{"id":66288,"date":"2005-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005"},"modified":"2014-12-27T12:41:06","modified_gmt":"2014-12-27T07:11:06","slug":"state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 26\/07\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR        \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM           \n\nCRL.A. No.566 of 1999 \n\nState by\nPublic Prosecutor,\nHigh Court, Madras.             ...     Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Palani\n2.Kandan \n3.Velu\n4.Munusamy   \n5.Lakshmanan  \n6.Chinnathambi \n7.Durai\n8.Murugan \n9.Rajavelu\n10.Raman  \n11.Ramasamy   \n12.Balakrishnan \n13.Subramani \n14.Kutta Velu\n15.Veerasamy                                    ...     Respondents\n\n\n        Criminal Appeal filed under  section  374  of  the  Code  of  Criminal\nProcedure   against   the   judgment  passed  by  the  I  Additional  Sessions\nJudge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.109 of  1990  dated\n01.04.1999.\n\n!For Appellant  ..      Mr.S.Jayakumar,\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n^For Respondents        ..      Mr.R.Sankarasubbu\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)     <\/p>\n
        Aggrieved  over  the  judgment  of the Court of Session, Dharmapuri in
\nSessions Case No.109 of 1990, acquitting all the respondents, who  are  15  in
\nnumber, the State has brought forth this appeal.  The respondents\/accused 1 to
\n15 stood charged and tried as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        Accused  1  to  15 were charged under Sections 148, 449 and 396 of the
\nIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused 1 was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
\n        Accused 2 to 15 were charged under Section 302 read with  149  of  the
\nIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused  1  to  3, 6, 7 and 9 were charged under Section 395 read with
\n397 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11 and 12 were charged under  Section  342  of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused  1, 2, 5, 11 & 12 were charged under Section 427 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused 1 to 3, 5 to 7 11, 12 were  charged  under  Section  342  (  2
\ncounts) of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        Accused  1  and  2  were charged under section 324 of the Indian Penal
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
All the accused were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal  can  be
\nstated thus :\n<\/p>\n
        (a) P.Ws.1  and 2 are the sons of the deceased Sengoda Gounder.  P.W.3
\nis the wife of the deceased.  All the prosecution witnesses were  residing  at
\nMariampatti.  The  accused  belong  to a nearby village Karuvelampattu.  There
\nhad been a long standing enmity between the families of the deceased  and  the
\naccused for  about  more  than two decades.  Sengoda Gounder owned 20 acres of
\nland near the lands belonging to accused 1, 2, 4 and 5.  Sengoda  Gounder,  in
\norder  to  go  to  his  land,  has  to  necessarily go through the land of the
\naccused.  When the tractor belonging to Sengoda Gounder went by  that  way  in
\nthe year 1985, it was prevented and when the family members of Sengoda Gounder
\nquestioned the  accused,  they were assaulted.  A criminal case was pending on
\nthe file of the Judicial Magistrate, Harur.  On the  other  occasion,  in  the
\nyear 1988, the tractor driver of Sengoda Gounder and P.W.2 were also assaulted
\nand a criminal case was also initiated in this regard and the same is pending.
\nAccused  1  and 2 tried to purchase the lands of one Thottammal and Lingammal,
\nbut their intention did not fructify.  The accused thought that it was only at
\nthe instigation of the prosecution parties,  they  could  not  purchase  those
\nlands and all these let to inimical terms between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)  On  20.01.1989  at about 08.00 pm when P.Ws.1 and 2 were watching
\ntelevision and P.W.3 was in the main hall of the house and Sengoda Gounder was
\nalso in the kitchen, all the accused armed with deadly weapons came  into  the
\nhouse and  called the inmates of the house.  When they came outside, the first
\naccused attacked P.W.3 with knife on her head and hand.   Accused  2  attacked
\nwith an  iron  rod  on  the  legs  of  P.W.3.  Accused 2, 6 and 7 attacked the
\ndeceased with crow bar.  Accused-1 cut the deceased on the  head  with  knife.
\nAccused 1 also attacked P.W.1 with an aruval on his head and on the left hand.
\nAccused 2  and 6 beat with an iron rod on P.W.1’s right hand.  Accused 2 and 6
\nwith an iron rod attacked on P.W.1’s right hand.  They chased  P.    W.2,  but
\nP.W.2 went out by climbing over the rice bags and by removing the tiles in the
\nroof of  the  house.   P.W.1, the deceased, and P.W.3 were tied by the accused
\nwith ropes.  Muthu Gounder, the father  of  the  deceased  and  Periakka,  the
\nmother of  the  deceased  were also attacked by the accused.  The accused took
\nthe almirah key from P.W.3 and opened it and took away the  jewels  and  money
\nfrom there.    They  also damaged the television, telephone and other valuable
\narticles.  Sengoda Gounder and the other witnesses could not move as they were
\ntied.  P.W.2, who ran away from the house met P.W.4  and  informed  about  the
\nsituation and in his cycle they went to Kambainallur police station.  There, a
\npolice  constable,  who  was  not  conversant  with Tamil was alone available.
\nTherefore, he could not give anye information to the police constable.   P.W.2
\nreturned  home  by  taking  a  jeep, which was in front of the police station.
\nP.W.2, on finding his parents and brother tied, untied them and took  all  the
\ninjured  witnesses  to  the  Government  Hospital, Dharmapuri and they reached
\nthere at 09.40 pm.<\/p>\n
        (c)  P.W.12,  the  doctor  attached  to   the   Government   Hospital,
\nDharmapuri, medically examined Sengoda Gounder at about 09.00 pm and found the
\nfollowing injuries on him :\n<\/p>\n
1.A lacerated injury left leg near knee of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
2.A  lacerated  injury left leg of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 10 cm from injury\n<\/p>\n
1.\n<\/p>\n
3.A lacerated injury left leg near ankle of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
4.A lacerated injury right leg of 2 cm x 2 cm muscle deep.\n<\/p>\n
5.A lacerated injury left side forehead of 3 cm x 2 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
6.A lacerated injury near left eyebrow of 5 cm x 3 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
7.A contusion left forearm of 15 cm x 4 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
8.A contusion over the upper lip of 5 cm x 3 cm x  skin  colour  with  missing
\nteeth.\n<\/p>\n
9.C\/o pain abdomen.\n<\/p>\n
10.A lacerated injury in the parietal region of 2 cm x 3 cm x bone depth.
\nHe issued  Ex.P.57  a copy of the accident register.  The doctor also examined
\nP.W.1 at 09.50 am and has issued a wound certificate, Ex.P.24 , wherein he has
\nnoted the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.  A lacerated injury left elbow of 3 cm x 2 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
2.A contusion right elbow and forearm of 10 cm x 5 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
3.A lacerated injury right occipito-parietal region 5 cm x 2 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
4.A contusion left lateral Malleolus of 5 cm x 3 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
5.A contusion centre of back 10 cm x 3 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
At 10.00 pm, P.W.12 examined Periakkal, the mother of  the  deceased  for  her
\ninjuries and found the following injuries on her person:\n<\/p>\n
1.A lacerated injury right thumb of 5 cm x 3 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
2.A lacerated injury right forearm of 5 cm x 2 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
3.A contusion right leg of 10 cm x 3 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
4.A contusion left elbow of 5 cm x 3 cm x skin colour.\n<\/p>\n
He issued  wound  certificate,  Ex.P.25.   Thereafter, at 10.20 pm, the doctor
\nexamined Muthu Gounder and found the following injuries on him, which  he  had
\nmarked in Ex.P.26:\n<\/p>\n
1.  A lacerated injury right forehead of 10 cm x 1 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
2.A lacerated injury left side forehead 10 cm x 2 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
3.A lacerated injury left side parietal region of 10 cm x 3 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
4.A lacerated injury left thigh of 3 cm x 2 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
5.A contusion right forearm of 5 cm x 3 cm x skin colour.
\nP.W.3  was examined by the doctor 10.45 pm and a wound certificate Ex.P.27 was
\nissued narrating the injuries found on her:\n<\/p>\n
1.A lacerated injury centre of parietal region of 10 cm x 2 cm x bone depth.\n<\/p>\n
2.A contusion right knee of 5 cm x 3 cm x skin depth.\n<\/p>\n
        (d) On intimation from the hospital, a constable Ramasamy attached  to
\nKambainallur  Police  Station went to the Government Hospital and recorded the
\nstatement of P.W.1.  Ex.P.1 is the said statement.  In the  meantime,  Sengoda
\nGounder, who  was  undergoing  treatment  succumbed  to  the injuries.  On the
\nstrength of Ex.P.1, a case in crime No.4\/89 came  to  be  registered  for  the
\noffences  punishable  under  sections 147, 448 , 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.  Express reports were  prepared.    The  printed  first
\ninformation report, Ex.P.39 was sent to Court.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)  P.W.16, the Inspector of Police took up investigation in the case
\nand proceeded to the Government Hospital,  Dharmapuri.    There  he  conducted
\ninquest  over  the  dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses
\nand panchayatdars between 05.30 am and 08.30 am and prepared  Ex.P.40  inquest
\nreport.   After  the completion of inquest he issued a requisition, Ex.P.29 to
\nthe doctor for conducting postmortem.\n<\/p>\n
        (f) Immediately after issuing requisition P.W.16 went to the place  of
\noccurrence.   He summoned the finger print experts to the place of occurrence.
\nHe reached the place of  occurrence  at  09.00  am  and  in  the  presence  of
\nwitnesses  he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and drew a rough sketch,
\nEx.P.41.  He seized M.Os.19 to 21, which were produced by P.W.10,  the  finger
\nprint expert,  under  a  mahazar, Ex.P.3.  The broken articles in the house of
\nthe deceased, M.Os.1 to 6 were recovered from the scene of occurrence under  a
\nmahazar, Ex.P.4.    The  other  material  objects No.22 to 27 were also seized
\nunder a mahazar, Ex.  P.5.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)  P.W.13,  the  doctor  attached  to   the   Government   Hospital,
\nDharmapuri,  pursuant  to  the  requisition, Ex.P.29, conducted autopsy on the
\nbody of the deceased at 10.30 am and found the following injuries on the  body
\n:\n<\/p>\n
1.A Sutured wound on the left side of forehead crossing midline 3 cms long.\n<\/p>\n
2.A sutured wound above left eye brow 5 cms long.\n<\/p>\n
3.Two abrasions right side face 2 cms x 1 cm each.\n<\/p>\n
4.A sutured wound in left parietal region 3 cms.\n<\/p>\n
5.A contusion in upper lips 3 x 2 cms.\n<\/p>\n
6.Two linear abrasions in right shoulder 3 x + cm each.\n<\/p>\n
7.A diffused contusion in left forearm 15 cms x 12 cms.\n<\/p>\n
8.A sutured wound below left knee 2 cms long.\n<\/p>\n
9.Sutured wound left leg mid 1\/3, 2 cms long.\n<\/p>\n
10.A sutured wound in left leg near ankle 2 cms.\n<\/p>\n
11.Sutured wound right leg mid 1\/3 2 cms.\n<\/p>\n
12.Central,  lateral,  incisor  –  upper  jaw  missing  with laceration of gum
\nmargins\/cavities filled with blood clot.\n<\/p>\n
He issued Ex.P.30 postmortem certificate with his opinion  that  the  deceased
\nwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)  On 22.01.1989 P.W.16 went the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and
\nexamined the injured witnesses.  He came to know that on 04.02.1989 accused 1,
\n2, 3 and 6 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem.  Accused 4 and 5
\nwere arrested on 04.02.1989 at 12.30 pm.  At that time they  voluntarily  gave
\nconfessional  statements,  the  admissible  portions  of such statements stood
\nmarked as Exs.P.6 and  42.    Pursuant  to  the  admissible  portions  of  the
\nconfession  statements,  accused  4 and 5 produced iron pipes, M.Os.29 and 30,
\nwhich were recovered under mahazar, Ex.P.5.  On 08.02.1989 accused 1 to 3  and
\n6 were  taken  to  police custody.  All the accused joined together and gave a
\nconfession.  The admissible portion  of  the  said  confession  is  marked  as
\nEx.P.43.   Pursuant  to  Ex.P.43,  the  weapons,  M.Os.7 to 11, 14 and 31 were
\nseized under a mahazar, Ex.P44.  Accused 14  was  arrested  on  13.02.1989  at
\n06.30  am  and  he  gave a confession statement, the admissible portion stands
\nmarked as Ex.P.8.  Pursuant to Ex.P.8, iron pipe, M.O.28 was  produced,  which
\nwas seized  under  a  Ex.P.9 mahazar.  On 15.02.1989 at 08.30 pm accused 7, 8,
\nand 9 were arrested.  Accused 7 gave a confession  statement,  the  admissible
\nportions are  marked  as Exs.P.45, P.47 and P.48 respectively.  Accused 10 was
\nalso arrested and he also gave a confession statement, the admissible  portion
\nis marked as Ex.P.49.  All these accused produced M.O.15 aruval, and the money
\ntaken  from  the house of the deceased, M.Os.33, 34, 35, iron rod, M.O.12 were
\nseized under mahazars, Ex.P.50 and P.51.  Accused 9 was also arrested at 11.30
\npm and he produced M.Os.36, 37 money and M.O.13 crow bar,  which  were  seized
\nunder a  mahzar,  Ex.P.52.    Accused  10 produced some money, M.O.38 and iron
\npipe, M.O.39 under a mahazar, Ex.P.53.  Accused 11 was arrested on  10.03.1989
\nand  pursuant  to  the  admissible portion of the voluntary statement given by
\nhim, Ex.P.54, he produced M.O.41 iron rod,  M.O.42  and  43  money  and  stamp
\npapers, which  were  seized  under  a  mahazar, Ex.P.56.  The material objects
\nrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and
\npursuant to  the  confession  statement  given  by  the  appellants  were  all
\nsubjected to  chemical  analysis.    The  reports  of the chemical analyst are
\nExs.P.35 and P.36 and the reports of the Serologist are Exs.P.37 and P.38.  On
\ncompletion of the investigation final report was filed  by  the  Investigating
\nOfficer on  25.10.1989.    The  case was committed to the Court of Session and
\nnecessary charges were framed as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   In  order  to  substantiate  the  charges  levelled  against  the
\nappellants\/accused,  the  prosecution  marched  16  witnesses and relied on 59
\nexhibits and 44 material objects.  On completion of the evidence on  the  side
\nof  the  prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in  the
\nevidence  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  and they flatly denied the same as
\nfalse.  No witness was examined on their side.  The report of the finger print
\nexpert is marked as Ex.D1.  After hearing both sides, the trial Court  was  of
\nthe opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable
\ndoubts and found the accused not guilty and acquitted all of them.  Hence, the
\nappeal by the State.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   Learned  counsel  for the State, inter alia, would submit that in
\nthe instant case the injured witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1  and  3.    They
\nhave thoroughly narrated the occurrence.  Immediately after the occurrence the
\ninjured  witnesses  and  the  deceased were taken to the hospital, where P.W.1
\ngave a statement on the basis of which a case came to be registered.  All  the
\naccused  at  the  time of arrest have given confession statements, pursuant to
\nwhich the weapons and the money and other valuable  materials  connecting  the
\naccused with the crime have also been recovered by the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Added  further  the  learned counsel for the State that all these
\ninjured witnesses were medically examined and their  wound  certificates  have
\nbeen  produced  before  the  Court,  where  they have clearly stated as to who
\nattacked them.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The learned counsel would also submit that  the  trial  Court  has
\nacquitted  all  the accused on filmy grounds, which should not have been given
\nany weight at all.  Under the circumstances, the judgment of the  trial  Court
\nhas  to  be  set  aside and the appellants have to be dealt with in accordance
\nwith law.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The Court heard the learned counsel for  the  respondents  on  the
\nabove contentions.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   It  is not in controversy that Sengoda Gounder, P.Ws.1 and 3 were
\nattacked at the time of occurrence.    Apart  from  that  Periakka  and  Muthu
\nGounder  were  also  attacked  and  they  were taken to the hospital and wound
\ncertificates have also been produ before the Court.  It is also  evident  from
\nthe  evidence  of  P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of
\nSengoda Gounder and from Ex.P.30 postmortem certificate  issued  by  him  that
\nSengoda  Goudner  died on account of the injuries sustained by him at the time
\nof the occurrence and the injured  sustained  injuries  at  the  time  of  the
\noccurrence.  Hence, it can be safely held so.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   It  is  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  on the date of the
\noccurrence at 08.00 pm P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were in their house.   All
\nthe  accused  armed  with  deadly weapons came inside their house and attacked
\nSengoda Gounder and other witnesses, caused damages to the articles  and  fled
\naway from  the  place  of  occurrence.  It has to be pointed out at this stage
\nthat according to P.W.2, while the occurrence was going on, he ran  away  from
\nthe  house  by  removing a tile of the roof and he met P.W.4 on his way and he
\nand P.W.4 went to the police station, where he could not give a  report  about
\nthe  occurrence  to the constable, since the constable was not conversant with
\nTamil.  But this version was falsified by the version of P.W.4.  According  to
\nP.W.4,  he  accompanied  P.W.2 in a cycle and they went to Kambainellur Police
\nStation, where a police constable was available to whom P.W.2 gave the details
\nof the crime and that was recorded.  This evidence of P.  W.4 contradicts  the
\nevidence of P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  According to the prosecution, a case came to be registered on the
\nstrength  of Ex.P.1, report given by P.W.1 at the Government Hospital at 11.30
\npm to a police constable Ramasamy.  From the evidence of P.W.4,  it  would  be
\nquite  clear  that  a  statement  was  recorded by the constable in the police
\nstation even before Ex.P.1 was recorded in the hospital.  But  that  statement
\nis not  placed  before  the Court.  In such circumstances, a duty is cast upon
\nthe prosecution to examine  the  Constable  Ramasamy,  who  according  to  the
\nprosecution, recorded the statement, Ex.P.1 at the hospital from P.W.1, but he
\nwas  not examined and thus it casts a doubt whether Ex.P.1 produced before the
\nCourt was the earliest document, which came into existence.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The second circumstance, as rightly pointed out by  the  Sessions
\nJudge,  was  the  statement  given  by  P.W.1  to doctor, P.W.12, which is the
\nearliest version about the occurrence.   P.W.12  has  recorded  in  the  wound
\ncertificate,  Ex.P.24  issued  in  respect of the injuries found on P.W.1 that
\nP.W.1 has stated that he was attacked by unknown persons.   It  is  seen  that
\nP.W.1 was a college student and admittedly he knew the accused all along.  Had
\nit been true that P.W.1 and other witnesses were attacked by known persons and
\nparticularly  the  accused, with whom they had long standing enmity, there was
\nno impediment for P.W.1 to give the names of the accused, but he has not  done
\nso.  This also casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The next circumstance is that the finger print expert was called
\nby the Investigating Officer to the scene of  occurrence,  who  also  came  to
\nthere and  has  also  given  a  report.  The finger print expert, who gave the
\nreport was examined  as  P.W.10.    His  report,  though  not  marked  by  the
\nprosecution, was  marked  by  the defence as Ex.D1.  A reading of Ex.D1 report
\nwould clearly reveal that he was called to examine the finger prints available
\nat the scene of occurrence, since the accused were  not  known.    This  would
\nclearly  indicate  that  at  the  time of investigation on the next day of the
\noccurrence, the Investigating  Officer  did  not  know  as  to  who  were  the
\nassailants.   This  throws much doubt on Ex.P.1 complaint alleged to have been
\ngiven at 11.00 pm by P.W.1 to the Constable.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  It is also pertinent to note that Muthu  Gounder,  who  was  also
\ninjured  at  the  time  of  occurrence,  according to the prosecution, was not
\nexamined as he died two months prior to the date on which P.W.1 gave  evidence
\nin court.    Ex.P.57,  the  copy  of  the  accident register in respect of the
\ninjuries found on Muthu Gounder was marked in  Court  and  the  original  when
\ndisputed  was called for after a period of ten years from the hospital, but it
\nis pertinent to point out that there is a discrepancy with regard to an  inter
\nlineation,  which  was  available in the original, but was not in the copy and
\nthis would cast a doubt whether the said Muthu Gounder was attacked at all  at
\nthe time of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  It is also to be noted that P.W.3 has even informed to the doctor
\nthat  she was attacked by an iron rod and hence she gave evidence that she was
\nattacked by iron rod.  But the medical evidence did not support her evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In the instant case since Ex.P.1 is doubtful and injured  witness
\nP.W.1 has stated to the doctor that he was attacked by unknown persons and the
\nsummoning  of  the  finger  print  experts  to  the scene of occurrence by the
\nInvestigating Officer to find out the culprits would all indicate that all  is
\nnot well with the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   Under  the  circumstances, the benefit of doubt to which accused
\nare entitled to, has to be given to them and it was accordingly given to  them
\nby the  lower  Court.   The lower Court has rightly found that the prosecution
\nhas not proved its case  beyond  all  reasonable  doubts  and  therefore,  the
\njudgment  of  the  trial  Court  has  to  be  sustained  and it is accordingly
\nsustained.  The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes<\/p>\n
Internet:Yes<\/p>\n
mf<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
        Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.\n<\/p>\n
2.-do- through the Principal Sessions Judge,
\nKrishnagiri.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Judicial Magistrate, Harur,
\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police,
\nKambainallur Police Station,
\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26\/07\/2005 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM CRL.A. No.566 of 1999 State by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. … Appellant -Vs- 1.Palani 2.Kandan 3.Velu 4.Munusamy 5.Lakshmanan 6.Chinnathambi 7.Durai 8.Murugan […]<\/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-66288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - 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\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-27T07:11:06+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-27T07:11:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3411,\"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\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\",\"name\":\"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-27T07:11:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - 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\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-27T07:11:06+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-27T07:11:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005"},"wordCount":3411,"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\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005","name":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-27T07:11:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-palani-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By vs Palani on 26 July, 2005"}]},{"@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\/66288","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=66288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}