{"id":43337,"date":"2009-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009"},"modified":"2014-08-21T08:40:04","modified_gmt":"2014-08-21T03:10:04","slug":"chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 30\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A(MD)No.222 of 2004\n\n1.Chelian\n2.Ramiah\n3.Chitrayee\t  \t\t\t.. Appellants\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Accused 1 to 3\n\t\nVs\n\nState, rep. by the\nAssistant Commissioner of Police,\nMelur,\nMadurai District.\n(On the file of\nKeelavalavu Police Station\nin Crime No.71 of 2002) \t  \t.. Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Complainant\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the\njudgment dated 30.11.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.473 of 2003 by the learned\nSessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Madurai.\n\n!For appellants\t   ...\t Mr.K.Jaganathan\n^For respondent\t   ...\t Mr.L.Murugan\n\t\t\t Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)\n\n                 * * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
\n30.11.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.473 of 2003 by the learned Sessions Judge,
\nMagalir Neethimandram, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The three appellants are the husband of the deceased wife, her father
\nin law and mother-in-law and they stand convicted and sentenced to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for seven years for an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.
\nand to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500\/-
\nin default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 498-A
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tP.Ws.1 to 3 are brother, father and mother of the deceased respectively.
\nThe marriage of the deceased Santhal and the accused No.1 was solemnized on
\n10.04.2000.  During the marriage, she was presented with 15 sovereigns of jewels
\nand cash of Rs.16,000\/- to purchase a two wheeler, apart from household articles
\nworth about Rs.30,000\/-.  After the marriage, the deceased lived with her
\nhusband and in-laws jointly in Palayurpatti village in Melur Taluk.  Three
\nmonths after the marriage, the accused demanded Rs.5000\/- for agricultural
\noperations and forced the deceased to get the same from her parents.  They
\nphysically tortured her by beating her and on one occasion, they broke the ear-
\nring and on another occasion, they palled and snapped her chain. Meanwhile, the
\ndeceased became pregnant.  Again they pressurized her to get Rs.5000\/- from her
\nparents, but her parents could not satisfy the said demands and hence retained
\ntheir daughter in their house.  She gave birth to a male child.  She reported
\nthe demand and the ill-treatment suffered by her to an independent witness P.W.4
\nArumugam of Kottakudi Village.  After 11 months, at the intervention of the
\nelders, the deceased was taken back to her matrimonial home with the first
\naccused.  But she was not happy and informed her brother through phone that she
\nwas tortured by the accused persons.  While so, on 13.05.2002 the parents of the
\ndeceased were informed through phone that the deceased had hung herself as also
\nher child.  Immediately, the parents of the deceased P.Ws.2 and 3 and her
\nbrother P.W.1 rushed to the house of the accused and saw the body of the
\ndeceased and her child laid on the floor in her matrimonial home and thereafter
\nP.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.p1) to Keelavalavu Police.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.71
\nof 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and he has deposed that earlier he received
\ninformation over the phone from P.W.5, the Village Administrative Officer of
\nAmbalakaranpatti,rushed to the scene of occurrence and thereafter he received
\nthe complaint from P.W.1 on the spot, returned to the Police Station at 12.00
\nNoon and registered the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) P.W.12, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation
\nand rushed to the Palayurpatti Village, prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P2,
\nwhere P.W.6 and one Karuppaiah signed and also drew a Rough Sketch Ex.P14.  At
\nabout 15.00 hours, he recovered M.O.1, rope under Ex.P3.  Then he recorded the
\nstatement of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.6 and other witnesses namely Irulayee, Soman,
\nLakshmi, Parimala, Karuppaiah.  On 14.05.2002 at 21.00 hours, he has altered the
\ncase under Ex.P15 to one under Section 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.  On 15.05.2002 at
\n06.00 a.m., the accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested near Manthai and in
\ncontinuation of his investigation, he arrested the first accused at 07.00 a.m.
\nat Melur Bus Stand on 17.05.2002.  On 18.05.2002 he recorded the statement of
\nP.Ws.5,7,8 and 9 and also recorded the statement of P.W.11, the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer.  P.W.12 examined P.W.4 Arumugal, Muthuraju, Periyakaruppan
\nKonar, Seenivasan and Rudhrapandi on 14.05.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) In the meanwhile, P.W.11, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an
\ninquest over the dead body of Santhal and the child in front of the
\npanchayathars between 02.30 p.m. and 06.30 p.m.  The Inquest Report is Ex.P9.
\nHe recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 and the
\nstatements of panchayathars.  The statements of the witnesses is Ex.P10 series
\nand statements of panchayathars is Ex.P11 series.  He forwarded his opinion
\nEx.P12 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur.  After receiving the Post
\nMortem Report on 29.07.2002, he has submitted the final report Ex.P13, to the
\nDistrict Collector.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. On the production of the accused, charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B
\nI.P.C. were framed and when examined, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On conclusion of trial and on questioning under Section 313(1) of
\nCr.P.C. the accused denied the offences.  No witnesses were examined on behalf
\nof the accused nor were any material objects.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The trial Court on examination of the witnesses and materials available
\nbefore it and also on perusal of the records, found the accused guilty and
\nconvicted and sentenced them as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government
\nAdvocate.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned counsel for the appellants primarily attacks the finding of
\nconviction under Section 304-B I.P.C. placing heavy reliance on the decision of
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur and others<\/a>,
\n(2005) SCC (Cri) 218 and the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court
\nin Michelraj and Another v. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, All
\nWomen Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, (2008)1 MLJ (Crl.) 593.
\nIn  State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur and others<\/a>, (2005) SCC (Cri) 218,  the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“18.Our attention was drawn to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and
\nSection 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned counsel appearing for the
\naccused. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and
\nSection 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show
\nthat soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
\nThe prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death
\nso as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than in
\nnormal circumstances”. For the above proposition, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe accused, cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Hira Lal v. State
\n(Govt. of NCT), Delhi AIR<\/a> 2003 SC 2865 : (2003) 8 SCC 80. In that case this
\nCourt observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section 113-B of the
\nEvidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is
\nobliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment
\nand only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be
\nled by the prosecution. ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend
\nupon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down
\nas to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be
\nhazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a
\nproximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for
\nraising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression
\n‘soon before her death’ used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section
\n113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No
\ndefinite period has been indicated and the expression ‘soon before’ is not
\ndefined. A reference to the expression ‘soon before’ used in Section 114
\nIllustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may
\npresume that a man who is in the possession of goods ‘soon after the theft, is
\neither the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
\ncan account for their possession’. The determination of the period which can
\ncome within the term ‘soon before’ is left to be determined by the courts,
\ndepending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
\nindicate that the expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the
\ninterval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the
\ndeath in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between
\nthe effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the
\nalleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to
\ndisturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
\nconsequence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in
\nthe instant case, the requirement of proof of the deceased having been subjected
\nto cruelty or harassment soon before the death was not made out.  Though P.W.1,
\nthe elder brother of the deceased wife, had deposed to an earlier occasion,
\nwhere the deceased wife was beaten by the accused and of a demand of Rs.5000\/-
\nhaving earlier been made and of the inability to meet such demand.  P.W.2,
\nfather of the deceased wife, had also spoken of a demand for Rs.5000\/-.  P.W.3,
\nthe mother of the deceased wife, again had spoken of the deceased having been
\nbeaten earlier and of the demand of Rs.5000\/- on two occasions as already spoken
\nto by P.W.1.  All these demands admittedly were of a date much earlier to the
\ndeath of the deceased and her child.  It was the evidence of the same witnesses
\nthat the deceased came to her parental house and stayed there for eleven months
\nafter the birth of the child and that after mediation at the instance of elders,
\nthe deceased wife was taken back to her matrimonial home.  The deceased and her
\nchild had met death by hanging at her own instance, 60 days after she returned
\nto her matrimonial home.  Excepting a stray line in the evidence of P.W.1 that
\nthe deceased had informed over phone on the sixtieth day i.e., near to the
\noccurrence of being ill-treated and harassed, none of the other witnesses had
\nspoken of any ill-treatment or harassment soon before the death.  The finding
\nthat there was indeed ill-treatment or harassment of such manner cannot be
\narrived at on the mere say so of P.W.1, when particularly it was admitted by the
\nInvestigating Officer that there was an earlier dispute resulting in complaint
\nbeing lodged by P.W.1 against A1.  The submission of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, have to be accepted and it has to be
\nheld that no offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. has been proved against the
\nappellants\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. From the evidence on record, it is quite clear that the offence under
\nSection 498-A I.P.C. stand made out against the appellants\/accused.  P.W.1 has
\nspoken to beating of the deceased by the accused.   He deposed that when the
\naccused demanded Rs.5000\/- at the first instance, it was given to them.  When
\nthey demanded Rs.5000\/- again, he was unable to meet the demand.  P.W.2, the
\nfather also has spoken of the demand of Rs.5000\/-.  His evidence is not as
\nelaborate as that of P.W.1.  But it is to be remembered that he was aged of 70
\nyears at the time of deposing before the Court.  P.W.3, the mother of the
\ndeceased wife also has spoken to the frequent quarrels and of two demands of
\nRs.5000\/-.  P.W.4, who is a resident of the village, at which P.Ws.1 to 3 reside
\nand also related to them, has spoken to the deceased having told him of the ill-
\ntreatment meted out to her by the accused.  The circumstance that, the deceased
\nwife had gone to her parental home in the very early months of pregnency and
\nalso had stayed there for upto eleven months after the birth of the child, would
\ngo to show that not all was well between the accused and the deceased wife.
\nThis position is further substantiated through the evidence of the Investigating
\nOfficer that P.W.1 had earlier given a complaint against the accused, since he
\nhad been beaten by the first accused, when talks were held regarding the marital
\nrelationship of A1 and the deceased wife.  In the above circumstances, there is
\nno room for doubt that the offence committed by the appellants\/accused under
\nSection 498-A I.P.C. stands proved.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that A2 and
\nA3 are presently of age 67 and 62 respectively.  The role played by A1 would be
\nonly marginal, since admittedly he was working at a Hotel in Bangalore.  The
\nsubmission that A1’s role is marginal, since he was in Bangalore, does not merit
\nacceptance, since there is clear and cogent evidence that he had beat the
\ndeceased wife.  Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, I am of the opinion that while confirming the conviction under Section
\n498-A I.P.C., some leniency may be shown in the matter of sentencing, since A2
\nand A3 are ripe in age and they would require the support of A1.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In the result, the conviction by the lower Court for offence under
\nSection 304-B I.P.C. as against the appellants herein is set aside.  The
\nconviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. in respect each of the appellants\/accused
\nis confirmed and each of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
\nof 18 months for such offence and pay fine of Rs.500\/- in default undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for three months.  The trial Court is directed to take
\nappropriate action so as to have the accused serve out the remainder of the
\nsentence.  The period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under
\nSection 428 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
1.The Sessions Judge,
\n  Magalir Neethimandram,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
\n  Melur,
\n  Madurai District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2004 1.Chelian 2.Ramiah 3.Chitrayee .. Appellants\/ Accused 1 to 3 Vs State, rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Melur, Madurai District. (On the file of Keelavalavu […]<\/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-43337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - 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\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-21T03:10:04+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-21T03:10:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2349,\"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\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-21T03:10:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - 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\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-21T03:10:04+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-21T03:10:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009"},"wordCount":2349,"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\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009","name":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-21T03:10:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chelian-vs-state-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chelian vs State on 30 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/43337","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=43337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}