{"id":254080,"date":"2004-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004"},"modified":"2019-03-14T10:34:16","modified_gmt":"2019-03-14T05:04:16","slug":"sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 25\/11\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI            \n\nCRL.APPEAL No.263 of 2003    \n\nSankar                                         ...  Appellant \/\n                                                        Accused.\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe State, rep. By the\nInspector of Police,\nChithamor, Police Station,                      ...  Respondent \/\nChengleput District.                                    Complainant\n\n\n                This  Criminal  Appeal  arises  out  of  the  Judgment   dated\n17.12.2002 made in S.C.No.325 of 2001 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,\nMadhuranthakam.  \n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.  S.Govindarajan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, \n                Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
                Appellant  is the Accused in S.C.No.325 of 2001 on the file of
\nAssistant Sessions Judge, Madhuranthakam.  By the Judgment dated 17.12.20  02,
\nthe  Assistant  Sessions  Judge,  Madhuranthakam has convicted the Appellant \/
\nAccused for the offence under S.376 (2) (f)  I.P.C<\/a>.    and  sentenced  him  to
\nundergo  Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten Years and also imposed fine
\nof Rs.1,000\/-; in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further  period
\nof one month.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   P.W.1  –  Srimathi is the daughter of P.W.3 – Shanthi and
\none Devaraj.  P.W.2 – Chitra is the Classmate and close friend of P.W.1.  Case
\nof prosecution is that P.W.1, aged 10 – 12 Years at the  time  of  occurrence,
\nwas studying  in  VI Standard.  On the date of occurrence – 1 4.08.1998 – 5.00
\np.m., P.W.1 along with her younger sister –  Deepalakshi  and  P.W.2  went  to
\nThailathope for  plucking  flowers.   At that time, the accused came there and
\ncalled her to accompany him to the nearby Palm-grove saying that he would give
\nher Palm fruits.  Believing the same, P.W.1 went along with the accused.   The
\naccused  removing  his  Trouser and Skirt of P.W.1, made P.W.1 to lie down and
\nthe accused laid upon her.  When P.W.1 shouted, the accused beat her  and  had
\nforcible Sexual Intercourse  with  her.    P.W.1 raised alarm.  On hearing the
\nalarm of P.W.1, P.W.2 – Chitra, P.W.3 – Mother of P.W.1 and her younger sister
\ncame to the scene of occurrence.  On seeing them, the accused  had  run  away.
\nP.W.1 narrated the occurrence to her mother – P.  W.3.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Registration  of case and Investigation.  P.W.1 – Srimathi
\nalong with the Villagers went to Chithamor Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1  –
\nComplaint on  14.08.1998  –  7.00  p.m.    On the basis of Ex.P.1 – Complaint,
\nP.W.11 – Sub Inspector of Police had registered the case in  Crime  No.295  of
\n1998 under  Ss.376  and 511 I.P.C<\/a>.  Clothes of P.W.1 – Srimathi (M.O.1 series)
\nwere seized in the presence of P.W.4 – Shanmugam and one Kannan.    P.W.1  was
\nsent  to Madhuranthakam Government Hospital through P.W.9 – Head Constable for
\nMedical Examination.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  P.W.6 – Dr.Tahirinussa has examined P.W.1 – Srimathi.  She
\nhas noted Linear abrasion over the right lebia.  P.W.6 issued Ex.P.5  –  Wound
\nCertificate.  P.W.1 was referred to Chengleput Government Hospital for further
\ninvestigation.   P.W.8  – Dr.Parasakthi, working in Chengleput Medical College
\nHospital, has examined P.W.1 – Srimathi on 17.08 .1998.  On  examination,  her
\nprivate  parts  vulva  was normal, Vagina admitted one finger with tenderness;
\nHymen absent; tears seen at 5 and 7’0 clock position; Surrounding areas  found
\nreddish, swelling  and  tenderness  seen.   P.W.8 opined that P.W.1 would have
\nbeen subjected to sexual intercourse.  Ex.P.10 is  the  Certificate  of  P.W.1
\nrelating to the opinion of P.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   P.W.11 – Sub Inspector of Police had taken up the initial
\ninvestigation.   Scene  of  occurrence  was  inspected  in  the  presence   of
\nWitnesses.   On  information,  on  14.08.1998  –  10.30  p.m., the accused was
\narrested near Polappakkam Leprosy Hospital.    When  being  interrogated,  the
\naccused  had  given a Confession Statement (Ex.P.3) in the presence of P.W.5 –
\nRajamani and one Bakthavatchalam.  Clothes of  accused  –  M.O.2  series  were
\nrecovered  under  Ex.P.4  –  Seizure  Mahazar  in  the  presence  of  the same
\nwitnesses.  The accused was sent to  Madhuranthakam  Government  Hospital  for
\ntreatment for  the injuries sustained by him.  On 15.08.1998 – 12.00 midnight,
\nP.W.6 has examined the accused, who  reported  to  her  for  treatment  as  to
\ncertain  injuries  stating  that he sustained injuries while he was running at
\nChithamor Cootu Road and by falling down.  Noting Contusion  and  Abrasion  on
\nhim, P.W.6 issued Ex.P.7 – Wound Certificate.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The accused was sent to Chengleput Government Hospital for
\nMedical Examination  to  know  about  his  potency.   P.W.7 – Dr.K.Gururaj has
\nexamined the accused on 17.08.1998.  Opining that there is nothing to  suggest
\nthat the accused is impotent, P.W.7 issued Ex.P.8 – Potency Certificate.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   On  the  same  day  P.W.1  –  Srimathi was radiologically
\nexamined by P.W.7.  She was found to be the age of above Ten years  and  below
\nTwelve years.  Ex.P.9 is the Age Certificate relating to P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   Seized  Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis.
\nInspector of Police – Ramamoorthy has taken up the further investigation.   He
\nhas examined  the Medical Witnesses and recorded their statements.  On receipt
\nof  the  Chemical  Report  and  on  completion  of  material   part   of   the
\ninvestigation,  Charge Sheet was filed against the accused under S.376 (2) (f)
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  on 14.05.1999.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  In the trial Court, to substantiate the Charge against the
\naccused, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11.  Exs.P.1 to P.16 were  marked.
\nM.Os.1 and  2  were  remanded  to Court.  The accused was questioned about the
\nincriminating evidence and circumstances under S.313 Crl.P.C.  Denying all  of
\nthem,  the  accused has stated that he belongs to Madras and that a false case
\nhas been foisted against him.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In  consideration  of  the  evidence  adduced   by   the
\nprosecution,  the  learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the evidence of
\nP.W.1 being credible is strengthened by the oral evidence  of  P.Ws.2  and  3.
\nThe  learned  Judge  was of the view that though P.Ws.1 and 2 are young girls,
\ntheir evidence is found to be credible.  Pointing out  that  the  evidence  of
\nVictim Girl – P.W.1 is well corroborated by the Medical Evidence of P.Ws.6 and
\n8,  the  learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has proved
\nthat P.W.1 was subjected to Sexual Intercourse by the  accused  and  that  his
\nguilt has been proved.  The learned trial Judge was of the view that the delay
\nin  receipt  of  First  Information  Report  in the Court would not in any way
\naffect the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Aggrieved over the verdict of conviction and the sentence
\nof imprisonment, the Appellant \/ Accused has preferred this appeal.  Attacking
\nthe findings of the trial Court, learned counsel for the Appellant  \/  Accused
\ncontended  that  the  trial  Court  erred  in believing the evidence of P.W.1.
\nLaying emphasis upon the delayed receipt of First Information  Report  in  the
\nCourt, the learned counsel for the Appellant \/ Accused has submitted that such
\ndelayed receipt  throws serious doubts on the prosecution case.  It is further
\ncontended that nondetection of Semen in the Clothes of the Victim Girl – P.W.1
\nraises serious doubts on the prosecution case.  Drawing the attention  of  the
\nCourt  to the evidence of P.W.3 – Mother of P.W.1, where she has admitted that
\nthere had been Blood  Stain  on  the  Clothes  of  P.W.1,  it  is  urged  that
\nnon-detection  of  Blood  Stain  or  Semen  during Chemical Analysis seriously
\nundermines the prosecution case.  The main contention urged is that the  trial
\nCourt  erred in acting on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are susceptible for
\ntutoring and that due to the family dispute, a false  case  has  been  foisted
\nagainst  the  accused, which defence was not properly appreciated by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  Submitting that the  evidence  of  P.W.1  is  trustworthy
\nwhich  is  amply  strengthened  by  the  Medical Evidence, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran,
\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the  trial  Court  has
\nrightly  accepted the version of P.W.1 which is strengthened by the version of
\nP.Ws.2 and 3.  Drawing the attention of the Court to the  evidence  of  P.W.2,
\nwho  has  seen  the  accused  taking away P.W.1, he has further submitted that
\nP.Ws.1 and 2, aged about 10-12 years have no reason to falsely  implicate  the
\naccused.   Drawing  the  attention  of  the  Court to Ex.P.10 – Certificate of
\nExamination for Sexual Offence relating to P.W.1 as per which Rupture of Hymen
\nwas noted proving that P.W.1 was subjected  to  forcible  Sexual  Intercourse,
\nlearned  Additional  Public  Prosecutor  submitted  that the conviction of the
\ntrial  Court  is  well  balanced  and  that  there  is  no  reason  warranting
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   Upon  consideration  of  the  submissions by both sides,
\nevidence and materials on record and the Judgment  of  the  trial  Court,  the
\npoint  arises for consideration is:- Whether the Appellant \/ Accused is proved
\nto have committed Rape on the Victim Girl – P.W.1 and whether  the  conviction
\nof the   Appellant   \/  Accused  under  S.376  (2)(f)  I.P.C<\/a>.    warrants  any
\ninterference ?\n<\/p>\n
                14.  P.W.1 –  Srimathi,  aged  10-12  Years  at  the  time  of
\noccurrence, was  studying  in  VI  Standard.    On  the  date  of occurrence –
\n14.08.1998 – 5.00 p.m., P.W.1 along with her younger sister  Deepalakshmi  and
\nP.  W.2  – Chitra went to Thailathope for plucking flowers.  At that time, the
\naccused told her that he would cut Palm Fruits and he had  taken  her  to  the
\nnearby Palm-grove.   Believing his words, when P.W.1 followed him, the accused
\nremoved his Trousers and made P.W.1 to lie down and the accused laid upon her.
\nWhen P.W.1 shouted, the accused beat her and had Sexual  Intercourse.    P.W.1
\ncried raising  the  alarm  ”  fhg;  ghj;J’;f fhg;ghj;J’;f “.  In the meantime,
\nP.W.3 (Shanthi) – mother of P.W.1, P.W.2 – Chitra and younger sister of  P.W.1\n<\/p>\n
– Deepalakshmi came in search of P.W.1.  On hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1,
\nthey rushed to  the  place.   On seeing them, the accused had run away.  P.W.1
\nhas narrated about the act of the accused to her mother – P.W.3.    P.W.1  has
\nclearly narrated  the occurrence in the Court.  Evidence of an young girl like
\nP.W.1 is to be tested for its credibility and reliability.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  In the trial Court, before  giving  evidence,  P.W.1  has
\nbeen examined  as  to whether she is of understanding and know of things.  The
\nlearned Assistant Sessions Judge,  who  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  and
\nobserving her, found her to be of clear understanding and accepted her version
\nas credible.  No substantial grounds are made out to take a different view.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  At the time of occurrence – 14.08.1998 – 5.00 p.m., P.W.2\n<\/p>\n
– Chitra  went  along  with  P.W.1 – Srimathi for plucking flowers.  P.W.2 has
\nalso clearly spoken about the act  of  the  accused  in  taking  P.W.1  to  an
\nisolated  place  –  palm-grove and that P.W.2 has informed the same to P.W.3 –
\nmother of P.W.1.  Thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 3 went in search of P.W.1, who  heard
\nthe noise  of P.W.1 – Srimathi ” fhg;ghj;J’;f fhg;ghj;J’;f “.  On seeing them,
\nthe accused had run away.  P.W.1 informed them about  the  Sexual  Molestation
\nand the Intercourse committed on her by the accused.  P.W.2 – Chitra, who went
\nalong  with  P.W.1  has  clearly stated that the accused had taken P.W.1 to an
\nisolated place.  P.W.3 – mother of P.W.1 came  in  search  of  P.W.1.    While
\nnarrating the  occurrence,  P.W.2  has  only  stated ” …  _kjp vd;dplk; te;J
\nr’;fh; vd;id bfLj;Jtpl;lhh; vd;W brhd;dJ\/ bfLj;Jtpl;lhh;  vd;W  jhd;  brhd;dJ\/
\nntW vJt[k; brhy;ytpy;iy  …    “.    Though according to P.W.2, P.W.1 has not
\nnarrated the entire occurrence, but has only stated that she had been Sexually
\nMolested by the accused, such statement does not  in  any  way  undermine  the
\ncredibility the P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   Evidence  of  P.W.3  (Shanthi) – mother of P.W.1 assumes
\ngreater significance.  Finding that P.W.1 has not returned back to the  house,
\nquite  probably  P.W.3  went  in  search of P.W.1 and that she was informed by
\nP.W.1 about the act of the accused in committing Rape on  her.    Evidence  of
\nP.W.3 is  cogent  and  corroborating  the evidence of P.W.1.  This Court finds
\nthat the evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2  and\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
                18.   In her evidence, P.W.3 – mother of P.W.1 has stated that
\nBlood Stain was found in M.O.1 series – clothes of P.W.1  (which  were  seized
\nunder  Ex.P.2  –  Seizure Mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 – Shanmugam and one
\nKannan).  In his evidence, P.W.4 has stated that he has  not  seen  any  Blood
\nStains on M.O.1  series.  M.O.1 series was sent for Chemical Analysis.  During
\nChemical Analysis, no Blood Stain or Semen was detected.  The inconsistency in
\nthe evidence of P.W.3 and nondetection of Blood Stain or Semen in M.O.1 series
\nis very much relied upon by the Appellant \/ Accused to assail the  prosecution
\ncase and the  version  of  P.W.1.  This contention has no force.  Either P.W.3
\nmight have mistaken the Stains on the Skirt for  Blood  Stains  or  the  Blood
\nStains might  have  been disintegrated during Chemical Analysis.  Nondetection
\nof Blood Stains or Semen in the Clothes of P.W.1 would not in any  way  affect
\nthe prosecution case or the credibility of P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  Evidence of P.W.1 – Srimathi is amply corroborated by the
\nMedical Evidence.    After  registration of the case in Crime No.295 of 1998 ,
\nP.W.1  was  referred  to  Chengleput  Medical  College  Hospital  for  Medical
\nExamination.   P.W.7  – Dr.Gururaj, Radiologist has examined her and found her
\nto be of age 10-12 Years (Ex.P.9 – Age Certificate).  Keeping the age of P.W.1
\nin mind, the Medical Evidence  of  P.W.6  –  Dr.    Tahirunnisa,  attached  to
\nMadhuranthakam Hospital  is to be considered.  P.W.6 has examined P.W.1 on the
\nnight of 14.08.1998 – 8.50 p.m.  On examination, she has noted ” Pain  in  the
\nVagina;  Linear  Abrasion  over  the  right lebia (N.C.) present about 1 cm in
\nlength “.  P.W.6 has clearly asserted that those injuries could not have  been
\ncaused  either  by climbing the tree or by any accidental insertion of a stick
\ninto the private parts of P.W.1.  The definite opinion evidence of P.W.6 is  a
\nstrong piece of evidence strengthening the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   P.W.1  was  again  sent  to  Chengleput  Medical College
\nHospital for further investigation, where she was  examined  by  P.W.8  –  Dr.
\nParasakthi,  who  has  issued  Ex.P.10 – Certificate of Examination for Sexual
\nOffences.  On examination of P.W.1, P.W.8 has noted ” Vagina admits one finger
\nwith tenderness; Hymen absent;  Tears  seen  at  5  and  7’o  clock  position;
\nsurrounding areas  found  reddish, swelling and tenderness seen “.  Absence of
\nHymen and Tear seen at Vulva are the strong pieces of evidence that P.W.1  was
\nsubjected to  Sexual  Intercourse.  The definite opinion of P.W.8 that ” Hymen
\nAbsent ” and ” Vagina Admitted one  finger  with  tenderness”  should  be  not
\npossible by climbing the tree or by accidental insertion of a stick goes along
\nwith the definite findings by P.W.6 supporting the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  The accused was arrested on 14.08.1998 – 10.30 p.m.  near
\nPolappakkam Leprosy  Hospital.   He was brought to Chithamor Police Station at
\n11.00 p.m.  He was interrogated in the presence of P.W.5 –  Rajamani  and  one
\nBakthavatchalam and  his  statement  was  recorded.   Clothes of the accused –
\nM.O.2 series (T.Shirt, Lungi and Trouser) were seized under Ex.P.4  –  Seizure
\nMahazar in  the  presence  of  same witnesses.  Since the accused was found to
\nhave sustained injuries, he was referred to Madhuranthakam Government Hospital
\nfor treatment.  P.W.6 – Dr.  Tahirunnisa has examined  the  accused  at  12.00
\nmidnight on  the  night of 1 4.08.1998.  P.W.6 has noted contusion on the left
\neye of the accused.  In Ex.P.7 – Wound Certificate of the accused,  P.W.6  has
\nnot  noted  as  to  who has brought the accused to the Hospital for treatment.
\nThe Column ” accompanied by ” is left blank.  When P.W.6 was questioned  about
\nthe  same,  she  has  stated that there was no requisition from the Police and
\nthat the accused  had  voluntarily  appeared  before  her.    Ex.P.7  –  Wound
\nCertificate  is also silent as to who has brought the accused to the Hospital.
\nStatement of P.W.6 that the accused had voluntarily appeared before her  could
\nonly be  due  to  mistake.  The arrest of the accused and his interrogation in
\nthe Police Station before the witnesses is  clearly  brought  out  on  record.
\nWhen  that  being  so, the statement of P.W.6 that the accused had voluntarily
\nappeared before her would not in any way undermine the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  Blood Stained Clothes of P.W.1 – M.O.1 series (Skirt  and
\nShirt) were sent for Chemical Analysis.  During Chemical Examination, no Human
\nBlood or  no  Semen was detected on the clothes of P.W.1.  Learned counsel for
\nthe Appellant \/ Accused has seriously attacked the  prosecution  case  on  the
\nground of  non-detection  of Blood Stain or Semen in M.O.1 series.  Absence of
\nSemen or Blood Stain does not throw doubt on the prosecution case; perhaps  at
\nthe  time  of committing Rape, there was no ejection of Semen from the accused
\nor blood coming out from the private parts of P.W.1.  At this juncture, we may
\npoint out the evidence of P.W.7 – Dr.Gururaj.  On examination of the  accused,
\nP.W.7  has  found  the  accused  to  be  ”  a  Well-built male individual; his
\nSecondary Sexual Characters are well developed; Erection – positive”.    P.W.7
\nhas  further  opined  that  ”  there is nothing to suggest that the accused is
\nimpotent; his Genital organ was found to be normal “.  Opinion  evidence  that
\nthe accused was not incapable of performing sexual act is yet another piece of
\nevidence in support of the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   On the basis of Ex.P.1 – Complaint, case in Crime No.295
\nof 19 98 of Chithamor Police Station has been registered under Ss.376 and 5 11
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  at 7.00 p.m.  on 14.08.1998.  (Printed First  Information  Report  not
\nmarked).   The  First  Information  Report  was  received  into  Court only on
\n15.08.1998.  The distance between the Court and the Police Station is said  to
\nbe only  10  kms.    The  First Information Report and Ex.P.1 – Complaint were
\nreceived in the Court on 15.08.1998.  Since the First  Information  Report  is
\nnot marked,  the  time  of receipt of Ex.  P.1 and First Information Report in
\nthe Court is not known.  From Ex.  P.1, it comes to be known  that  the  First
\nInformation Report was  registered  at  7.00  p.m.    on  14.08.1998.    After
\nregistration of the First Information Report, despatch  of  the  same  to  the
\nCourt is  the  work  of the Investigating Agency.  Evidence of P.W.1 cannot be
\nthrown away for such lapses or delayed sending of the First Information Report
\nby the Police Officer.  Likewise, the contention urged in the delay in sending
\nthe statements of the witnesses, which were received  in  the  Court  only  on
\n01.10.1999 has  no force.  Such delayed receipt of the statements cannot go in
\nadvantage of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  Faced with the definite evidence  of  P.W.1  and  Medical
\nEvidence, we  may  consider  as  to  what  is  the  defence.  According to the
\naccused, he belongs to Madras and that a false case has been  foisted  against
\nhim due to the family dispute between his family and the family of P.W.1.  The
\ndefence  version  that  a false case has been foisted against the accused does
\nnot impress this court for more than one reason.  Medical Evidence  definitely
\nshows the sexual  violence  committed on P.  W.1.  Further P.W.1 was aged only
\n10-12 years and a tender girl of young age.  If any false complaint is  to  be
\nlodged  against the accused making allegations of Rape being committed on such
\nyoung girl, her future would be at Stake.  She has to face the  scoff  of  the
\nVillagers and  the  place  of her study and other places.  In consideration of
\nthe tender age of P.W.1, coupled with Medical Evidence,  the  defence  version
\nthat a false case has been foisted has no force.\n<\/p>\n
                25.   The various points urged by the Appellant \/ Accused were
\nwell considered by the trial Court.  The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who
\nhad the opportunity of seeing and observing P.W.1 has  accepted  her  evidence
\nwhich is  corroborated  by  the  Medical  Evidence  as  credible.  There is no
\napparent error in the appreciation of  evidence  by  the  trial  Court.    The
\nreasonings  for conviction are well balanced based upon the evidence on record
\nand the conviction is to be sustained.  Considering the Tender  age  of  P.W.1
\nand  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the period of sentence of
\nRigorous Imprisonment of Ten Years also cannot be said to be  unreasonable  or
\nharsh.\n<\/p>\n
                26.   Therefore, the Judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
\nMadhuranthakam  in  S.C.No.325  of  2001  (dated:17.12.2002)  convicting   the
\nAppellant \/  Accused  under S.376 (2) (f) I.P.C<\/a>.  and the sentence of Rigorous
\nImprisonment of Ten Years and the quantum  of  fine  are  confirmed  and  this
\nappeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes<\/p>\n
Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n
sbi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Assistant Sessions Judge,
\nMadhuranthakam.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal Sessions Judge,
\nChengleput.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Inspector of Police,
\nChithamor Police Station,
\nChengleput District.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI CRL.APPEAL No.263 of 2003 Sankar … Appellant \/ Accused. -Vs- The State, rep. By the Inspector of Police, Chithamor, Police Station, … Respondent \/ Chengleput District. Complainant This […]<\/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-254080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSankar vs The State on 25 November, 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\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-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=\"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-14T05:04:16+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T05:04:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3484,\"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\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T05:04:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 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":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 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\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-14T05:04:16+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T05:04:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004"},"wordCount":3484,"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\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004","name":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T05:04:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-the-state-on-25-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sankar vs The State on 25 November, 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\/254080","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=254080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}