{"id":49557,"date":"2007-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-12T01:02:38","modified_gmt":"2016-11-11T19:32:38","slug":"thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 21\/02\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCRL.A.No.689 of 2004\n\n\nThavasi\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nThe State of Tamilnadu\nrep. by\nInspector of Police\nUthappanaickanoor Police Station\nMadurai District\nCr. No.50 OF 2003\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in\nS.C.No.418\/2003 dated 12.3.2004.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t\t:  Mr.K.Jeganathan\n\n^For Respondent\t\t:  Mr.A.Balaguru\n\t\t\t   Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe sole accused in a case of murder in S.C.No.418\/2003 on the file of the<br \/>\nPrincipal Sessions Division, Madurai, whereby he stood charged, tried, found<br \/>\nguilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a<br \/>\nfine of Rs.1,000\/- and default sentence, has challenged the said judgment of<br \/>\nconviction and sentence in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Sadamayathevar.  The said<br \/>\ndeceased had four brothers, out of whom two already died.  The accused was one<br \/>\nof the brothers of Sadamayathevar.  They had joint family properties, and for<br \/>\nthe purpose of partition, a panchayat was convened on the date of occurrence<br \/>\ni.e., 8.5.2003.  In that panchayat, Palusamy, Deepavali, Singam and others were<br \/>\nthe panchayatdars.  The panchayat did not fructify, since there was a mortgage<br \/>\ndebt payable by the joint family.  But, the accused was not ready to pay the<br \/>\nsame.  Since no decision was taken, the panchayatdars dispersed from the place.<br \/>\nThe deceased went to his house.  The accused also went to his house.  At about<br \/>\n1.00 P.M., he came to the house of the deceased and attacked him with a wooden<br \/>\nrafter, which is marked as M.O.1.  As a result of the attack, the said<br \/>\nSadamayathevar met with an instantaneous death.  Thereafter, the accused fled<br \/>\naway from the place of occurrence.  The matter was reported to the respondent<br \/>\nPolice Station by P.W.1.  She gave a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1.  On<br \/>\nthe strength of the complaint, Ex.P1, P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nregistered a case in Crime No.50\/2003 under Sec.302 of I.P.C. against the<br \/>\nappellant\/accused.  The First Information Report, Ex.P6, was despatched to the<br \/>\nconcerned Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,<br \/>\ntook up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared<br \/>\nEx.P7, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P8, the rough sketch.  He recovered<br \/>\nM.O.1, wooden rafter, M.O.3, bloodstained earth, and M.O.4, sample earth, under<br \/>\na cover of mahazar.  Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of<br \/>\nSadamayathevar in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared<br \/>\nEx.P10, the inquest report.  Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the<br \/>\nGovernment Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P4, for the purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) P.W.5, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,<br \/>\nUsilampatti, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead<br \/>\nbody of Sadamayathevar and found 3 external injuries. She issued a postmortem<br \/>\ncertificate, Ex.P5, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died<br \/>\nof multiple fracture in the skull with bleeding and blood clots in that area of<br \/>\nbrain.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) Pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the<br \/>\naccused on 9.5.2003.  Though he gave a confessional statement, there was no<br \/>\nrecovery made.  All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence<br \/>\nand from the dead body, were subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in<br \/>\ntwo reports namely Ex.P13, the Chemical Analyst&#8217;s report, and Ex.P14, the<br \/>\nSerologist&#8217;s report.  On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the<br \/>\nfinal report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was<br \/>\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 14<br \/>\nwitnesses and also relied on 14 exhibits and 4 material objects.  On completion<br \/>\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under<br \/>\nSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence<br \/>\nof the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.  No defence<br \/>\nwitness was examined.  After hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the<br \/>\ntrial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt, found him guilty as per the charge and awarded life<br \/>\nimprisonment along with fine and default sentence, which is the subject matter<br \/>\nof challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nwould submit that in the instant case, except P.W.1, all other witnesses, who<br \/>\naccording to the prosecution, are eyewitnesses, have turned hostile; that P.W.1<br \/>\nwas the daughter of the deceased, and thus, she was an interested witness; that<br \/>\nthere was also prevailing enmity between the families and in particular, between<br \/>\nher father, the deceased, and the appellant\/accused; that under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, she has come with the false evidence as if she has seen the<br \/>\noccurrence; that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case;<br \/>\nthat though arrest was shown, according to the Investigating Officer, there was<br \/>\nno recovery at all; that in the instant case, the only piece of evidence that<br \/>\nwas available was that of P.W.1, which remained unacceptable; but, the lower<br \/>\nCourt has based its conviction on her evidence as her testimony can be believed;<br \/>\nthat even assuming that the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who<br \/>\nattacked the deceased with the wooden rafter at the time and place of occurrence<br \/>\nand caused his death is proved, the act of the accused would not attract the<br \/>\npenal provisions of murder; that even according to the prosecution, there was a<br \/>\npanchayat, and it did not fructify, and all the panchayatdars dispersed, and the<br \/>\ndeceased and the accused also went away from the place; that as continuing<br \/>\ntransaction, the occurrence has taken place; that even as per the charge sheet,<br \/>\nit could be seen that since the panchayat failed, in that mood, he came over<br \/>\nthere, and due to that provocation, he has actually attacked him; that apart<br \/>\nfrom that, even the witnesses have spoken to the fact that there was a quarrel<br \/>\nthat preceded; that the accused has come to the place unarmed; that there was<br \/>\nalso a wooden rafter which was nearby; that in that quarrel, he took it and<br \/>\nattacked him, and thus, the act of the accused was neither wanton nor deliberate<br \/>\nnor intentional, and under the circumstances, it has got to be considered by the<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.In the instant case, it is not a fact in controversy that<br \/>\nSadamayathevar met his homicidal death at the place and time of occurrence.  In<br \/>\norder to substantiate the same, the prosecution examined the postmortem Doctor,<br \/>\nthrough whom the postmortem certificate has been marked, wherein she has opined<br \/>\nthat the deceased died out of multiple fracture in the skull with bleeding and<br \/>\nblood clots in that area of brain.  Apart from that, the fact that he died out<br \/>\nof homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant\/accused at any point<br \/>\nof time.  Hence, it has got to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.In order to establish that it was the accused who attacked<br \/>\nSadamayathevar, the prosecution though examined number of eyewitnesses, except<br \/>\nP.W.1, all others have turned hostile.  It is true that P.W.1 was the daughter<br \/>\nof the deceased.  It is well settled proposition of law that merely because of<br \/>\nthe relationship of the eyewitnesses with the deceased, their evidence cannot be<br \/>\ndiscarded; but, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny.  Despite the exercise<br \/>\nof careful scrutiny, the evidence of P.W.1 stood the test, and the lower Court<br \/>\nwas perfectly correct in accepting her evidence.  That apart, the medical<br \/>\nevidence was also canvassed through P.W.5, the Doctor, and the postmortem<br \/>\ncertificate has also been marked through her. The Doctor has categorically<br \/>\nopined that by using M.O.1, wooden rafter, the injuries on the skull could be<br \/>\ncaused, and apart from that, as a consequence of the same, death could ensue.<br \/>\nUnder the circumstances, without any hesitation, it can be stated that the<br \/>\nocular testimony of P.W.1, which stood fully corroborated through the medical<br \/>\nevidence, would be sufficient to hold that it was the accused who caused the<br \/>\ndeath of Sadamayathevar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Now, coming to the question as to the act of the accused, this Court is<br \/>\nable to see sufficient force in the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant that there was a panchayat preceded; that the panchayat did<br \/>\nnot fructify; that all the persons dispersed from the place of occurrence; that<br \/>\nsince the panchayat did not fructify, the appellant\/accused got provoked, and<br \/>\nwith that provocation, he went to the house of the deceased.  It is pertinent to<br \/>\npoint out that when he went over there, he was actually unarmed. Even according<br \/>\nto the witnesses, there was a quarrel that preceded.  At that juncture, he took<br \/>\na wooden rafter which was by the side, and attacked him on the head.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it cannot be stated that he went over there with any plan to<br \/>\ncause death.  Thus, it was neither premeditated nor pre-planned; but, it was due<br \/>\nto a sudden quarrel.  From the evidence, it would be quite evident that since<br \/>\nthe panchayat did not fructify, he went over there, and due to the sudden<br \/>\nquarrel, he took M.O.1, the wooden rafter, that was also by the side, and<br \/>\nattacked him.  But, at the same time, the act by which the death is caused, is<br \/>\ndone by him with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to<br \/>\ncause death.  Under the circumstances, it would attract the penal provisions of<br \/>\nSec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C.  This Court is of the view that awarding 7 years<br \/>\nRigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.  Hence, the judgment of<br \/>\nthe lower Court finding him guilty under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and awarding life<br \/>\nimprisonment, is modified, and instead, the appellant is convicted under Sec.304<br \/>\n(Part I) of I.P.C., for which he is directed to suffer 7 years Rigorous<br \/>\nImprisonment.  The fine and the default sentence awarded by the lower Court, are<br \/>\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence,<br \/>\nthis criminal appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)The Principal Sessions Judge<br \/>\n   Madurai\n<\/p>\n<p>2)Inspector of Police<br \/>\n   Uthappanaickanoor Police Station<br \/>\n   Madurai District<br \/>\n   (Cr. No.50\/2003)\n<\/p>\n<p>3)The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/02\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CRL.A.No.689 of 2004 Thavasi .. Appellant vs The State of Tamilnadu rep. by Inspector of Police Uthappanaickanoor Police Station Madurai District [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-11T19:32:38+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T19:32:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1718,\"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\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T19:32:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-11T19:32:38+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T19:32:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007"},"wordCount":1718,"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\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007","name":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T19:32:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thavasi-vs-the-state-of-tamilnadu-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thavasi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 21 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/49557","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=49557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}