{"id":259949,"date":"2006-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-12-28T10:10:53","modified_gmt":"2015-12-28T04:40:53","slug":"mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 28\/04\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM        \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU     \n\nCriminal Appeal No.143 of 2003\n\n1. Mahalingam \n2. Loganathan alias Kodarai alias Kannupaiyan           ..Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep.by\nInspector of Police,\nGopichettipalayam.                                      ..Respondent\n\n\n\n        Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2)<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code  filed\nagainst  the  judgment  dated  10.12.2002  in S.C.No.60 of 2002 on the file of\nAdditional   District   and   Sessions    Judge,    Fast    Track    Court-II,\nGobichettipalayam, Erode. \n\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.V.K.Muthusamy \n                Senior Counsel for Mr.M.M.Sundresh\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.E.Raja \n                Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
S.R.SINGHARAVELU, J.,
\n        A1 and  A2  in S.C.No.60 of 2002 are the appellants.  A1 was convicted
\nfor  an  offence  under  section  302<\/a>  IPC  and  sentenced  to  undergo   life
\nimprisonment  and  A2 was convicted for an offence under Section 302<\/a> read with
\n34 IPC<\/a> and sentenced to undergo  life  imprisonment  and  both  of  them  were
\ndirected  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.500\/- each, in default to undergo one month
\nrigorous imprisonment  by  the  Fast  Track  Court  No.II,  Gobichettipalayam.
\nChallenging the same, this appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) The deceased (Parameswaran) is the brother of P.W.1.  The accused,
\nP.W.1 and the deceased are residents of Goundanputhur Village.  P.W.10, Radha,
\nthe  daughter of A1, eloped with the deceased in 1997 and on a complaint given
\nby A1, the girl was rescued and in that case, after completing trial,  it  was
\nposted for orders on 06.08.2001.  After 19 97, the family of A1 and P.W.1 were
\nnot in  cordial  terms.    The  deceased  and  P.W.2  were  friends  and  were
\ncultivating together a land.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) In that background, A1 and A2 joined together and on 03.08.2001 at
\nabout 10.15 PM, when Parameswaran was coming  from  the  house  of  P.    W.2,
\nfollowed  by  P.Ws.1 to 3, he was intercepted by A2 and enquired the said case
\nand the  deceased  replied.    Suddenly,  A2  caught  hold  of  the  hands  of
\nParameswaran  and A1 poured kerosene, from a bottle which he was carrying, and
\nset him on fire.  He raised alarm and the accused ran  away  from  the  scene.
\nP.Ws.1  to  3  witnessed  the  occurrence  and  they put out the fire by using
\ncoconut and plantain stem.  The injured was admitted in  Government  Hospital,
\nGobi at about 11.45 PM.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)  P.W.20  Duty Doctor sent an intimation to Police as well as P.W.1
\n9, Judicial Magistrate-II, Gobi.  On receipt of intimation  Ex.P-13  at  00.45
\nhours  on 04.08.2001, P.W.16, Head Constable came to the hospital and recorded
\na statement, Ex.P-14 from the said Parameswaran and he registered  a  case  in
\nCrime No.425 of 2001 for an offence under Section 307<\/a> IPC and sent the copy of
\nfirst information report Ex.P-15 to higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)  On  receipt  of  intimation  Ex.P-16,  P.W.19 Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.II, Gobi came to the hospital and recorded a  dying  declaration  Ex.P-1  7
\nfrom the  said Parameswaran.  As per Ex.P-17, the deceased told the Magistrate
\nthat the accused poured kerosene and set fire on him.\n<\/p>\n
        (e) After getting Ex.P-15, the Inspector of Police, P.W.23 came to the
\nscene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-1.  He went  to  the
\nhospital  and  after getting death intimation, he altered the offence into one
\nunder Section 302<\/a> IPC.  He recovered M.Os.1 to 6 and  held  inquest  over  the
\nbody of  deceased  in  the  presence  of witnesses.  He sent the body for post
\nmortem.\n<\/p>\n
        (f) P.W.21 Dr.Krishnakumari conducted post-mortem and  issued  Ex.P-24
\npost-mortem certificate, giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have
\ndied of 90% burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)  On  04.08.2001, while P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer was in
\nhis office, both the accused came and informed him about  the  setting  up  of
\nfire on  the deceased.  He recorded the extra judicial confession, attested by
\nP.W.17 and they were produced before the Inspector of police P.W.23  with  his
\nreport Ex.P-5.   Ex.P-4  is  the  confession  statement  given  by  A2.  After
\nreceiving the same, P.W.23 arrested the accused.  He sent the material objects
\nfor chemical examination under Ex.  P-25 and Ex.P-27 is the report of Chemical
\nAnalyst.  Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the charge  sheet
\nwas filed against the accused under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)     During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1
\nto 23 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-33 were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  The plea of the accused, while they were questioned under Section
\n313<\/a> of Cr.P.C., is one of denial.  No evidence was  adduced  on  the  side  of
\ndefence and Ex.D-1 was marked.\n<\/p>\n
        (j)   The  trial  Court  relied  upon  the  evidence  adduced  by  the
\nprosecution and convicted A1  for  the  offence  under  Section  302<\/a>  IPC  and
\nconvicted  A2 for the offence under Section 302<\/a> read with 34 IPC<\/a> and sentenced
\nthem as aforesaid.  Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused
\nhave filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  We have heard the learned Senior Counsel  for  the  appellants  as
\nwell as  the  learned Additional Public Prosecutor.  We have also gone through
\nthe entire records.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  According to the prosecution, due  to  prior  motive  hereinbefore
\ndescribed,  both  the accused joined together and on 03.08.2001 at about 10.15
\nPM., A2 caught hold of the hands of Parameswaran and A1  poured  kerosene  and
\nset fire  on  him.  It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
\nthat there are inconsistencies in the statement of accused  made  earlier  and
\nthat  made  in  the course of dying declaration and therefore, the contents in
\nthe dying declaration cannot be  very  much  relied  upon.    It  was  further
\nsubmitted  that  excluding  the  dying  declaration,  there  is no substantial
\nevidence against the accused.  This is the gist of the contention made in  the
\ncourse of arguments on behalf of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  True it is that there are three statements made by the deceased on
\nvarious points of time.  They are Exs.P-14, P-17 and P-19.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Ex.P-19 is the copy of the accident register, wherein at 11.45 PM
\non 03.08.2001 when the deceased was first admitted before Dr.  Vaithiyalingam,
\nP.W.20, it was stated that “Two known persons poured kerosene on him  and  set
\nfire today 3.8.2001 10 PM at Kavandampudur, Ganapathipalayam, Gobi (TK)”.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   What  has  been  stated before the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.19 at
\n1.20 AM on 04.08.2001 through Ex.P-17, the dying declaration is as follows:
\n@ehd; j’;fuh$; tPl;Lf;F ngha; te;njd;\/ kfhyp’;fKk;.   flhhpa[k;  ehd;  rpWePh;
\nfHpj;J   vGk;nghJ   rPbkz;iz   Cw;wp   tpl;lhh;fs;\/   jPf;Fr;rpia  curp  itj;J
\ntpl;lhh;fs;\/  uhjhit  Tl;of;bfhz;L  nghd  nf!;  tp&akhf  vd;id   jP   itj;   J
\ntpl;lhh;fs;@\/<\/p>\n
        8.  The statement of deceased made at 1.30 AM on 04.08.2001 was before
\nthe  Head  Constable  Rajendran, P.W.16 through Ex.P-14, wherein it was stated
\nthat while A2 Kedari caught hold of the  hands  of  the  deceased,  A1  poured
\nkerosene and set fire.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  this  context,  the learned Senior counsel for the appellants
\nrelied on the decision reported in BASITH & OTHERS ..vs..  STATE BY  INSPECTOR
\nOF POLICE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI (1997-2-L.W.(Crl.) 465), wherein it has been stated
\nthat  four  dying  declarations made by victim before doctor, Magistrate, Head
\nConstable and Sub Inspector; Court should be on guard that statement of victim
\nwas not as a result of tutoring, prompting or imagination and it  was  further
\nobserved  that  in  case  of  more  dying  declarations than one, court has to
\nscrutinise all of them to find out if each of them passed the  test  of  being
\nuntrustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Reliance  was  also  placed  upon STATE OF PUNJAB ..vs..  PARVEEN
\nKUMAR<\/a> ((2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 146), wherein it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“While appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the court,
\nthe court must view the evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its
\ngenuineness and truthfulness.  The mere fact that two different  versions  are
\ngiven but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting
\nthe named  person.   The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is
\ntruthful.  If there are two dying declarations giving two different  versions,
\na  serious  doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations.
\nIt may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this  Court
\ncould  have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of
\nthe dying declarations.  The two dying declarations, however, in  the  instant
\ncase  stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by
\nreference to which their truthfulness can be tested.  It is well settled  that
\none  piece  of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece
\nof unreliable evidence”.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In LEELA SRINIVASA RAO ..vs..  STATE OF A.P<\/a>.  ((2004) 9 SCC 713),
\nit was  held  that  in  view  of  the  inconsistency  between  the  two  dying
\ndeclarations  and  no  other  evidence to prove the charge under Section 498-A<\/a>
\nIPC, husband and his mother acquitted reunder.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Even if many dying declarations are consistent between itself  it
\ncannot  over  come  the  infirmity  arising out of the deceased not being fit,
\nmentally and physically, to make the alleged statements.  This was  also  held
\nin LAXMI ..vs..  OM PRAKASH<\/a> ((2001) 6 SCC 118).\n<\/p>\n
        13.    At   the   same   time,  there  are  decisions  indicating  the
\ncircumstances when dying declaration shall be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  As a matter of fact, where dying declaration  was  acceptable  in
\nview  of  corroboration of material particulars, it was held in SHAMBHU ..vs..
\nSTATE OF M.P<\/a>.  ((2002) 3 SCC 561), the trial court erred in  disbelieving  the
\nsame relying on flimsy grounds based on irrelevant considerations.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   As the dying declaration was inspiring confidence as was so held
\nin SHANTHI ..vs..  STATE OF HARYANA<\/a> (((2006) 1 SCC 557), it shall have  to  be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  It was held in LALJIT SINGH ..vs..  STATE OF U.P<\/a>.  (2000 SC (Cri)
\n1501) that on facts, detailed account of occurrence could not be expected from
\na severely  injured  person,  particularly,  when  he died the next day.  This
\ndecision is applicable to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  Coming to the facts of the present case before us, there  may  be
\nvariations and those variations in its natural process are not going deep into
\nsubstance  of  the  matter  and  thus  not  making it as inconsistent with the
\nearlier statement.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  On a careful perusal of the three statements of deceased  through
\nExs.P-14,  P-17  and P-19, the complicity of both A1 and A2 has been depicted.
\nWhile P.Ws.17 and 19 say generally about the involvement of both  the  accused
\nin  the offensive act, under Ex.P-14, the actus reus of the individual accused
\nhas been cogently described by mentioning that while A2  caught  hold  of  the
\nlimbs of  the  deceased,  A1  poured  kerosene and set fire.  A normal prudent
\nperson with all burn injuries of 90% all over the body may say  only  to  this
\nlevel  and  he cannot repeat things in a parrot like form and if that is done,
\nthen only the artificiality may occur.    While  statements  made  in  natural
\nmanner,  it  is  liable  for  small  variation and that will only indicate the
\nnaturality behind it.  Small variations not making any inconsistency  have  to
\nbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   Further,  even  though  the  burn  injuries  was  100%, doctor’s
\ncertificate and his evidence was to the effect  that  the  patient  was  alert
\nmentally and physically fit in depicting the offence made against him.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Apart  from  the  above  facts,  there  is  also  extra-judicial
\nconfession of both the  accused  made  before  P.W.9,  Village  Administrative
\nOfficer  through  Exs.P-3  and  P-4,  which  was  recorded at 12.30 PM on 04.0
\n8.2001.  A1 was arrested on 04.08.2001 at 2.30  PM  at  police  station  after
\nproduction by  P.W.9.    A2  was  similarly arrested with his statement Ex.P-7
\nrecorded at 3.00 PM in the Gobi  Police  Station  and  material  objects  were
\nrecovered  under Ex.P-9 seizure mahazar, which were sent to chemical analysis.
\nEx.P-27 is the report of the chemical analyst.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Although P.Ws.1 to 3 alone had described the occurrence as ocular
\nwitnesses and even though the evidence of P.W.4 is  eschewable  as  he  turned
\nhostile  and  that of P.Ws.5 and 6 do speak only about the event subsequent to
\nthe offensive occurrence, there is no inconsistency found in the  evidence  of
\nthe ocular witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 3) nor was there any improbability for them to
\nhave witnessed.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  In the light of the above materials, which do not suffer from any
\ninfirmity, we are to hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond
\nreasonable  doubt to the effect that the accused alone perpetrated this crime.
\nAs such, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants  \/  accused  by
\nthe trial court are liable to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        23.    Accordingly,   the  conviction  and  sentence  imposed  on  the
\nappellants \/ accused are confirmed.  The  appeal  is  dismissed.    Since  the
\nappellants  are  on  bail, the trial court is directed to take steps to secure
\ntheir custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
gl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1) The Additional District & Sessions Judge,
\nFast Track Court II,
\nGobichettipalayam.\n<\/p>\n
2) Thro’ The Principal Sessions Judge,
\nErode.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
\nGobichettipalayam.\n<\/p>\n
4) Thro’ the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nErode.\n<\/p>\n
5) The Inspector of Police,
\nGobichettipalayam.\n<\/p>\n
6) The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison,
\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
7) The District Collector,
\nErode.\n<\/p>\n
8) The Director General of Police,
\nChennai-600 004.\n<\/p>\n
9) The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court,Madras.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 28\/04\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2003 1. Mahalingam 2. Loganathan alias Kodarai alias Kannupaiyan ..Appellants -Vs- State rep.by Inspector of Police, Gopichettipalayam. ..Respondent Criminal Appeal […]<\/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-259949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - 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\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-28T04:40:53+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T04:40:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2107,\"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\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T04:40:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - 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\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-28T04:40:53+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T04:40:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006"},"wordCount":2107,"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\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006","name":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T04:40:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahalingam-vs-state-rep-by-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahalingam vs State Rep.By on 28 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/259949","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=259949"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259949\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}