{"id":259475,"date":"2007-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007"},"modified":"2016-01-12T05:48:05","modified_gmt":"2016-01-12T00:18:05","slug":"pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 27\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.607 OF 2003\n\n\nPandi\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\n\n\tVs.\n\nState by\nthe Inspector of Police,\nKovilpatti East Police Station,\nCrime No.314 of 1999\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374<\/a> Cr.P.C. against the\njudgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.157\nof 2000, dated 7.11.2002.\n\n\n!For Appellant  :  Mrs.S.Vengalakshmi\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.A.Balaguru, APP\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe sole accused\/appellant in S.C.No.157 of 2000 on the file of the
\nlearned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, on being found guilty as per the
\ncharges under Sections 449<\/a> and 302<\/a> IPC and awarded one year RI and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.100\/-, in default to undergo one month RI under section 449<\/a> IPC and also
\nto undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100\/-, in default to
\nundergo one month RI under Section 302<\/a> IPC, has brought forth this appeal,
\nchallenging the judgment of conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.1, Muthuveeran, is the resident of Jothi Nagar Stalin Colony at
\nKovilpatti and is doing Cooli work.  He had three sisters, out of whom, the
\nsecond sister Rani was given in marriage to the appellant\/accused.  As a result
\nof the said wedlock, they had a boy.  Thereafter, there was a strained
\nrelationship between them and they were living separately. There was again a
\nreunion and she was living with him for the past 2 years. Often, the accused
\nquarreled with her in a drunken mood and treated her cruelly and also used
\nfilthy language. On one occasion, following an incident, a case was registered
\nby Kovilpatti East Police Station on a complaint given by the deceased.  When
\nthe case was registered at Kovilpatti East Police Station, on number of
\noccasions, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and  threatened the said Rani
\nas to why she gave evidence against him in a criminal case.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)On 23.6.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 was taking food and his sister
\nP.W.2, Shanmugathai was serving food to him.  The deceased Rani and the other
\nsister Shenbagavalli, who was deaf and dumb, were engaged in the work of
\narranging the match sticks. At that time, the accused came with knife uttering
\nfilthy words and stabbed the said Rani on her chest twice and also attacked on
\nher stomach. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and also by
\nShenbagavalli. The accused threatened them also and fled away from the place of
\noccurrence.  The said Rani ran outside the house and fell down on the road with
\nthe bleeding injuries.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to Kovilpatti East Police Station and gave
\nEx.P.2, the complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at
\nthat time.  On the strength of Ex.P.2, a case came to be registered in Crime
\nNo.314 of 1999 under Section 302<\/a> IPC.  Ex.P.17, the FIR was despatched to the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\td)P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took
\nup the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and made an
\ninspection in the presence of the witnesses.  He prepared Ex.P.5, the
\nobservation mahazar and Ex.P.18, the rough sketch. He has conducted inquest on
\nthe dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars
\nand prepared Ex.P.19, the inquest report. After the inquest was over, the dead
\nbody was sent for the purpose of post-mortem along with a requisition.\n<\/p>\n
\te)P.W.3, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti,  on
\nreceipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the
\ndeceased and he gave opinion in Ex.P.4, the post-mortem certificate, that  the
\ndeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 25.6.1999.  He came
\nforward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the
\npresence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.7.
\nPursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under
\nEx.P.8, mahazar. The accused was sent for judicial remand. The Investigator
\nexamined the other witnesses and also recorded their statements. All the M.Os
\nrecovered from the scene of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and
\nalso M.O.1, knife recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional
\nstatement, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences
\nDepartment, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.12, the Chemical Report
\nand Ex.P.14, the Serologist’s report. On completion of the investigation, the
\nInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed. The prosecution, in order to establish the case, has marched 15
\nwitnesses and relied on 20 exhibits and 10 M.Os. On completion of the evidence
\non the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313<\/a>
\nCr.P.C. procedurally, as to the incriminating circumstances found in the
\nevidence of prosecution witnesses.  He denied them as false.  No defence witness
\nwas examined. The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the
\nview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found
\nthe accused guilty as per the charges and awarded imprisonment as referred to
\nabove.  Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing her arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel
\nhas made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as eyewitnesses
\nand also P.W.4, who saw the accused running with knife.  P.Ws.1 and 2 could not
\nhave seen the occurrence at all.  According to P.W.1, the accused stabbed the
\ndeceased twice, but according to post-mortem Doctor, there were 3 injuries
\nfound.  According to P.W.2, she heard the distressing cry and she came
\nthereafter and therefore, she could not have seen the occurrence at all.
\nAccording to one witness, the occurrence has taken place inside the house and
\nthereafter, the deceased ran outside, while the other witness has deposed that
\nthe occurrence has taken place partly inside and partly outside of the house and
\ntherefore, there is vital discrepancy as to the scene of occurrence. In the
\ninstant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has commenced inside
\nthe house and it ended in a public street. There was profuse of blood from the
\nbody of the deceased.  If to be so, there should have been blood drops all along
\nthe place from inside the house till the dead body was found.  But, no
\nbloodstains were found either, or they were not recovered. Immediately after the
\noccurrence was over, according to P.W.1, the dead body was placed in the lap. If
\nto be so, the cloth of P.W.1 would have been trenched with the blood and the
\nbloodstained cloths should have been recovered, but not done so by the
\nInvestigator. The evidence of P.W.1 was falsified by the evidence of P.W.2, who
\nhas deposed that the dead body was actually not touched by either of them. This
\nwould clearly indicate that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at
\nall.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)The learned counsel would further submit that Shenbagavalli, who was
\ndeaf and dumb, was also inside the house at the time of occurrence. The non
\nexamination of the said Shenbagavalli was fatal to the prosecution case. Insofar
\nas P.W.4, he has actually seen the accused running in his street, which is
\nsituated apart and therefore, his evidence could not in any way connect the
\naccused with the crime. Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at
\nall and the evidence of P.W.4 was not useful to the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the accused was
\narrested on 25.6.1999 and he came forward to give a confessional statement
\nvoluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and pursuant to
\nthe same, M.O.1, knife was recovered.  But, P.Ws.1 and 2 and also 6 have
\ncategorically admitted that the accused was taken to the police station within
\nan hour from the time of occurrence.   If to be so, the alleged arrest,
\nconfessional statement and recovery of M.O.1, knife were nothing, but a
\nfalsehood and thus, the evidence in this regard should be rejected.  Further,
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 could not give proper accounting for the injuries sustained and
\nthus,  it can be well stated that the ocular testimony was not in corroboration
\nwith the medical evidence through the post-mortem Doctor. Hence, there was no
\nevidence available for prosecution to sustain conviction.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Even assuming that the prosecution has proved the case that it was the
\naccused, who stabbed the said Rani and caused her death, the act of the accused
\nwould not attract the penal provisions of murder for the simple reason that
\naccording to P.W.1, there was quarrel between the deceased and accused for 5
\nminutes, which resulted in sudden provocation and due to exchange of words and
\nbeyond his control, he has acted so. Under these circumstances, the act of the
\naccused would be one culpable homicide not amounting to murder and it has got to
\nbe considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.It is not in controversy that Rani, the wife of the accused, was stabbed
\nto death at the time and place of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution.
\nFollowing the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body of the
\ndeceased was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.3, the Doctor and he has issued
\nEx.P.4, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased
\nwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries
\nsustained. The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never
\nquestioned by the appellant\/accused at any stage of proceedings. Hence, it has
\ngot to be factually recorded so without any impediment whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution that it was the
\naccused, who stabbed the deceased with knife at the place of occurrence, the
\nprosecution rested its case through the direct evidence by examining P.Ws.1,2
\nand 4.  It is an admitted position that the accused is the husband of Rani, the
\ndeceased. There was originally, an incident that took place in the past and the
\ncase came to be registered by the respondent police station at the instance of
\nthe deceased and there was also a trial, in which the accused was found guilty.
\nThe deceased has given evidence against her husband, namely the accused. On many
\noccasions, the accused threatened the deceased and uttered that since she has
\ngiven evidence against him, he was convicted. This part was clearly spoken to by
\nthe witnesses and the same was found placed in the FIR. According to the
\nprosecution, this would go to speak about the motive part. At the time of
\noccurrence, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.1 was taking food and P.W.2 was
\nserving food and Rani and the other sister Shenbagavalli were arranging the
\nmatch sticks. At that time, the accused suddenly appeared with knife and stabbed
\nthe deceased twice on her chest and when the deceased ran and came outside, the
\naccused chased and also attacked her. According to P.W.1, he stabbed the
\ndeceased twice inside and according to P.W.2, the deceased ran outside, where
\nthe occurrence has taken place. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it would be
\nquite clear that the occurrence has actually commenced inside the house and the
\ndeceased, after sustaining injuries, was running outside and fell down on the
\nroad. P.Ws.1 and 2 have given a clear narration of the entire incident.  The
\ndiscrepancies now brought before the Court were minor most. According to P.Ws.1
\nand 2, it was the accused, who attacked the deceased and caused her death. The
\nCourt is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has
\ninspired the confidence of the Court, though they were closely related to the
\ndeceased.  The lower court was perfectly correct in accepting their evidence,
\nsince it was natural, cogent and convincing.  This Court is unable to see any
\nreason to cast a doubt on their evidence. Insofar as the medical opinion, the
\ncourt is fully satisfied that it was in corroboration with the ocular testimony.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The Court is able to see force in the contention of the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant in respect of the alleged arrest, confessional statement and
\nrecovery of M.O.1. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested by the
\nInvestigator, pending investigation, on 25.6.1999. But, according to P.Ws.1,2
\nand 6, the accused was taken to the police station within an hour from the time
\nof occurrence. Thus, the evidence in respect of the alleged arrest, confessional
\nstatement and the recovery of M.O.1 was prepared in order to strengthen the
\nprosecution case. Hence, the evidence in this regard has got to be rejected.
\nEven then, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution case that
\nit was the accused, who stabbed the deceased and caused her death will stand in
\nview of the evidence available and narrated above. Hence, the prosecution has
\nproved that part of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Coming to the second line of argument advanced by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, the Court has to necessarily disagree with her. In the
\ninstant case, admittedly, Rani was the wife of the accused. There was a
\ncomplaint given by her and the criminal case was registered against the accused,
\nwhich ended in conviction.  In that case, the said Rani has given evidence
\nagainst the accused. On many occasions, the accused threatened her. On the date
\nof occurrence,  when P.Ws.1 and 2 along with Rani and another sister
\nShenbagavalli, who was deaf and dumb,  were inside the house, the accused
\nsuddenly came with knife and stabbed the deceased.  The learned counsel, relying
\non
\nthe evidence of P.W.1, would submit that there was quarrel for 5 minutes prior
\nto the occurrence. The Court is of the considered opinion that the said quarrel
\nis not sufficient to state that the consequences should be in such a way was
\nthoroughly uncontrollable and in a heat of passion, the accused has acted. But,
\nno such circumstance is noticed by the Court.  The accused came to the place of
\noccurrence with knife and attacked her, which would be clearly indicative of the
\nfact that the accused has come with a plan of attacking her and accordingly, he
\nhas caused instantaneous death.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the act of the accused would attract the penal provisions of murder, which
\nhas been rightly done by the lower court. The judgment of the lower court does
\nnot require disturbance either factually or legally.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In the result, the criminal appeal must fail and fails. Accordingly,
\nthe same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Kovilpatti East Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27\/03\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.607 OF 2003 Pandi .. Appellant Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Crime No.314 of 1999 […]<\/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-259475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-12T00:18:05+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T00:18:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2504,\"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\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T00:18:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-12T00:18:05+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T00:18:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007"},"wordCount":2504,"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\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007","name":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T00:18:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandi-vs-state-by-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandi vs State By on 27 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259475","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=259475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}