{"id":35000,"date":"2008-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-03T16:43:11","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T11:13:11","slug":"syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 17\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nCrl.A.No.1 of 2007\n\nSyed alias Syed Ibrahim\t\t\t..  Appellant\/sole accused\n\n\nVs.\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep.by The Inspector of Police,\nGanesh Nagar Police Station,\nPudukottai.\n(Crime No.265\/1999)\t\t\t\t..  Respondent\/Complainant\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C\nagainst the judgment dated 20.11.2006 made in S.C.No.26 of 2006 by the\nAdditional District Sessions Judge - Fast Track Court, Pudukottai.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.Ganesh Rajan\n\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.P.N.Pandithurai\n\t\t     Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>    (The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge is made to the Judgment of the Additional District Sessions<br \/>\nDivision &#8211; Fast Track Court, Pudukottai, dated 20.11.2006, made in S.C.No.26 of<br \/>\n2006, whereby the sole accused stood charged and tried under Section 302 IPC and<br \/>\nconvicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of<br \/>\nRs.5,000\/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and acquitted<br \/>\nfor the offence under Section 506(ii)(two counts).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal could be stated<br \/>\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Gopirajan.  He is working as a<br \/>\nForeman in the Transport Corporation and except the deceased, P.W.5 is an<br \/>\nanother son of P.W.1. On 25.03.1999, at about 10.00p.m. on the evening hours,<br \/>\nthere was a festival in NTR School, at Chinnappa Nagar. At that time, the<br \/>\ndeceased along with his friends namely P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and one Xavier went over<br \/>\nthere.  There was a wordy altercation between the deceased and one Raja in<br \/>\nrespect of a cycle accident. Later after the function was over, the deceased<br \/>\nalong with P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were sitting in the plot in Sathyamurthi Nagar.  At<br \/>\nabout 00.10 hours,  on 25\/26.03.1999, the accused and Raja had come to<br \/>\nSathyamurthi Nagar.  When P.W.4 questioned the accused and Raja why they had<br \/>\ncome to their street, the accused replying whether he was  Thatha of the place,<br \/>\nso that, there was a wordy altercation. At that juncture, the deceased pacified<br \/>\nthem, while so the accused by uttering &#8220;are you in support of them&#8221; had taken a<br \/>\nknife from his hip and stabbed the deceased at his left thigh and in the<br \/>\nScrotum.  Immediately, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.  The<br \/>\noccurrence has taken at about 00.10 hours on 25\/26.03.1999.  Then at 00.30<br \/>\nhours, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, where<br \/>\nP.W.8, the Doctor was on duty, clearly stated that P.W.2 while admitting the<br \/>\ndeceased had informed that someone in the crowd had stabbed the deceased, and<br \/>\nthe same has been recorded in Ex.P.4. Thereafter, the deceased had died in the<br \/>\nhospital at about 01.00 hours on 26.03.1999. The body of the deceased was given<br \/>\nto P.W.5, who is the brother of the deceased, who in turn informed to the<br \/>\nfather, P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Thereafter, P.W.1 gave a complaint to Ganesh Nagar Police Station,<br \/>\nwhere P.W.11, the Inspector of Police was on duty and lodged a complaint under<br \/>\nEx.P.1. On the strength of the same, P.W.11, registered a case in Crime No.265<br \/>\nof 1999 under Sections 302 IPC and prepared the First Information Report under<br \/>\nEx.P.6 and  the same was sent along with Ex.P.1 to the Court and to the higher<br \/>\nofficials.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded<br \/>\nto the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared<br \/>\nEx.P.2, the Observation mahazar, and Ex.P.7, the rough sketch. Further, he<br \/>\nrecorded the statement of the witnesses.  He also recovered blood stained earth<br \/>\nM.O.1 and sample earth M.O.2 under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on<br \/>\nthe dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars<br \/>\nand prepared an inquest report, Ex.P.8.\n<\/p>\n<p>\td) The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for the purpose<br \/>\nof autopsy.  P.W.9, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital,<br \/>\nPudukkottai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead<br \/>\nbody of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he<br \/>\nhas opined that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and<br \/>\nhemorrhage due to the injuries sustained at 12.00 hours prior to the autopsy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t (e) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer, arrested the<br \/>\naccused. He came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, which was<br \/>\nrecorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the same was<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.P.9, pursuant to which, M.O.3-knife was recovered from the accused<br \/>\nunder a cover of mahazar. On completion, the investigator filed the final<br \/>\nreport.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tf) The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects<br \/>\nrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and<br \/>\nthe M.Os. recovered from the accused were sent for  chemical analysis by the<br \/>\nForensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports, namely, Ex.P.13, the<br \/>\nChemical Analysis report and Ex.P.14, the Serologist report.\n<\/p>\n<p>    g)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were<br \/>\nframed. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and 5 M.Os.  On<br \/>\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found<br \/>\nin the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied them as false.  No defence<br \/>\nwitness was examined. After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the lower<br \/>\ncourt, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt in respect of the charge of murder and in respect of the second charge,<br \/>\nthe court had acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Advancing arguments Mr.Ganesh Rajan, the learned Counsel would submit<br \/>\nthe following submissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe occurrence has taken place on 25\/26.03.1999 at 00.10 hours. A<br \/>\ncomplaint was given by P.W.1 at about 03.00 hours. But, he was not an eye<br \/>\nwitness. According to Ex.P.1, he was informed by P.W.5, another son, who was<br \/>\nalso not an eye witness.  According to the prosecution, the eye witnesses are<br \/>\nP.Ws.2, 3 and 4.  The earliest document in this case was not Ex.P.1, but Ex.P.4,<br \/>\nwhich is the accident register copy issued in respect of the deceased.  P.W.8,<br \/>\nthe Doctor not only noted therein but also categorically deposed before the<br \/>\nCourt that P.W.2, who took the severely injured deceased to the hospital and<br \/>\ninformed that someone in the procession had stabbed the deceased. Had it been<br \/>\ntrue that P.W.2 was an eye witness, there was no need for him to reproduce the<br \/>\nstatement alleged to have been given by the deceased that he was attacked by<br \/>\nsomeone. This would indicate that P.W.2 could not have been an eye witness.<br \/>\nAdded further, P.W.2 has clearly claimed that he went to the hospital along with<br \/>\nP.Ws.3 and 4 by Auto with severely injured deceased.  P.Ws.3 and 4 have also<br \/>\ngone to the hospital and hence it clearly indicates that P.Ws.3 and 4 also could<br \/>\nnot have seen the place of occurrence at all. In the instant case, in the First<br \/>\nInformation Report, the name of the accused and all the details have been given,<br \/>\nbut by whom it has been given, was remain unknown.  P.W.5 had also no knowledge<br \/>\nabout the same and thus P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 could not have been eye witness at all.<br \/>\nIf their evidence is viewed from the document contained in Ex.P.4, it was only<br \/>\nan inference, such a complaint has been given.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Added circumstances was the prosecution much relied upon the alleged<br \/>\nconfession and recovery of M.O.3-knife. But no one independent witness was<br \/>\nexamined for that purpose. The only evidence examined by the Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer was only self serving and the prosecution had not proved the case.<br \/>\nHence, the appellant is entitled for an acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It is not in controversy that one Gobirajan, the son of P.W.1,<br \/>\nfollowing an incident that took place at about 0.10 hours on 25\/26.03.1999 has<br \/>\ntaken to the Government Hospital, Pudukottai, where he was declared died by<br \/>\nP.W.8, Doctor. Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead<br \/>\nbody was subjected to post morterm by P.W.9, the Doctor, who has categorically<br \/>\ndeposed before the Court as  found in his post-morterm Certificate that the<br \/>\ndeceased would have died out of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained.<br \/>\nThus, the fact that Gobirajan was died due to homicidal violence was not a<br \/>\nsubject matter of controversy before the lower court and thus it would be quite<br \/>\nclear that the prosecution has successful enough in proving that fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.In order to substantiate the charge against the appellant that it was<br \/>\nthe accused, who stabbed the deceased and caused the death, the prosecution<br \/>\nrested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 as occurrence witness;<br \/>\nclosely they were all associates of the deceased.  Now, if the evidence of<br \/>\nP.Ws.2 to 4 as occurrence witness carefully scrutinized,  the Court is afraid<br \/>\nwhether the deceased can be sustained. P.W.2 would claim that along with P.Ws. 3<br \/>\nand 4, the deceased were also with them at that time; the other accused<br \/>\naccompanied by his friend Raja also came over there. There was a wordy<br \/>\naltercation and thus in that process, the accused stabbed the deceased. P.W.2<br \/>\nwould also claim that he along with P.Ws.3 and 4 took the deceased to the<br \/>\nGovernment Hospital, Pudukottai, where P.W.8, the Doctor was on duty.  The<br \/>\nstatement made by P.W.2 to P.W.8 is actually recorded under Ex.P.4, the accident<br \/>\nregister copy, which is the earliest document.  P.W.8, the Doctor has deposed as<br \/>\nfound in Ex.P.4 that P.W.2 gave a statement to the effect that the deceased<br \/>\ninformed P.W.2 that some one in the crowd, when a procession was going on, had<br \/>\nstabbed him and thus as put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, had<br \/>\nit been true, P.W.2 was an eye witness since there was no need for him to make<br \/>\nsuch a statement contained in Ex.P.4 and the evidence of P.W.8 would put an end<br \/>\nto the whole evidence as P.W.2 was not an eye witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Added further, not only P.W.2 but also P.Ws.3 and 4,  would also claim<br \/>\nthat they were all together at the time of occurrence and they took the deceased<br \/>\nto the hospital and therefore, had it been true, such an occurrence was<br \/>\nwitnessed by them, there was no impediment to anyone telling the doctor and<br \/>\nsolong the fact remains  of them claimed by them that they were all together in<br \/>\nthat occurrence and they took the deceased to the hospital.  Now, it would be<br \/>\nquite clear that they could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.<br \/>\nFurther, there is lot of discrepancies in the major parts and apart from the<br \/>\nmaterial particulars and added further, on information given by P.W.5, the<br \/>\ncomplaint was given by P.W.1,  Nowhere P.W.5 is shown an eye witness. Hence the<br \/>\nwitness of P.W.5 was of no use.  Added circumstances was P.Ws.2,3 and 4 would<br \/>\nclaim that in the place of occurrence not only the accused was present but also<br \/>\none Raja was also present, but he was not added an accused. Further no<br \/>\ninvestigation has been done in that process and added further the alleged<br \/>\nconfession and recovery of M.O.3, the weapon of crime, no one independent<br \/>\nwitness was not examined and to the best reasons known to the prosecution before<br \/>\nthe lower Court. The only evidence was the investigator and on his evidence and<br \/>\nIt can not be taken as the fact remain proved and hence no other evidence was<br \/>\navailable for the prosecution and hence the trial court had not looked into the<br \/>\naspect of the matter and recorded its finding that the accused found guilty.<br \/>\nHence the order of the lower court has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the<br \/>\nappellant\/accused is acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm\/rj2<br \/>\nTo<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Ganesh Nagar Police Station,<br \/>\n  Pudukottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Crl.A.No.1 of 2007 Syed alias Syed Ibrahim .. Appellant\/sole accused Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by [&hellip;]<\/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-35000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T11:13:11+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\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T11:13:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2018,\"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\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T11:13:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T11:13:11+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\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T11:13:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008"},"wordCount":2018,"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\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008","name":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T11:13:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-alias-syed-ibrahim-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Syed Alias Syed Ibrahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35000","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=35000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}