{"id":52816,"date":"2008-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"modified":"2014-04-15T18:13:46","modified_gmt":"2014-04-15T12:43:46","slug":"manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\n\nCrl.A.(MD) No.237 of 2007\n\n\nManickam                    ...    Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n\nState through Inspector of Police,\nVadamadurai Police Station,\nDindigul\n(Crime No.40\/2005)           ...   Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C against the Judgment of\nconviction and sentence dated 9.11.2006 made in S.C.No.46 of 2006 by the learned\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.\n\t\n!For appellant \t\t... Mr.M.Gurudas\n\n^For respondent\t\t... Mr. P.N.Pandithurai\n                            Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was made
\n by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n
\tChallenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division, Dindigul
\ndated 9.11.2006 made in S.C.No.46 of 2006 whereby the appellant\/ sole accused
\nstood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and awarded
\n5 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with a default
\nsentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for the first charge and
\nimprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.2,000\/- with a default sentence of
\n2 years rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can
\nbe stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) PW.1 is the younger brother of the deceased Akkammal.  She was given
\nin marriage to one Mokkal Chettiar who died 30 years before.  During his life
\ntime, he married one Vellaiammal @ Palaniammal, through whom, he had a daughter
\nand two sons.  The accused was one of those two sons.  This Akkamma, in her old
\nage, was maintaining herself out of old age pension, which was given to her.
\nOut of the said sum of Rs.200\/-, she used to give Rs.150\/-  to PW.1 for her food
\nand she used to keep with her Rs.50 for her expenditure.  The accused\/appellant,
\nwho was residing at Tiruppur, on his visit, he used to get Rs.10\/- from her.  On
\nsome occasions, when she refused to make payment, she was threatened by him.
\nThis fact is known to PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 15.2.2005, in the wee hours, PW.1
\nwas sleeping in his house. At about 4.00 a.m., on 15.2.2005, PW.1 heard a
\ndistressing cry in the next hut where Akkammal was sleeping.  PW.1 could not
\ncome out of his house since doors of his house was bolted outside.  Immediately,
\nneighbours came and open his house.   But, at that time, PW.1 was able to see
\nthe accused coming out of the hut turning off the light.  They went inside the
\nhouse and saw the severely injured Akkammal.  The said Akkmmal told PW.1 that
\nthe accused attacked her with kadapah stones and poured some liquor on her face
\nand went away. When PW.1 was about to call for a doctor, the said Akkammal died.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) \tPW.1 proceeded to Vadamadurai Police station where PW.15 S.I.
\nof police was on duty at about 12.00 noon on 15.2.2005.  PW.1 gave Ex.P.1
\ncomplaint.  On the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime
\nNo.40\/2005 under Section 302 IPC.  F.I.R Ex.P.11 along with complaint Ex.P.1 was
\ndespatched to the Court and to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R, PW.16, Inspector of Police,
\nattached to respondent  Police Station, took up investigation, proceeded to the
\nscene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and
\nprepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.2 and also a rough sketch Ex.P.12.  He
\nconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of
\npanchayatdars and witnesses and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.13.  He
\nrecovered MO.1 Kadappa Stone and other material objects available from the
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)  The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by PW.10
\nDoctor, attached to Government Hospital, Dindigul, and he found injuries as
\ndescribed in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.7 wherein he has opined that the
\ndeceased would appear to have died due to injuries sustained on the skull.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)  PW.17 took up further investigation. He  arrested the accused on
\n17.2.2005 at 14.00 hours. During investigation, the accused gave a confessional
\nstatement and the admissible part of that evidence was marked as Ex.P.3.
\nPursuant to the confession, he produced a shirt MO.3.  The accused was sent for
\njudicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and
\nfrom the dead body of the deceased were sent to Forensic Sciences Department for
\nchemical analysis, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical Analysis Report
\nEx.P.17 and Serological Report Ex.P.18.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.18, who took up further
\ninvestigation, filed a final report against the accused\/appellant as per the
\ncharges.  The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.  Necessary charges
\nwere framed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the
\nprosecution examined 18 witnesses and relied on 18 Exhibits and 10 MOs.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was
\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found in
\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the part
\nof the accused.  No defence witness was examined.  The trial Court after hearing
\nthe arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available
\non record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
\nreasonable doubts and found the accused\/appellant guilty of the charges and
\nawarded punishments as referred to above, which is the subject matter of the
\nappeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of    the appellant, Mr. M.Gurudas,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The entire case was rested on circumstantial evidence.  The
\nprosecution had no direct evidence to offer pointing to the guilt or complicity
\nof the accused.  Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of
\nMadhya Pradesh Vs. Nisar [(2007) 5 SCC 658], the learned counsel submitted that
\nit is highly improbable to accept the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The prosecution was unable to place or prove necessary circumstances
\npointing to the guilt of the accused\/appellant. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3
\nand PW.5 were not only inconsistent but also self-contradictory and they could
\nnot have seen the occurrence at all. Thus, their evidence was not helpful to the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) PW.1 has spoken in his cross-examination that he did not know who
\nhad attacked his sister with the stones.  At the time of occurrence, it was dark
\nand no light was there.  The light was switched off.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)   PW.2 has categorically admitted that he had not seen the occurrence
\nat all. The evidence of PW.2 if read would clearly reveal that at about 4.00
\na.m., he heard a distressing cry but he went and saw only at 5.30 a.m., and that
\nthere was an interval of 1.1\/2 hours. Had really the occurrence  taken place,
\nPW.2 could have immediately rushed to the hut of the deceased but he did not
\ndone so.  The interval of 1.1\/2 hours would clearly belie the evidence of PW.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)  Insofar as the alleged recovery of material objects, only one witness
\nwas examined but he could identify the dhothi  before the Court.  Hence, alleged
\nconfession and arrest cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at about 4.00
\na.m., but the Complaint Ex.P.1 was given at about 12.00 noon.  The scene of
\noccurrence from the police station was just 7 kms.  This delay was unexplained.
\nApart from that F.I.R. had reached the Court after 2.1\/2 hours.  These all would
\ngo to show that there was complete improvements and embellishments in the
\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii)  Apart from that, the alleged recovery of material objects were not
\nproved.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Thus, the prosecution had no evidence worth mentioning to offer to
\nbring home the guilt of the accused but the Trial Court has believed such
\nevidence and has erroneously rendered judgment and hence, it has got to be set
\naside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a
\nthorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is not a fact in controversy that one Akkammal, the sister of PW.1
\nwas died out of homicidal violence in the occurrence that took place on
\n15.2.2005.   Following the inquest made by the investigator, the dead body of
\nthe deceased was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.10, who has given his
\nopinion in Ex.P.7 post-mortem certificate that the deceased die out of injury
\nsustained on the head, about 24 – 40 hours prior to autopsy.  The fact that the
\ndeceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant at
\nany stage of the proceedings.  Hence, it has got to be factually recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that it was the
\naccused, who attacked her with stones and caused her death, the prosecution had
\nno direct evidence to offer.     The prosecution has examined 4 eye-witnesses.
\nPW.1 is the brother of the deceased,  PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5 are nighbours,
\naccording to PW.1.  As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, the evidence of PW.5 is hearsay evidence.  PW.3 had not seen the
\noccurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The prosecution had to its benefit the evidence of PW.2.  PW.2 has
\ncategorically spoken to the effect that he came out of the house, saw the
\naccused and light was burning in the house of the deceased. Further, he had also
\nasked the accused why were you came in the night hours and what was the
\nnecessity to be in the night hours but the accused was just proceeding without
\ngiving any reply.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It is pertinent to point out that the accused was actually known to
\nall the witnesses.  It was his usual practice to come and take money from the
\ndeceased.  This was spoken to by all the witnesses but that fact was never
\ndenied by the appellant.  Hence, it would be clear that the accused was already
\nknown to them.  PW.2 had not only seen the accused coming out from the hut of
\nthe deceased but he had also questioned him how he happened to be there in the
\nwee hours.  But the accused had uttered nothing but he went away.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
\nthere was fracture on the skull but there was no sprinkling of blood or oozing
\nof blood from the place of occurrence and there was no recovery of blood stained
\nmud.  It is pertinent to point out that there was a fracture on the skull of the
\ndeceased.  The post-mortem doctor PW.10, had noticed blood oozing inside the
\nskull and near the brain matter.  It is needless to point out that since there
\nwas oozing of blood inside the skull, blood stained mud could not be recovered.
\nIn such circumstances, that cannot be a point in favour of the
\naccused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In the instant case, MO.1 Kadapa stone had been recovered from the
\nplace of occurrence and the Doctor PW.10 had deposed to the effect that fracture
\nof the skull of the deceased could be possible if attacked with the stone.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. MO.3 dhothi recovered pursuant to the confession, was subjected to
\nchemical analysis test by the Forensic Sciences Department.  They found
\nsulphuric acid, which connects the nexus of the crime with the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat PW.2 witness, who was examined for the recovery of MO.3 dhoti could not
\nidentify the same, cannot be countenanced because no question was asked to him
\nwhether                                                      he had identified
\nthe dhoti MO.3 but the witness was so certain before the Court that it was
\nrecovered on production pursuant to confession of the accused.  Hence, that
\nleaves no doubt in the minds of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Court is mindful of the caution made by law and the rules of the
\nSupreme Court in case of circumstantial evidence.  The Court must be satisfied
\nwith every chain of circumstances placed before the Court pointing to the
\nhypothesis that except the accused no one could have committed the offence.  In
\nthe instant case, no sooner than the occurrence was taken place, the prosecution
\nwitnesses have seen the accused coming out of the hut, and on hearing a
\ndistressing cry, they got into the hut and saw the severely injured deceased and
\nshe had told PW.1 that the accused attacked her with kadapah stone and poured
\nsome liquor on her face and then she died.  Thus, sufficient circumstances were
\nplaced and proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Hence, one or any of the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant do not merit acceptance and they are rejected.  It is a case
\nwhere 95 years old lady was done to death by stone.  Such an inhumane act or
\nbarbarous act of the accused would be termed nothing but only as a murder. The
\ntrial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved
\nguilt of the accused.  There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the
\ntrial Court either factually or legally. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court
\nhas got to be affirmed and accordingly, affirmed.  The Criminal Appeal fails and
\nthe same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n   Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
2. Inspector of Police,
\n   Vadamadurai Police Station,
\n   Dindigul
\n   (Crime No.40\/2005)<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of
\n  the Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD) No.237 of 2007 Manickam … Appellant vs. State through Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul (Crime No.40\/2005) […]<\/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-52816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - 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\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-15T12:43:46+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\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T12:43:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2186,\"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\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T12:43:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 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":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - 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\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-15T12:43:46+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\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T12:43:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"},"wordCount":2186,"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\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008","name":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T12:43:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manickam-vs-state-through-inspector-of-police-on-8-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manickam vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 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\/52816","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=52816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}