{"id":52045,"date":"2008-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-21T19:24:34","modified_gmt":"2018-08-21T13:54:34","slug":"samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 16\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.431 of 2001\n\n1.Samikkannu\n\n2.Ravi @ Ravichandran\t\t..  Appellants\/\n\t\t\t\t    A.1 and A.2\n\nVs.\n\nThe State represented by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nOomachikulam Police Station,\nMadurai District.\t        ..  Respondent\/Complainant\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of\nCriminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 29.03.2001, passed in S.C.No.322\nof 2000, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial\nMagistrate, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellants ... Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan\n\n^For Respondent ... Mr.N.Senthurpandian\n\t\t    Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe challenge in this appeal is as against the judgment dated 29.03.2001,<br \/>\npassed in S.C.No.322 of 2000, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge cum<br \/>\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, whereby the appellants two in number were<br \/>\nfound guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34<br \/>\nI.P.C and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.\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(i) P.W.1 is the younger sister of the mother of the deceased Gunendran.<br \/>\nP.W.2 is the uncle of the deceased.  P.W.3 is his paternal uncle.  There arose a<br \/>\nquarrel between the deceased and one Adaikalam, a close relative of the accused,<br \/>\nregarding the performance of a commitment of having a tonsure.  In that<br \/>\ntransaction, the said Adaikalam was attacked and he was under treatment.  The<br \/>\nsame came to the knowledge of the accused and both of them came to the house of<br \/>\nthe deceased and enquired about him and further made a challenge that they would<br \/>\nfinish off him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) At the time of occurrence during witching hour P.W.2 and P.W.3 found<br \/>\nthe deceased and both the accused quarrelling with one another and in that<br \/>\nquarrel, the first accused attacked the deceased Gunendran with Aruval on<br \/>\ndifferent parts of the body, while the second accused attacked with knife on the<br \/>\nflank. Not satisfied with those attacks, both the accused dragged the body of<br \/>\nthe deceased Gunendran to the nearby place and leaving the same, they fled away<br \/>\nfrom the place of occurrence.  P.W.2 and P.W.3 though witnessed the occurrence,<br \/>\nran away from the place of occurrence being frightened by the incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Next day morning, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, was informed that<br \/>\nthe dead body of her husband was found in the place of occurrence and<br \/>\nimmediately, she went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of her<br \/>\nhusband and proceeded to the respondent Police Station where P.W.18, the Sub<br \/>\nInspector of Police, was on duty on 04.01.2000 and P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, the<br \/>\ncomplaint, and thereafter, a case in Cr.No.14 of 2000 under Section 302 I.P.C<br \/>\ncame to be registered.  Express F.I.R, Ex.P.17 was despatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer P.W.9 who<br \/>\nproceeded to the scene of occurrence and made an inspection in the presence of<br \/>\nwitnesses and prepared Ex.P.13, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.14, rough<br \/>\nsketch.  He also took steps to take photographs, caused the same and produced<br \/>\nthe same before the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) The Investigating Officer also conducted inquest on the dead body of<br \/>\nthe deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars and prepared Ex.P.16,<br \/>\nthe inquest report.  Following the requisition for conducting post-mortem<br \/>\nEx.P.11,  P.W.12, the Doctor, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body and<br \/>\ngave Ex.P.12, the post-mortem certificate whereby he has opined that the<br \/>\ndeceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained, 12 to<br \/>\n18 hours prior to the post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of all the<br \/>\nwitnesses.  On 08.06.2000, the Investigating Officer arrested the first accused<br \/>\nwhen he came forward to give confessional statement and the admissible portion<br \/>\nof it, is marked as Ex.P.4.  A.1 produced M.O.1, Aruval and M.O.7, blood stained<br \/>\nshirt which were recovered under a cover of the Mahazar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii) The Investigating Officer came to know that the second accused<br \/>\nsurrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, and he made a<br \/>\nrequisition for police custody and the same was ordered.  At the time of<br \/>\ninterrogation, the second accused gave a confessional statement and the<br \/>\nadmissible portion of it, is marked as Ex.P.20.  Following the same, the second<br \/>\naccused produced M.O.9 knife which was recovered under a cover of mahazar and<br \/>\nthereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) All those material objects recovered from the place of occurrence<br \/>\nand from the dead body and the weapon of crime produced by the accused, were<br \/>\nsubjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports namely Exs.P.7,<br \/>\nthe chemical analysis report, and P.10 the serologist report.  On completion of<br \/>\nthe investigation, P.W.9, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ix) The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were<br \/>\nframed.  In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution  examined 20 witnesses and relied on 21 exhibits along with 9 M.Os.<br \/>\nAfter the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the accused was<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found<br \/>\nin the evidence of prosecution witnesses.  The accused denied them as false. On<br \/>\nthe side of the defence,  neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(x) After completion of trial, the trial court heard the arguments of both<br \/>\nsides, perused the materials available, found the accused guilty as per the<br \/>\ncharges and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subject matter<br \/>\nof challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants,<br \/>\nMr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned Counsel for the appellants made the following<br \/>\nsubmissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) The occurrence had taken place during the night hours on 03.01.2000<br \/>\naccording to the prosecution.  Admittedly, there was no light either electric or<br \/>\nnatural.  P.W.2 and P.W.3, according to the prosecution, were the eyewitnesses.<br \/>\nBoth of them categorically admitted that they were standing before 50 to 100<br \/>\nfeet, but it was utter darkness and hence, P.W.2 and P.W.3, though claimed to be<br \/>\neyewitnesses, could not have seen the occurrence at all.  Though they claimed to<br \/>\nbe the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, they did not inform the same either to<br \/>\nP.W.1, the wife of the deceased or anyone of the relatives or to the police, but<br \/>\nthey went away from the place of occurrence.  According to them, they frightened<br \/>\non seeing the crime and hence, they went away and till they were examined by the<br \/>\npolice, they did not talk or whisper the matter to anybody and this would<br \/>\ncategorically reveal that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Moreover, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the close relatives of the deceased and<br \/>\nit is pertinent to point out that P.W.1, who was not the eyewitness, was the<br \/>\ninformant. Under such circumstances, it would clearly show that P.W.1 could not<br \/>\nhave the direct knowledge of the occurrence and P.W.2 and P.W.3 would not be the<br \/>\neyewitnesses to the occurrence.  Hence, the prosecution had no direct evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Insofar as the recovery of both the weapons namely Aruval and Knife,<br \/>\ntwo witnesses were examined.  One turned hostile, but so far the evidence of<br \/>\nother witness is concerned, it is shaky and it should not have been believed.<br \/>\nFurther, the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Apart from the above, admittedly, the deceased got number of enemies<br \/>\nand it was someone who committed the crime and in view of the suspicion, the<br \/>\naccused\/appellants have been roped in unnecessarily.  Hence, they are entitled<br \/>\nfor acquittal, but the lower Court has not considered anyone of the aspects of<br \/>\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State<br \/>\non the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions<br \/>\nmade by both sides and also scrutinised the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The prosecution has proved the fact that the deceased Gunendran was<br \/>\ndone to death in an incident that took place during night hours on 03.01.2000 at<br \/>\nthe place of occurrence.  Following the inquest made by the Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer, the Doctor P.W.12, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of<br \/>\nthe deceased, opined that he died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the<br \/>\ninternal injuries sustained by him.  The said fact was never questioned by the<br \/>\nappellants before the trial Court and hence, there is no impediment to record<br \/>\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. In order to substantiate the charge that the first accused armed with<br \/>\nAruval and the second accused armed with knife, attacked the deceased at the<br \/>\ntime and place of the occurrence and caused the instantaneous death, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined two witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 as eyewitnesses. Admittedly,<br \/>\nthey were close relatives of the deceased.  Both of them have claimed that they<br \/>\nhave witnessed the occurrence by standing 10 to 50 feet respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. According to the learned Counsel for appellants, their evidence should<br \/>\nnot have been given any evidentiary value for two reasons.  Firstly, the<br \/>\noccurrence had taken place during night hours in the utter darkness.  Secondly,<br \/>\nthese witnesses though claimed as eyewitnesses, kept calm without whispering  to<br \/>\nanybody about the occurrence.  These two contentions at the first instance did<br \/>\nnot stand scrutiny.  Firstly, these witnesses knew the accused very well<br \/>\npreviously.  According to them, both of them were standing in close proximity<br \/>\nwhen the occurrence had taken place.  In such circumstances, it is highly<br \/>\nprobable that they could identify the accused and even they could see the<br \/>\naccused without any difficulty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Secondly, both the witnesses, according to them, after seeing the<br \/>\noccurrence, left for their respective places being got frightened on seeing the<br \/>\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that their<br \/>\nstatements were recorded during the day time on 04.01.2000 and it has also<br \/>\nreached the Court on the next day i.e, 05.01.2000 without any delay whatsoever,<br \/>\nwhereas they could give clear narration of the entire incident.  No reason is<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of this Court as to why these two witnesses came before<br \/>\nthe Court of law to falsely implicate the accused.  Apart from that, their<br \/>\nocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. After a careful scrutiny of evidence, this Court is of the view that<br \/>\nit has inspired the confidence of this Court.  The lower Court rightly relied<br \/>\nupon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 which was supported by the medical<br \/>\nevidence.  Yet another circumstance which was against the appellants, was the<br \/>\nrecovery of the weapons of crime pursuant to the confessional statements given<br \/>\nby them and the evidence of the witness examined, remained unshaky.  All put<br \/>\ntogether would show that these two accused attacked the deceased and caused the<br \/>\ninstantaneous death.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Hence, all or anyone of the contentions put forth by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the appellants do not carry merit and the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Insofar as the second line of the argument of the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellants is concerned, this Court is able to see force in the contention.<br \/>\nEven as per the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, they witnessed the quarrel which<br \/>\narose between the accused on the one side and the deceased on the other side at<br \/>\nthe place of occurrence.   Even as per the prosecution case, during the day<br \/>\nhours, the deceased attacked one Adaikalam, a close relative of the accused and<br \/>\nhe sustained injury and was also hospitalised which provoked the accused persons<br \/>\nto question the same.  At that time, the incident took place and there was a<br \/>\nquarrel between the accused on the one side and the deceased on the other side.<br \/>\nIn that quarrel, the accused have acted and attacked the deceased and under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the act of the accused cannot be said to be an intentional or a<br \/>\npremeditated one and the act of the accused would not attract the penal<br \/>\nprovision of murder, but would attract Section 304 (i) I.P.C.  This Court is of<br \/>\nthe view that awarding seven years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends<br \/>\nof justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 I.P.C is<br \/>\nmodified and instead, they are convicted under Section 304 (i) I.P.C and<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.  The sentence<br \/>\nalready undergone by the accused shall be given set off.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the<br \/>\ncriminal appeal is dismissed.  It is reported that the appellants are on bail.<br \/>\nHence, the Sessions Judge concerned shall take steps to commit them to prison to<br \/>\nundergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb\/ssm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The I Additional Sessions Judge cum<br \/>\n  Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Oomachikulam Police Station,<br \/>\n  Madurai District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.431 of 2001 1.Samikkannu 2.Ravi @ Ravichandran .. Appellants\/ A.1 and A.2 Vs. The State represented by The Inspector [&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-52045","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>Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2088,\"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\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008"},"wordCount":2088,"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\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008","name":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T13:54:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samikkannu-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samikkannu vs The State Represented By on 16 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52045","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=52045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}