{"id":41717,"date":"2006-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-22T06:16:52","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T00:46:52","slug":"murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 17\/03\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No.1127 of 2002\n\n\nMurugan\t\t...\t\tAppellant\n\n\nvs.\n\n\nState, rep. by\t\t\t\t\nInspector of Police,\nKurangani Police Station,\n(Crime No.27\/2000)\t\t\tRespondent\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast\nTrack Court No.1, Madurai, dated 27.03.2002 in Sessions Case No.56 of 2001.\n\n\n!For Appellant  \t...\tMr.Gurudoss\n\t\t\n\n^For Respondent \t...\tMr.K.Radhkrishnan,\n\t\t\t \tAdditional Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P.D.DINAKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant, who is the accused in Sessions Case No.56 of 2001 on the
\nfile of the Additional District  and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I),
\nMadurai, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment, dated 27.03.2002,
\nconvicting him under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo
\nlife imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and seven years rigorous imprisonment
\nunder Section 307 I.P.C.  The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The charge against the appellant is that on account of the prior enmity
\nthat existed between the appellant and the deceased Karunanidhi, on 22.09.2000
\nat 8.00 a.m. at Aranmanai Coffee Estate, Puliyuthu, the appellant armed with an
\naruval (M.O.9), with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, cut him
\nindiscriminately on his front neck and right cheek by saying “get lost with
\nthis”, which resulted in his instantaneous death and in the course of the same
\ntransaction, the appellant cut P.W.3 Venkitammal, his first wife, with the same
\nweapon, on her left shoulder  by saying “get lost with this”.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
\n\tThe motive for the occurrence according to the prosecution is that the
\ndeceased and the first wife of the appellant, who is none the less P.W.3, are in
\nillicit intimacy with each other.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.2.  P.W.1 Thangamuthu is the son-in-law of the deceased.  P.W.2 Mythili
\nis the wife of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.3. Deceased was working along with the appellant, P.W.3 (appellant’s
\nwife), P.W.4 Subbuthai and P.W.5 Rasappan, as Accountant in Aranmanai Coffee
\nEstate, Puliyuthu.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.4. Since the appellant married one Eswari as second wife, the
\nrelationship between the appellant and P.W.3 was not cordial.  Whenever problem
\narose between them, the deceased used to intervene and pacify P.W.3, as a result
\nof which, the appellant started suspecting the relationship between his first
\nwife P.W.3 and the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.5. Day prior to the occurrence i.e. on 21.09.2000 at 6.00 p.m., the
\nappellant, as spoken by P.W.1, came with open threat that he would kill the
\ndeceased.  On the fateful day i.e. 22.09.2000 at 6.50 a.m., deceased and P.Ws.1
\nand 2 went to the coffee estate and got down at Puliyuthu bus stop.  The
\nappellant came in the opposite direction hiding with him M.O.9 aruval.  By using
\nfilthy words, the appellant cut the deceased with M.O.9 aruval on his neck
\nfollowed with indiscriminate cuts, which resulted in his instantaneous death, as
\nwitnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2 directly.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.6.  Not stopping with that, the appellant also proceeded to kill his
\nfirst wife P.W.3 and cut her with the same weapon on her left shoulder, as
\nwitnessed by P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 directly.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.7. P.W.1 immediately lodged a complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.11 Head Constable,
\nKurangani Police Station and the same was registered by P.W.11 in Crime No.27 of
\n2000  under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. Thereafter, he prepared  Ex.P14 printed
\nfirst information report and forwarded  the same to the jurisdictional
\nMagistrate and to the higher police authorities through P.W.12 Grade I Police
\nConstable.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.8. Based on Ex.P14, P.W.13, Inspector of Police, took up the
\ninvestigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence where the body of the
\ndeceased was lying, at 12.15 p.m. on 22.09.2000 and prepared Ex.P2 observation
\nmahazar and Ex.P15 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another.
\nThereafter, P.W.13 also conducted inquest and prepared Ex.P16 inquest report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.9. In the presence of the same witnesses, P.W.13 recovered M.O.1
\nbloodstained earth, M.O.2 sample earth and M.O.5 bloodstained plastic bag under
\nEx.P3 mahazar attested by the same witnesses.  Thereafter, the body was sent
\nthrough P.W.8 Police Constable for postmortem.  He also recovered M.Os.6 to 8
\npersonal apparels found on the body of the deceased under Form 95 produced by
\nP.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.10. P.W.13 went to the place where P.W.3 was attacked and prepared Ex.P4
\nobservation mahazar and Ex.P17 rough sketch in the presence of the same
\nwitnesses.  He recovered M.O.3 bloodstained earth, M.O.4 sample earth under
\nEx.P5 mahazar attested by the same witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.11. In the meanwhile, the injured P.W.3 was taken to the hospital by
\nneighbours and P.W.7  Dr.Ravindran, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
\nBodinayakanur, examined and treated her at 11.00 a.m. on the same day.   As per
\nhis statement, P.W.3 sustained a  a cut injury over her left shoulder measuring
\n10cm x 8cm x 4cm deep dividing the deltoid muscle and left shoulder joint and
\nexposing the bones.  Since the injury was grievous in nature, P.W.7 referred the
\ncase of P.W.3 to Government Hospital, Madurai for better treatment.  P.W.13
\nexamined P.W.3 in the hospital and recorded her statement.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.12. P.W.7 also conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased at 5.10
\np.m. on the same day.  As per the postmortem certificate Ex.P6, there were four
\ndeep cut injuries found on the body of the deceased and the death  was due to
\nthe injuries caused on the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.13. On 23.9.2000 P.W.13 arrested the appellant.  The appellant
\nvoluntarily gave a confession statement in the presence of P.W.10 and another.
\nEx.P8 is the admissible portion of the statement, pursuant to which, M.O.9
\naruval was recovered under Ex.P13 mahazar attested by P.W.10 and another.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.14. P.W.13 sent the material objects with Ex.P8 requisition to the Court
\nto subject them for chemical analysis and the same were sent to the laboratory
\nunder Ex.P9 Court’s letter.  Exs.P10 and P11 are the Chemical Analysis Report
\nand the Serologist Report respectively.   He examined the witnesses and recorded
\ntheir statements.  On completion of the investigation, he filed a final report
\nagainst the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.1 Before the Sessions Court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13
\nwere examined as witnesses and Exhibits P1 to P17 and material objects M.O.1 to
\nM.O.9 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.2 The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the
\nincriminating circumstances appearing against him, but he denied everything.
\nThe accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on
\nrecord, the learned  Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as
\nreferred to earlier.  Hence, the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t 6.1. Mr.Gurudoss, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is not
\nchallenging the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the occurrence, nor
\nthe motive behind the occurrence or the mode of commission of the crime; on the
\nother hand, attempts to take advantage over the findings, motive and mode of
\ncommission of the offence and seeks a modification of the conviction and
\nsentence imposed on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.2. Mr.Gurudoss, learned counsel for the appellant contends that even
\naccording to the prosecution case, the crime in question would fall under the
\nfirst exception to Section 300 I.P.C.  Even as per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and
\n4, the appellant committed the crime on account of the suspected illegal
\nintimacy between his first wife P.W.3 and the deceased, who used to intervene
\nand pacify P.W.3, whenever any dispute arose between the appellant and his first
\nwife P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.3. Referring to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant contends that the appellant got proved not only against the
\ndeceased, but also against P.W.3, on account of the suspected illegal intimacy.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Per contra, Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
\nplacing reliance on the reasoning that weighed the learned Sessions Judge and
\nthe findings arrived thereon, contends that the crime in question is nothing but
\nmurder, as there was a clear intention by the appellant\/accused to do away the
\ndeceased as well as his first wife P.W.3, as he declared in both the cases by
\nsaying “get lost with this”, while committing the respective attack.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides in
\nthe light of the evidence available on record and the materials placed before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The point that arises for our consideration is whether the crime in
\nquestion is a murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, in which
\ncase, whether the crime in question would fall under first exception to Section
\n300 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The case of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed directly the
\nattack made by the appellant on the deceased and similarly P.Ws.1, 4 and 5
\nwitnessed the attack on P.W.3 is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant.  Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellant
\nattacked  the deceased as well as his first wife P.W.3, suspecting their illicit
\nintimacy, as the deceased used to intervene and pacify P.W.3 whenever any
\nmisunderstanding arose between her and the appellant, apparently after the
\nsecond marriage of the appellant with one Eswari, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2,
\nis also not disputed by the defence.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.1. Therefore, the only motive, as admitted by both sides for committing
\nthe crime in question, is the suspected illegal intimacy between the deceased
\nand P.W.3.  As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
\nappellant got provoked due to the suspected illegal intimacy between the
\ndeceased and P.W.3, which formed the basis for the crime to cut the deceased, as
\ndirectly witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2, and immediately thereafter to cut his first
\nwife P.W.3 also, as witnessed by P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, we are satisfied that the
\nappellant got provoked on account of the suspected illicit intimacy between the
\ndeceased and P.W.3, which fact is not disputed even by the prosecution, because
\nas and when any misunderstanding arose between P.W.3 and the appellant, after
\nthe second marriage, the deceased used to intervene and pacify P.W.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.2. The motive behind the commission of the crime, as put forth by the
\nprosecution and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant,
\nis not merely frivolous and baseless, but strong and vigour, which had provoked
\nthe appellant not only to attack the deceased, but also his first wife P.W.3, by
\nusing the same weapon viz., M.O.9 aruval and the same words viz., “get lost with
\nthis”.  In fact, P.W.3 sustained a cut injury over her left shoulder measuring
\n10cm x 8cm x 4cm deep dividing the deltoid muscle and left shoulder joint and
\nexposing the bones and since the injury was grievous in nature, P.W.7 Doctor
\nreferred the case of P.W.3 to Government Hospital, Madurai for better treatment.
\nTherefore, appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat the case would fall under first exception to Section 300 I.P.C., we hold
\nthat the crime in question is nothing but culpable homicide not amounting to
\nmurder and the appellant shall be convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.
\ninstead of 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Coming to the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and
\nsentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, we are unable
\nto accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
\nappellant caused only simple injury on P.W.3 based on the superficial opinion of
\nMedical Officer, because it runs contra to the material available on record,
\nviz., Ex.P7 wound certificate, wherein it is clearly stated that P.W.3 sustained
\na cut injury over her left shoulder measuring 10cm x 8cm x 4cm deep dividing the
\ndeltoid muscle and left shoulder joint and exposing the bones, which apparently
\nseems to be grievous in nature.  Therefore, we are not inclined to either
\ninterfere or alter the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under
\nSection 307 I.P.C. and the same are liable to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we set aside the conviction and
\nsentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge under Section
\n302 I.P.C. and instead the appellant\/accused is convicted  under Section 304
\nPart I I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
\nThe conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C.
\nare confirmed.  The sentences are directed to run concurrently.   The appeal is
\npartly allowed to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
ATR<\/p>\n
Copies to<\/p>\n
1. The Additional District & Sessions Judge,
\n   (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Inspector of Police,
\n   Kurangani Police Station.<\/p>\n
\n\n3. The Public Prosecutor,\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,\n   Madurai.          \t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/03\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1127 of 2002 Murugan … Appellant vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kurangani Police Station, (Crime No.27\/2000) Respondent Criminal Appeal filed […]<\/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-41717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurugan vs State on 17 March, 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\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-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=\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T00:46:52+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\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T00:46:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2094,\"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\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T00:46:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 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":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 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\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T00:46:52+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\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T00:46:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006"},"wordCount":2094,"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\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006","name":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T00:46:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugan vs State on 17 March, 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\/41717","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=41717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}