{"id":43343,"date":"2004-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004"},"modified":"2014-06-02T13:20:01","modified_gmt":"2014-06-02T07:50:01","slug":"karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 24\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI\n\nCRL.APPEAL No.283 of 1997\n\n1. Karuppasami                                 ...  Appellants \/\n2. Muniasami                                    Accused 1 and 2\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by:\nInspector of Police,\nEttayapuram Police Station.                     ...  Respondent.\n\n                Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 02.04.1997 made  in\nS.C.   No.98  of  1993  on  the  file  of Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin,\nChidmbaranar District.\n\n!For appellants :  Mr.  G.Anandharangan,\n                for     Mr.K.Selvarangam and\n                Mr.  L.Mahendran\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.  A.N.Thambidurai,\n                Government Advocate,\n                (Crl.Side).\n\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.98 of 1993 on the file of  Principal
\nSessions Court,  Tuticorin  are  the  Appellants.  By the judgment dated 02.04
\n.1997, the Sessions Court has convicted A.1 under Sec.304 (II) I.P.C.  and A.2
\nunder Sec.304 (ii) I.P.C.  r\/w Sec.109 I.P.C.  and sentenced them  to  undergo
\nRigorous Imprisonment for a period of eight years each.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  Accused and Prosecution Witnesses 1 to 3 are related
\nas noted below:-\n<\/p>\n
                        Chandramathi (P.W.1)
\n                                        |\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ————————————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                |                                                       |\n=Parvathy (1st wife)                    =Guruvammal (2nd wife)\n                |                                               |\n----------------------------    Raju (Son)(deceased)\n|                                       |\nMadasamy (Son)          Muthammal\n(P.W.2)                 daughter of\n= Mariammal (P.W.3)     P.W.1\nwife of P.W.2.                  |\n                                        Karuppasamy (A.1)\n                                        = Kaliammal\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Kaliammal is the sister of Shanmugam (deceased Accused),  who  married  A.1  –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Karuppasamy.  A.2 Muniasamy is the brother of Shanmugam.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The case of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                Occurrence.   P.W.1  (Chandramathy), P.W.2 (Madasamy), P.W.3 (
\nMariammal) and deceased Raju are residents of Kadalaiyur.  The  family  of  P.
\nWs.1 to 3 and Raju are engaged in preparing ‘Artificial Hair’ (rt[hp Ko fl;Lk;
\nbjhHpy;).   About  three days prior to the occurrence (12.05.199 1), family of
\nP.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Raju went  to  Chemmaputhur  in  connection  with
\ntheir business.    In Chemmaputhur, they stayed in Nadar Samuthaya Mandapam, –
\nin front of Panchayat Board Office.  A.2  –  Muniasamy  and  deceased  Accused
\nShanmugam also stayed with them.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  A.2 and deceased Accused Shanmugam married the girls, (who
\nare  younger  sisters  to  deceased  Raju)  within the prohibited relationship
\nregarding which, Raju was frequently teasing them.  On the date of occurrence,
\ni.e.  on 12.05.1991 – 11.00 a.m., A.2 and deceased Accused Shanmugam asked A.1
\n” uh$%it ,d;Dkh tpl;L itj;jpUf;fpwha;>”.  Instigated by A.2 and Shanmugam, A.1\n<\/p>\n
– Karuppasami inflicted two stab injuries on the chest and back of Raju.  Raju
\ndied on the spot.  The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Complaint.  P.W.5  (Kuthappan)  –  Village  Administrative
\nOfficer  of  Chemmaputhur  came to the spot and enquired about the occurrence.
\nP.W.1 – father of Raju informed P.W.5 about the occurrence.   P.W.5  –  V.A.O.
\nrecorded the  statement  of  P.W.1  (Ex.P.1)  at  11.30  a.m.    He  made  his
\nendorsement – Ex.P.2.  Thereafter, Ex.P.1 – Statement was sent to  Ettayapuram
\nPolice Station through the Village Assistant – P.W.6 ( Mariappan).  Ex.P.1 was
\nhanded over in Ettayapuram Police Station at 1 .00 p.m.  on 12.05.1991.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Registration  of  case.  On receipt of Ex.P.1 – Statement,
\nP.W.9 – Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime  No.208  of  1991
\nunder Sec.302  I.P.C.    under Ex.P.13 – First Information Report at 1.00 p.m.
\nExs.P.1 and P.13 were sent to Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti through P.W.8  –
\nPolice Constable.    P.W.8  handed  over the same in the Judicial Magistrate’s
\nCourt at 2.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
                7.  Investigation.  P.W.11 – Inspector of Police had taken  up
\nthe investigation.   Scene of occurrence – near Panchayat Office, Chemmaputhur
\nwas inspected in the presence of witnesses P.Ws.5 and 6.  Ex.P.3 – Observation
\nMahazar and Ex.P.16 – Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Inquest.  Between 2.00 to 4.00  p.m.,  P.Ws.1  to  4  were
\nexamined  in the presence of Panchayatdors and inquest was held on the body of
\ndeceased Raju.  Ex.P.17 is the Inquest Report.  After inquest, body was handed
\nover to Police Constable No.1308  with  Ex.P.14  –  Requisition  for  Autopsy.
\nM.O.1  – Blood stained Vegetable Matter mixed with mud and M.O.2 – sample were
\nseized from the scene of occurrence under Ex.  P.4 – Seizure Mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Post-mortem.  P.W.10 – Dr.Chellappa Reddiar,  attached  to
\nEttayapuram  Government Hospital had conducted Autopsy on the body of deceased
\nRaju.   Noting  the  injuries  on  the  chest  and  on  the  left  scalp  with
\ncorresponding   internal   injuries,   P.W.10  issued  Ex.P.15  –  Post-mortem
\nCertificate.  He opined  that  the  deceased  died  of  cumulative  effect  of
\nhaemorrhage and   shock   resulting   from  injuries  sustained.    After  the
\nPost-mortem, blood stained clothes of the deceased – M.Os.4 to 7 were seized.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Arrest of the Accused.  On 12.05.1991  –  5.00  p.m.,  A.2  and  deceased
\nAccused Shanmugam  were  arrested  near  Keezha Eeral.  On being interrogated,
\ndeceased Accused Shanmugam had voluntarily given a Confession Statement, which
\nled to the recovery of M.O.3 – Knife under Ex.P.5 – Seizure Mahazar.  A.1  was
\narrested  in  connection with this case on 21.05.1991 and remanded to judicial
\ncustody on the same day.  The seized Material Objects were sent  for  Chemical
\nAnalysis.   On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
\nAccused 1 and 2 and deceased Accused  Shamnugam  on  12.06.1991  under  Ss.302
\nI.P.C.  r\/w 34   I.P.C.;  302  I.P.C.    r\/w  109  I.P.C.    During  Committal
\nProceedings, Accused Shanmugam died.  Hence, the case against him abated.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  To substantiate the charges against the  Accused  in  the
\ntrial Court P.Ws.1  to 11 were examined.  Exs.P.1 to P.17 were marked.  M.Os.1
\nto 7 were remanded to the Court.  The Accused were  questioned  under  Sec.313
\nCrl.P.C.  The  defence is one of total denial.  Eye witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 have
\nturned hostile.  P.W.5 – V.A.O.  and P.W.6 – Village Assistant have  also  not
\nsupported the prosecution case on the arrest of deceased Accused Shanmugam and
\nA.2.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   Upon careful scrutiny of evidence, the trial Court found
\nthat the evidence of solitary witness, viz.  P.W.1 is spontaneous, natural and
\nreliable.  Finding  that  evidence  of  P.W.1  is  strengthened  by  Ex.P.1  –
\nStatement  and  the  medical  evidence,  the  learned Sessions Judge convicted
\nAccused 1 and 2 and sentenced them to imprisonment as  aforesaid.    Aggrieved
\nover the conviction, Appellants \/ A.1 and A.2 have preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   Taking  me through the evidence, the learned counsel for
\nthe Accused assailed the findings of the trial Court contending that the trial
\nCourt erred in basing the conviction upon  the  solitary  testimony  of  P.W.1
\nwithout  properly  appreciating  the  variations in his evidence regarding the
\ntime of the occurrence.  The reliability of P.W.1’s evidence  is  attacked  on
\nthe   ground   that   it   suffers  from  inconsistencies  and  contradictions
\nparticularly on the time of occurrence.  It is further submitted that  in  the
\nlight  of  hostility of P.Ws.5 and 6, arrest of Shanmugam and A.2 Muniasami is
\nnot convincing and while so, the trial Court erred in convicting A.2 also  and
\nthe same cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Supporting  the  finding of the trial Court, the learned
\nGovernment  Advocate  has  submitted  that  the  evidence  of  P.W.1  is  well
\ncorroborated by  the medical evidence.  Further submitting that P.W.1 being an
\naged and rustic man, any variation in the time of occurrence would not in  any
\nway  undermine  his version and that the verdict of conviction does not suffer
\nfrom any infirmity, warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  Upon  careful  reassessment  of  the  evidence,  impugned
\njudgment,  evidence  and other materials on record, the following points arise
\nfor consideration in this appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the trial Court was right in finding the Accused 1  and  2  guilty
\nunder Ss.304 (II) I.P.C.  and 304 (II) I.P.C.  r\/w 109 I.P.C.  respectively on
\nthe basis of the solitary testimony of P.W.1 ?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Whether  the conviction of the Appellants \/ A.1 and A.2 suffers from any
\ninfirmity warranting interference ?\n<\/p>\n
                16.   P.Ws.1  to  3  and  deceased  Raju  are   residents   of
\nKadalaiyur,  who are engaged in the business of making Artificial Hair ( rt[hp
\nKo fl; Lk; bjhHpy; ).   In  connection  with  their  business,  they  came  to
\nChemmaputhur.   A.2  and  deceased  Accused Shanmugam – brothers-in-law of A.1
\nalso came to Chemmaputhur.  All of them stayed in Nadar Samuthaya Mandapam, in
\nfront of Panchayat Board Office.  P.W.1 – Chandramathy, aged 70 about years is
\nliving with his family members.  It is quite natural that he  had  accompanied
\nhis  family  members,  who  came  to  Chemmaputhur  in  connection  with their
\nbusiness.  Presence of P.W.1 in Chemmaputhur is well explained  and  the  same
\ncannot be doubted.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   P.W.1  –  maternal  grand-father  of  A.1  and father of
\ndeceased Raju is the key witness for the prosecution and in  his  evidence  he
\nhas  stated that A.2 – Muniasamy and deceased Accused Shanmugam had instigated
\nA.1 saying ” uh$%it ,d;Dkh tpl;L itj;jpUf;fpwha; >”.  On being instigated, A.1
\nstabbed Raju with M.O.3 – Knife on the chest and on the back.   Raju  died  on
\nthe spot.    Though  P.W.1 was aged about 90 years (SIC) at the time of giving
\nevidence in the Trial Court, he has clearly narrated the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  P.W.2 (Madasami) – Maternal Uncle of  A.1  and  his  wife
\nMariammal  – P.W.3 and another relation Chinnasamy – P.W.4 are examined as eye
\nwitnesses.  P.Ws.2 to 4 have not  supported  the  prosecution  case  and  were
\ntreated hostile.    There  is nothing strange in the hostility of P.Ws.2 to 4.
\nTo save A.1 and A.2 from the  clutches  of  the  case,  they  would  not  have
\nsupported the  prosecution  version.  The prosecution version remains unshaken
\nby the hostility of P.Ws.2 to 4.   Likewise,  non-examination  of  independent
\nwitness also  cannot  be  urged.    P.Ws.1  to  4  and  deceased Raju, who are
\nresidents of Kadalaiyur temporarily came down to  Chemmaputhur  in  connection
\nwith their  business.   While doing their work, they stayed in Nadar Samuthaya
\nMandapam.  They were strangers to the place.  The inter  se  quarrel  may  not
\nhave attracted  the  residents  of Chemmaputhur.  Even if others have seen the
\noccurrence, they might not have been interested  to  come  forward  for  being
\nwitnesses.   It  would  be  unreasonable  to expect examination of independent
\nwitness.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  Reliability  of  P.W.1  –   single   witness.      Entire
\nprosecution case revolves around the solitary testimony of P.W.1.  Even if the
\nprosecution  case  against  the Accused revolves on the evidence of single eye
\nwitness, it may be  enough  to  sustain  the  conviction  if  the  witness  is
\ncompetent, honest  and  a  truthful  witness.  Prudence, however requires that
\nsome corroboration should be sought  for  in  cases  of  a  solitary  witness,
\nparticularly where such witness happens to be closely related to the deceased.
\nWhere  the evidence of the solitary eye witness inspires the confidence of the
\nCourt, the conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  Evidence of P.W.1 is to be tested for its credibility and
\nreliability.   As  discussed  earlier,  though  P.W.1  is  the   resident   of
\nKadalaiyur,  he  came  down  to  Chemmaputhur along with his family members in
\nconnection with their business.  When his sons and other family  members  were
\nin  Chemmaputhur,  it  is  quite natural for P.W.1 to have accompanied them to
\nChemmaputhur.  His presence in Chemmaputhur is natural and satisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   Relationship  of  the  witness  is  not  a  ground   for
\ndiscarding  the  testimony nor can it be said that the solitary testimony of a
\nrelated witness cannot form the basis of conviction.  All that is necessary is
\nthat his evidence to be  scrutinised  carefully  –  whether  his  evidence  is
\nintrinsically reliable.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  Let  us now consider the evidence of P.W.1.  It is not as
\nif the evidence of P.W.1 stands in isolation.  He is the Complainant, who  set
\nthe criminal  law  in motion in Ex.P.1.  His statement was recorded by P.W.5 –
\nV.A.O.  immediately after the occurrence at 11.30 a.m.  Evidence of  P.W.1  is
\nsubstantially strengthened by his earlier version in Ex.P.1 – Statement.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   Evidence of P.W.1 is assailed on the ground of variation
\nin the time of occurrence stated by him in his evidence.  The  occurrence  was
\nat 11.00  a.m.    In  Ex.P.1  –  Statement  also  P.W.1 has stated the time of
\noccurrence as 11.00 a.m.  But, while deposing in the Court, P.W.1  has  stated
\nthe time  of  occurrence as 9.00 a.m.  His statement on time cannot be said to
\nbe a material variation.  The Villagers \/ Rustic persons cannot be expected to
\ngive time with precession.  That apart, P.W.1 is an aged person.  His  age  is
\nsaid  to  be  more  than 70 years at the time of recording Ex.P.1 – Statement.
\nWhile he deposed in the Court, his age is stated as 90  years  (SIC).    P.W.1
\nbeing  aged  and infirm, his statement regarding the time of occurrence cannot
\naffect his credibility, nor does it suggest that Ex.P.1 is brought  out  after
\ndue deliberation.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  The contention urged by the Accused assailing the version
\nof P.W.1  lacks  in force.  As stated earlier, while P.W.1 was deposing in the
\nCourt, he was aged and infirm.  The learned Sessions Judge had the opportunity
\nof seeing and observing the demeanor of P.W.1.  P.W.1 being the maternal grand
\nfather of A.1, has no ill will against his own grand son.  It was suggested to
\nP.W.1 that he is inimical towards his issues through first wife and he is more
\naffectionate towards his second wife.  This suggestion has no basis.  P.W.1  –
\nan  aged having lost his son, it is quite natural for him to come forward with
\nthe truth.  Considering these factors, the learned Sessions Judge found  P.W.1
\nas  reliable  and  natural  witness  and  that his evidence is of spontaneity.
\nAbsolutely there is no reason to differ from the same.\n<\/p>\n
                25.   Evidence  of  P.W.1  and  the   prosecution   case   are
\ncorroborated by  the  medical evidence.  During Autopsy, P.W.10 – Dr.Chellappa
\nReddiar noted the following injuries on the body of deceased Raju:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)     An oblique incised wound just below the left collar     bone, anterior
\naspect of the Chest and it penetrates   the parietal and visceral  pleura  and
\ncaused a vent in        the lower lobe of the left lung.  There is diffuse
\nhaematoma on the anterior aspect of upper half of left  chest below the skin.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) A transverse incised wound on the left supra-scapular      region  and it
\ncommunicates through the 2nd left       intercostal     space     posteriorily
\nsevering the descending Aorta.\n<\/p>\n
Oblique  incised  wound  on  the  left collar bone penetrated the parietal and
\nvisceral pleura, correspondents with A.1’s overt act of stabbing on the chest;
\nthe second injury on the left scapular region correspondents to the overt  act
\nof A.1 on the back as spoken by P.W.1.  Thus, the medical evidence corresponds
\nto  the overt act of the Accused – stabbing on the chest and the left scapula.
\nOral evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  The objective findings  during  investigation  also  lend
\nassurance to the prosecution case.  Scene of occurrence was near the Panchayat
\nBoard Office,  Chemmaputhur.    The body of deceased Raju was found with blood
\nstained clothes.  Injuries on the chest and left scapula  were  visibly  seen.
\nBlood stains  were  noted  on the Vegetable Matter and mud – M.O.1.  ‘A’ Group
\nblood was detected in the blood stained clothes of the deceased.  In  M.O.1  –
\nVegetable Matter  also,  the  same blood Group – ‘A’ Group was detected.  This
\nformidable scientific  evidence  strengthens  the  prosecution  case  and  the
\nevidence of P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   A.2  and  deceased  Accused  Shanmugam  were arrested on
\n12.05.1991 – 5.00 p.m.  near Keezha Eeral.  On  being  interrogated,  deceased
\nAccused Shanmugam  had  voluntarily confessed to his guilt.  M.O.3 – Knife was
\nseized near Kanmaikarai, Arunachalapuram Road.  ‘A’ Group blood  was  detected
\nin M.O.3  – Knife also.  Though Accused Shanmugam is dead, arrest of Shanmugam
\nalong with A.2 and recovery  of  M.O.3  –  Knife  is  a  strong  incriminating
\ncircumstance against  Accused  1  and 2.  Prosecution has well proved that A.1
\nhas caused vital bodily injuries to the deceased Raju.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                28.   We   are
\nleft with the question whether uttering of the words “uh$%it ,d;Dkh tpl;L itj;
\njpUf;fpwha;>”  by  A.2  would  amount  to instigation to commit murder falling
\nwithin the meaning abetment under Sec.109 I.P.C.   A.2  and  deceased  Accused
\nShanmugam married the girls, (who are younger sisters to deceased Raju) within
\nthe prohibited  relationship.    In  connection with the same, Raju is said to
\nhave been frequently picking up quarrel and also teasing  A.2  and  Shanmugam.
\nBy  the  conduct  of Raju, naturally, A.2 and Shanmugam must have had ill will
\ntowards Raju.  At the  time  of  occurrence,  A.1  is  alleged  to  have  been
\ninstigated by A.2 staying ” uh$%it ,d;Dkh tpl;L itj;jpUf;fpwha; > “.  This has
\nprovoked A.1 to immediately act and inflict the fatal injuries.\n<\/p>\n
                29.   Law  does  not  require  that instigation should be in a
\nparticular form or that it should only in words and may  not  be  by  conduct.
\nWhether  there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts
\nof each case.  Pursuant to the instigation,  the  act  abeted  was  committed.
\nThus  the act of A.2 clearly amounts to abetment within the meaning of Sec.109
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                30.  A.2 was arrested along with deceased  Accused  Shanmugam;
\nno  recovery  was  made  at his instance; recovery of M.O.3 – Knife was at the
\ninstance of Shanmugam.  Though recovery of M.O.3 – Knife by itself  is  not  a
\nincriminating  circumstance  against  A.2,  it  is  a strong piece of evidence
\nagainst him to be reckoned with.  Of course, P.W.5  –  V.A.O.    and  P.W.6  –
\nVillage  Assistant  have  turned hostile on the arrest of A.2, perhaps to save
\nA.2 from the clutches of conviction.  The hostility of P.Ws.5  and  6  on  the
\naspect of arrest hardly affects the prosecution case against A.2.  The learned
\nSessions  Judge  has carefully analysed the entire evidence and the reasonings
\nand findings warrant no interference.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  Lastly, we are to consider only the question of sentence.
\nThe occurrence was in a sudden altercation.  Instigated by  A.2  and  deceased
\nAccused  Shanmugam, A.1 got enraged and struck the blows on the chest and back
\nof Raju, causing injuries to the  vital  internal  organs.    From  Ex.P.15  –
\nPost-mortem  Certificate,  it  is seen that the two stab blows have caused the
\nfollowing internal injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) it penetrates the parietal and visceral pleura and  caused a vent  in  the
\nlower lobe of the left lung.    There  is  diffuse  haematoma  on the anterior
\naspect of       upper half of left chest below the skin.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) exploration of the incised wound on the left supra-        scapular
\nregion, communicates through the 2nd left       intercostal space posteriorily
\nsevering the descending Aorta.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  The quarrel being un-premeditated.  The blow having  been
\ninflicted in a heat of passion.  Accused are unrefined persons, who move about
\nVillages in  connection  with their business.  Considering the circumstance of
\nthe occurrence and  background  of  the  Accused,  reduction  of  sentence  of
\nimprisonment from eight years to six years would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
                33.   Therefore,  the  judgment of the learned Sessions Judge,
\nTuticorin in S.C.No.98 of 1993 (dated:  02.04.1997) convicting A.1 under Sec.3
\n04 (II)I.P.C.; A.2 under Sec.304 (II) I.P.C.  r\/w 109 I.P.C.    is  confirmed.
\nSentence  of Rigorous Imprisonment of eight years each is reduced to six years
\nof Rigorous Imprisonment each and this appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
sbi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\nTuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Superintendent, Central Prison,
\nPalayamkottai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\nEttayapuram Police Station,
\nTuticorin District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI CRL.APPEAL No.283 of 1997 1. Karuppasami … Appellants \/ 2. Muniasami Accused 1 and 2 -Vs- State by: Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station. … 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-43343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaruppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - 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\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-02T07:50:01+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T07:50:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3129,\"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\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T07:50:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - 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\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-02T07:50:01+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T07:50:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004"},"wordCount":3129,"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\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004","name":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T07:50:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppasami-vs-state-by-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karuppasami vs State By: on 24 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/43343","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=43343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43343\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}