority, it would be just and expedient to set aside their
\nsentences and pass an order of releasing them as they cannot be sent to remand
\nhome.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In the present appeal also, the appellant has been convicted under
\nSection 302<\/a> of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of
\nRs.1,000. On enquiry, we find that age of the appellant was less than 18 years
\nand as such, he was also entitled to be dealt with in accordance with the Act of
\n2000.  The date of birth of the appellant has been determined as 14.9.1983 and
\nas such, he has now completed almost 26 years. In these circumstances, following
\nthe principles of law laid down in the above cited judgments, we, while
\nupholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302<\/a> of IPC, set aside
\nthe sentence imposed on him by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the
\nappellant under Section 302<\/a> of IPC is upheld, however, sentence of life
\nimprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000 imposed on him is set aside. The appellant be
\nset at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Therefore, insofar as Crl.A(MD)No.322 of 2009 is concerned, while
\nsustaining the conviction of the first accused \/ appellant, under Sections 302<\/a>
\nr\/w 34 and 380 r\/w 34 IPC<\/a>, the sentences of life imprisonment imposed under
\nSection 302<\/a> r\/w 34 and five years Rigorous Imprisonment imposed under Section
\n380<\/a> r\/w 34 IPC<\/a> are set aside. The first accused \/ appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.322
\nof 2009 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is
\nrequired in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In the result, Crl.A.(MD)No.189 of 2009 is dismissed and
\nCrl.A.(MD)No.322 of 2009 is accordingly, disposed of. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1
\nof 2010 in Crl.A.(MD)No.322 of 2009 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
\n  Fast Track Court No.3,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Oomachikulam Police Station,
\n  Madurai District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Criminal Appeal (MD) No.189 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal (MD) No.322 of 2009 Deivendran … Appellant in Crl.A.No.189\/2009 Urangapuli … Appellant in Crl.A.No.322\/2009 […]<\/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-253496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDeivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - 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\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-25T13:20:43+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\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T13:20:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3743,\"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\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T13:20:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - 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\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-25T13:20:43+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\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T13:20:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":3743,"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\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010","name":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T13:20:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deivendran-vs-state-represented-by-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deivendran vs State Represented By on 9 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/253496","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=253496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}