{"id":62201,"date":"2003-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003"},"modified":"2017-04-28T00:49:25","modified_gmt":"2017-04-27T19:19:25","slug":"p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 02\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nC.A.No.801 of 1997\n\nP.Rathinam                             ..  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState represented by\nSub Inspector of Police\nElachipalayam Police Station\nSalem\n(Cr.No.95\/93)                           .. Respondent\n\n        This criminal appeal is preferred under S.374 of The Code of  Criminal\nProcedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District\nand  Sessions  Judge, Salem, by judgment dated 18.4.1995 made in S.C.No.177 of\n1994.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.R.Amarnath Rao\n                for Mr.R.Dhanapal Raj\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan\n                Government Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The appellant\/A-4 herein who stood charged and tried along  with  four<br \/>\nothers under  Ss  148, 447, 324, 365 and 342 of I.P.C.  and S.3(1)(x) of SC\/ST<br \/>\n(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and found guilty under Ss 147, 447, 342 and 365<br \/>\nof I.P.C.  and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- under S.147 in  default  of<br \/>\nwhich to  undergo  3 months R.I.  and to pay a fine of Rs.100\/- under S.447 in<br \/>\ndefault of which to undergo 15 days R.I.  and to pay a  fine  of  Rs.500\/-  in<br \/>\ndefault of  which  to undergo 3 months R.I.  and to undergo 1 day imprisonment<br \/>\nalong with a fine of Rs.1 ,000\/- in default of which to undergo 6 months  R.I.<br \/>\nhas brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be<br \/>\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        P.W.6 Ponnusamy was carrying on his crushing business by name  Senthil<br \/>\nRaja Jalli  Crusher at Vaiyamalai.  P.W.1 Balakrishnan, P.W.2 Kandasamy, P.W.3<br \/>\nTmt.Chinthamani, P.W.4 Viswanathan and P.W.5  Shanmugam  were  employed  under<br \/>\nhim.   On  30.1.1993,  P.Ws.1,  4 and 5 took two loads of jalli in two lorries<br \/>\nbearing  Registration  Nos.TN  33-5004  and  TN  28  Y-8856  to  a  person  at<br \/>\nKonganapuram.   At  the  time  of  loading the jalli at 1.00 A.M., there was a<br \/>\nwordy quarrel between the said prosecution witnesses and the local area people<br \/>\nthere, as a result of which  both  the  parties  were  attacking  each  other.<br \/>\nAfterwards, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 returned to the Crusher Mill.  At about 3.00 A.M.,<br \/>\nthe  accused  1  to  5  accompanied by 30 persons came in a Toyota Van bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TCH 3648 and trespassed into the Crusher Mill.    They  abused<br \/>\nP.W.2 the watchman of the Mill by using filthy language referring to his cast.<br \/>\nThe  second  accused drove the Crusher Lorry No.TN 33-5004, dashed against the<br \/>\nOffice and caused damage to the tune of Rs.15,000\/-.  Thereafter, the  accused<br \/>\nkidnapped P.W.2  to  their place and kept him under wrongful confinement.  A-1<br \/>\nthreatened P.W.6 Ponnusamy that he should  surrender  the  two  lorry  drivers<br \/>\nnamely P.Ws.4  and  5,  if  he  was to release P.W.2 from the confinement.  At<br \/>\n10.00 A.M.  P.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged  Ex.P1  complaint,  on<br \/>\nthe  strength  of  which  P.W.11 Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police registered a<br \/>\ncase in Crime No.95\/93 under Ss 147, 148, 341, 364,  427  and  447  of  I.P.C.<br \/>\nEx.P5 F.I.R.  was despatched to the concerned Magistrate&#8217;s Court.  P.W.11 took<br \/>\nup  the  further investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared<br \/>\nEx.P6 rough sketch, examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 6 on 31.1.93 at 8.1  5  P.M.    and<br \/>\nrecorded their  statements.    P.W.2  came  to  the  Police Station and gave a<br \/>\nstatement to  P.W.11.    P.W.11  Investigation  Officer  sent  P.W.2  to   the<br \/>\nGovernment Hospital,   Thiruchengode  for  treatment.    P.W.8  Dr.Nalliappan,<br \/>\nattached to Government Hospital, Thiruchengode, gave treatment to P.W.2, found<br \/>\nfour injuries on him and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate.  On the basis of  the<br \/>\nstatement of P.W.2, P.W.11 added S.7(1)(d) of PCR Act and sent Ex.P7 report to<br \/>\nthe Court  concerned.    The  Investigation  Officer  seized the vehicle No.TN<br \/>\n33-5004 and sent the same for expert&#8217;s opinion.   He  also  seized  the  other<br \/>\nvehicle  TCM  Toyota  bearing  Registration  No.3468,  marked  as M.O.3 in the<br \/>\npresence of  P.W.10  Kandasamy  and  one  Mohan  under  Ex.P4  mahazar.    The<br \/>\nInvestigation  Officer  examined  P.Ws.2,  4,  5  and  10  and  recorded their<br \/>\nstatements.  P.W.12, who took charge  of  the  respondent  Police  Station  on<br \/>\n28.9.93   ,   examined   the   other  witnesses,  and  on  completion  of  the<br \/>\ninvestigation, he filed the  charge  sheet  against  the  accused  before  the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode on 30.9.1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses<br \/>\nand marked 7 exhibits and 3 material objects.    After  the  evidence  of  the<br \/>\nprosecution was  over,  the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C.  as to<br \/>\nthe incriminating circumstances found  in  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses, and  they  flatly denied the same as false.  No defence witness was<br \/>\nexamined.  After  considering  the  rival  submissions  and  scrutiny  of  the<br \/>\navailable  materials,  the  trial Court found the appellant\/A-4 along with the<br \/>\nother accused guilty of the offences.  The lower Court convicted the appellant<br \/>\nand sentenced him to imprisonment as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Advancing the arguments on behalf of the  appellant,  the  learned<br \/>\nCounsel made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  prosecution has not placed before the lower Court, the first part<br \/>\nof the occurrence, in which the  accused  were  assaulted.    The  occurrence,<br \/>\naccording to  the  prosecution,  has  taken place at 3.00 A.M.  in the Crusher<br \/>\nMill of P.W.6  at  Vaiyamalai,  following  an  incident  that  took  place  at<br \/>\nKonganapuram at  1.00 A.M., in which P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 were involved.  Thus, the<br \/>\nprosecution has not unfolded the genesis of the crime.  P.W.1  has  given  the<br \/>\nfirst  complaint,  on  the  strength  of  which a case was registered in Crime<br \/>\nNo.95\/93 by the respondent police.  P.W.2 has also  given  another  statement,<br \/>\nwhich was  also  acted upon.  The lower Court has not believed the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.2.  It is pertinent to point out that the first  complaint  was  given  by<br \/>\nP.W.1,  wherein he has stated that A-1 and 30 others armed with deadly weapons<br \/>\ncame to the place of occurrence and committed  the  crime  in  question.    It<br \/>\nremains  to  be stated that the occurrence has taken place during night hours,<br \/>\nand the witnesses have clearly spoken to the fact that the  accused  were  not<br \/>\nknown  to them previously, and hence, without knowing the accused earlier, the<br \/>\nwitnesses, who could not see the assailants on the day  of  occurrence,  could<br \/>\nnot identify them properly.  It has to noted that no identification parade was<br \/>\nalso conducted, and the name of the appellant\/A-4 was nowhere mentioned in the<br \/>\nF.I.R.   P.W.1  has  stated that the accused have climbed over a tamarind tree<br \/>\nand witnessed the occurrence.  But, the investigation  has  not  revealed  the<br \/>\nexistence of  the  tamarind  tree.    Therefore,  for  all  these reasons, the<br \/>\njudgment of the lower Court  has  to  be  set  aside,  and  the  appellant  be<br \/>\nacquitted of the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Countering  to the above contentions of the appellant&#8217;s side, the<br \/>\nlearned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would urge that  the  lower  Court<br \/>\nhas considered the evidence carefully and found the accused guilty of the said<br \/>\ncharges; that it is pertinent to note that P.W.2 was kidnapped by the accused,<br \/>\nand  he  was  examined;  that  there  are  no two complaints as alleged by the<br \/>\nappellant; that P.W.2 went to the Police station and gave a  statement,  which<br \/>\nwas  recorded  and acted upon; that it is true that there were two information<br \/>\nin this case, one by P.W.1  on  the  strength  of  which  the  said  case  was<br \/>\nregistered  in  Cr.No.9  5\/93,  and  the other by P.W.2, on the basis of which<br \/>\nP.W.11 added S.7(1)(d) of PCR Act; that the prosecution witnesses have clearly<br \/>\nand cogently narrated the incident, and hence, the  minor  discrepancies  will<br \/>\nnot  affect  the  prosecution  case;  and therefore, the judgment of the trial<br \/>\nCourt has to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  This Court paid its full attention on the available materials,  as<br \/>\na  result  of which the Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal has<br \/>\ngot to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The specific case of  the  prosecution  was  that  the  appellant,<br \/>\nranked  as  A-4  along  with  four other accused, who stood charged before the<br \/>\nlower Court, and 25 others constituted into an unlawful assembly and  came  to<br \/>\nthe  place  of  occurrence  at  about 3.00 A.M.; that they attacked P.W.2 with<br \/>\nsticks and caused injuries; that they caused damages to the Office of P.W.6 to<br \/>\nthe tune of Rs.15,000\/-; that they abused P.  W.2 by making a reference to his<br \/>\ncommunity; that they kidnapped P.W.2; and that they threatened P.W.6  that  he<br \/>\nshould  surrender  his  two  lorry drivers namely P.Ws.4 and 5, if the accused<br \/>\nwere to release P.W.2.  On the strength of the complaint  given  by  P.W.1,  a<br \/>\ncase was registered by P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police against the accused 1 to<br \/>\n5 and  investigation has proceeded.  It is quite evident from the testimony of<br \/>\nP.Ws.1 to 5 that the incident in question was preceded  by  an  incident  that<br \/>\ntook place  at Konganapuram, wherein P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 were involved.  P.Ws.1, 4<br \/>\nand 5 took two loads of jalli in two lorries to be supplied  at  Konganapuram,<br \/>\nwhere following a wordy quarrel, an incident of attack between P.Ws.1, 4 and 5<br \/>\non  the  one  side  and the accused party on the other side had taken place at<br \/>\nabout 1.30 A.M.  This fact was also spoken to  by  the  complainant  P.W.1  by<br \/>\nstating  that  the  incident  of attack had taken place at two places, and one<br \/>\nsuch incident took place at Konganapuram;  and  that  since  the  incident  at<br \/>\nKonganapuram  took  place  during  night  hours, he could not say who were all<br \/>\ninvolved.  Thus, it would be clear that the prosecution  has  placed  evidence<br \/>\nonly  as  to the second part, but not as to the first incident that took place<br \/>\nat Konganapuram.  The incident in question  at  Vaiyamalai  has  taken  place.<br \/>\nBut,  neither  the  investigation was done in respect of the first part of the<br \/>\nincident, nor the same was unfolded at the  time  when  the  case  was  placed<br \/>\nbefore the  lower Court at the time of trial.  Under the stated circumstances,<br \/>\nit would be very difficult to appraise of the  entire  case  to  arrive  at  a<br \/>\ncorrect conclusion  and  take  a  decision in the matter.  In short, it can be<br \/>\nwell stated that the prosecution has not brought before the  Court  below  the<br \/>\ngenesis of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   It  is  not the case of the prosecution that all the accused, who<br \/>\ncame to the place of occurrence, were not already known to P.W.1.  But, in the<br \/>\nearliest information given by P.W.1, he has stated  the  names  of  the  first<br \/>\naccused and  30  others.    He  has not whispered anything about the appellant<br \/>\nanywhere.  According to him, due to fear he just climbed over a tamarind  tree<br \/>\nand witnessed  the  occurrence.  As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant, no tamarind tree is shown in Ex.P6 rough sketch.  From  the<br \/>\nevidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, it would be clear that the occurrence has taken place<br \/>\nat about  3.00  A.M.    during  darkness, and they could not pinpoint the acts<br \/>\ncommitted by the culprits, in particular when they were  about  30  or  35  in<br \/>\nnumber.   P.W.11  the Investigation Officer, has categorically admitted in his<br \/>\nevidence that he recorded the statement of P.W.2 from which he  came  to  know<br \/>\nthat  an  incident  had  taken  place  at Konganapuram Bus Stand at 1.00 A.M.,<br \/>\nwherein the prosecution witnesses were involved,  but,  he  has  not  enquired<br \/>\nanything about  the  same.  According to the Investigation Officer, he has not<br \/>\nprepared the observation mahazar, though he claimed that he made an inspection<br \/>\nof the site of occurrence.  The non-preparation of the observation mahazar  by<br \/>\nthe  Investigation  Officer and the non-existence of the tamarind tree, as per<br \/>\nEx.P6 rough sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer would  cast  a  doubt<br \/>\nwhether the Investigation Officer had really made an inspection of the site of<br \/>\noccurrence.   In  view  of  all  the infirmities and doubts in the prosecution<br \/>\ncase, it would be highly unsafe to hold that the appellant\/A-4 was  guilty  of<br \/>\nthe  offences  under  Ss  147,  447,  342  and 365 of I.P.C., and hence, he is<br \/>\nentitled for an acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside  the<br \/>\njudgment of   the   lower   Court  in  respect  of  the  appellant\/A-4.    The<br \/>\nappellant\/A-4 is acquitted of the charges against him.  The bail bond, if  any<br \/>\nexecuted  by the appellant\/A-4, shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts, if<br \/>\nany paid, shall be refunded to the appellant\/A4.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The District and Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4) The D.I.G.  of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>5) Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Government Advocate<br \/>\n(Crl.  Side), High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>6) The Sub Inspector of Police, Elachipalayam Police Station<br \/>\nVelagoundampatti Circle, Salem District.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.801 of 1997 P.Rathinam .. Appellant -Vs- State represented by Sub Inspector of Police Elachipalayam Police Station Salem (Cr.No.95\/93) .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under S.374 [&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-62201","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>P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - 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\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-27T19:19:25+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\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-27T19:19:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2045,\"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\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\",\"name\":\"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-27T19:19:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - 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\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-27T19:19:25+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\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-27T19:19:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003"},"wordCount":2045,"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\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003","name":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-27T19:19:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rathinam-vs-state-represented-by-on-2-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Rathinam vs State Represented By on 2 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/62201","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=62201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}