{"id":67224,"date":"2006-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006"},"modified":"2014-08-17T00:55:32","modified_gmt":"2014-08-16T19:25:32","slug":"ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 18\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No.262 of 1997\n\n\nRavi\t\t\t\t...\t\tAppellant\n\n\nvs.\n\n\nState by:\t\t\nSub Inspector of Police,\nNarikkudi Police Station,\nAruppukottai, Cr.No.123\/93\nKamarajar District.\t\t...\t\tRespondent\n\n\n\t\t\t\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions\nJudge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur, dated 05.02.1997 in Sessions Case\nNo.131 of 1996.\n\n\n!For Appellant \t\t...\tMrs.B.Asha\n\t\t\t     \tfor Mrs.Adline Stella Bellie\n\n^For Respondent  \t...\tMr.K.Chellapandian,\n\t\t\t     \tAdditional Public Prosecutor.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by the first accused arises out of the judgment of the learned
\nPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputtur
\ndated 5.2.1997 made in Sessions Case No.131 of 1996 in and by which the trial
\nJudge convicted the first accused for the offences under sections 302, 307 and
\n324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302
\nI.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 I.P.C. and
\nrigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  Totally, there were two accused in the case. The charge against them
\nis that on 27.07.1993 at about 11.00 p.m., at Kandukondan Manickam village, on
\nthe pial of the house of P.W.1, when Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased,
\nAccused No.1 with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, stabbed him
\non his face and chest with a knife (M.O.1) and the deceased succumbed to the
\ninjuries, which act is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; in the course of the
\nsame transaction, Accused No.2 caught hold the deceased to facilitate Accused
\nNo.1 to cause the death of the deceased, which act is punishable under Section
\n302 r\/w 34 I.P.C., and Accused No.1 attempted to murder P.W.1 Vellaiammal and
\nP.W.3 Subbiah and caused injuries on them, which act is punishable under Section
\n307 I.P.C (two counts).\n<\/p>\n
\t3. As Accused No.2 died on 17.01.2001, this Court, by judgment dated
\n17.03.2006, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.310 of 1997 filed by him as abated.
\n\t4.1. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of the
\nwitnesses examined by them, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) P.W.4 Rakku is the mother of the deceased viz., Chandran.  P.W.1
\nVellaiammal and P.W.3 Subbiah are her parents and they are residing at
\nKandukondan village.  P.W.2 Chandra @ Chandrayi is younger daughter of P.W.4,
\nwho is residing with her grand parents.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The deceased was doing sugarcane juice business at Anna bus stand,
\nMadurai, and his family members were assisting him.  Accused No.1 was also doing
\nthe sugarcane juice business and residing opposite to the house of P.W.1.  The
\neldest daughter of P.W.4 viz., Seenivasuki was given in marriage to Accused
\nNo.2, a friend of Accused No.1.  After the marriage, Accused No.2 along with his
\nwife was residing at Madurai.  P.W.4, the deceased and her younger son
\nVettriveeran were also residing with them at Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) As Accused No.2 used to utter filthy words on P.W.4,  the deceased
\ntold Accused No.2 that if he continued to behave like this, they would leave
\nhim.    As there was no change in the behaviour of Accused No.2, P.W.4 along
\nwith her sons came out of his house and were residing separately at Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) When P.W.4 was alone in the house, Accused No.2 attempted to outrage
\nher modesty.  P.W.4 informed about the character of Accused No.2 to the
\ndeceased. Enraged at this, the deceased stabbed accused No.2 and in this regard,
\na case was registered on the complaint given by Accused No.2 on 08.06.1993 by
\nP.W.8 Head Constable in Crime No.589 of 1993 of Thallakulam Police Station for
\nthe offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P6 is the first
\ninformation report and the case was pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) Five days thereafter, Accused No.2 beat the deceased at Anna bus stand
\nand the deceased lodged a complaint against Accused No.2 and the said case is
\nalso pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) Accused No.2 informed the Inspector, who investigated the case
\nregistered on the complaint of the deceased, that he should not be made
\nresponsible, if anyone murdered the deceased within ten days.  Fearing on the
\nstatement of Accused No.2, P.W.4 sent the deceased to Kandukondan village, where
\nP.Ws.1 and 3 were residing.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) On the date of occurrence i.e. 27.07.1993, when P.W.1 and her mother
\nwere sleeping in front of the house, P.W.2 along with her brother Karnan were
\nsleeping inside the house, and the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the
\nhouse.  P.W.3 went outside for a panchayat.  At about 11.00 p.m., accused Nos.1
\nand 2 came there and while Accused No.2 was catching hold the deceased, Accused
\nNo.1 stabbed him on his chest and neck with a soori knife (M.O.1). At that time,
\nP.W.1 screamed and caught hold Accused No.1 and Accused No.1, by using the same
\nweapon, cut her left side nose and dragged the knife upto her right cheek.  On
\nhearing the noise, P.W.3 and other panchayat people came to the scene of
\noccurrence.  Accused No.1 also cut P.W.3 on his neck.  Both the accused ran away
\nfrom the place of occurrence with the weapon.  P.W.2 also witnessed the said
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h)  P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the police station and gave statement
\nEx.P-1. P.W.7 is the Head Constable, who recorded Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 1.00 a.m.
\non 28.07.1993.  As the left thumb of P.W.1 was injured, P.W.7 obtained her right
\nthumb impression.  He registered a case in Crime No.123 of 1993 and prepared
\nEx.P5, first information report and sent P.Ws.1 and 3 to the Government
\nHospital, Aruppukottai for treatment.  He sent the FIR to the jurisdictional
\nCourt as well as to the higher officials.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) P.W.11 is the Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 at 2.25 a.m. on
\n28.07.1993. P.W.11  found a cut injury (16 x 3 x 2 cm) across the nose, from 1″
\nbelow the left eye to right nostril upto the border of the mandible across the
\nnose on the right side starting from nasal cavity.  Right upper pre-molar was
\nfound broken and  right side teeth were shaky. He issued Ex.P9, the accident
\nregister extract wherein it is opined that the injury was grievous in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t(j) Based on Ex.P5 FIR, P.W.12, Inspector of Police, took up the
\ninvestigation of the case on 28.07.1993.  He visited the scene of occurrence at
\n6.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and
\nanother.  He also drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch.   He conducted inquest over the
\ndead body in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-11 inquest report.
\nHe recovered M.O.4, bloodstained mat, M.O.5, bloodstained cement mortar, M.O.6
\nsample cement mortar and M.O.7 saree under Ex.P-4 mahazar, in the presence of
\nP.W.6 and another.  He gave a requisition for conducting postmortem on the dead
\nbody.\n<\/p>\n
\t(k) P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
\ndeceased Chandran at 1.30 p.m. on 28.07.1993.  He found the following ante-
\nmortem injuries on the body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t1. A cut injury about 8cm x 3cm x 2cm is seen over the left side of cheek
\nextending from the angle of the mouth to left side of the neck 2″ below the left
\near.  Cut end of the muscles are seen over the left end of the injury the depth
\nis about + cm.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. A stab injury about 3cm x 1+cm x 3cm is seen over the left side of the
\nchest just below the medial end of the clavicle.  The injury is transverse in
\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn Exploration of the wound No.2, the pulmonary artery is cut just below
\nthe bifurcation of right and left branches of the pulmonary artery anteriorly.
\nBlood clots are seen at the side of the injury over the pulmonary artery.  The
\ninjury over the artery is 7mm x 5mm.\n<\/p>\n
The postmortem doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have
\ndied of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to great vessels (pulmonary artery)
\nabout 13 to 15 hours prior to autopsy.  Ex.P-7 is the postmortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t(l) P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated P.W.3 at 1.30 a.m. on 29.7.1993 and
\nfound a linear abrasion of 6 cm in length with scab at left side of neck.  He
\nissued Ex.P8 wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t(m) P.W.12, in continuation of the investigation,   at 9.30 p.m. on
\n28.07.1993 recovered the personal apparels of the deceased, M.O.8, banian and
\nM.O.9, lungi, produced by the constable.\n<\/p>\n
\t(n) On 03.08.1993, P.W.12 arrested Accused No.1 at Thiruvalluvar bus
\nstand, Madurai. When P.W.12 examined Accused No.1, he gave a voluntary
\nconfession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-12, pursuant
\nto which, Accused No.2 was arrested at Anna bus stand and M.O.1 soori knife and
\nM.O.10 torch light were recovered under Ex.P-13 mahazar attested by P.W.6 and
\nanother.   He examined P.W.8 and recorded his statement.   He sent the material
\nobjects with Ex.P14, requisition, to the Court to subject them to chemical
\nanalysis and the same were sent to the laboratory under Ex.P15, Court’s letter.
\nExs.P16 and P.17 are Chemical Analyst’s Report and Serologist’s Report
\nrespectively.  He examined the postmortem doctor and other witnesses and
\nrecorded their statements.  On completion of the investigation, the
\ninvestigating officer filed a final report against the accused on 19.11.1993.
\n\t4.2. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution
\nexamined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12, marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 as well as M.Os.1
\nto 10, as referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against them in
\nthe evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false.  The accused
\nhas not examined any witness or marked any document on his side.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,
\nfound both the accused guilty and  convicted and sentenced them as stated
\nearlier.  Hence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/ Accused No.1 contends that
\nthe evidence of ocular witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 is not cogent, clear and
\nconsistent and therefore, the conviction of Accused No.1 based on their evidence
\nis not sustainable.  It is her further contention that there is a doubt as to
\nwho actually gave Ex.P1 statement to the police since Ex.P1 is said to have been
\ngiven by P.W.1 viz., “Vellaiammal” whereas at the end of the statement it is
\nmentioned as right thumb impression of “Vellayeeammal”.  Learned counsel also
\nraised a contention that there is no acceptable explanation on the part of the
\nprosecution for getting the right thumb impression of the complainant being a
\nlady.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws.1 to 3, who are
\neye witnesses to the occurrence, clearly and cogently speak about the overt acts
\nattributed to the accused persons and their evidence unerringly points out the
\nguilt of the accused in murdering the deceased.  Further, M.O.1 soori knife,
\nwhich was recovered based on Ex.P-12, admissible portion of the voluntary
\nconfession statement given by Accused No.1, was found to have contained the same
\nblood group and this part of evidence also connects the accused with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. It is further contended that there is no doubt at all to hold who is
\nthe actual complainant because a perusal of the original Ex.P1 would clearly
\nindicate that it is only Vellaiammal viz., P.W.1 who actually gave the complaint
\nand therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is without any basis.
\nLearned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that the prosecution has
\ncome out with acceptable evidence through P.W.7, Head Constable, for getting the
\nright thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P-1,  as there was bleeding injury on her
\nleft thumb.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the
\ncounsel on the either side and also perused the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In the context of the above submissions of the learned counsel on
\neither side, the point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is that
\nwhether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The prosecution has proved their case that  deceased Chandran died due
\nto homicidal violence by examining P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted postmortem
\nover the dead body of the deceased and marking  Ex.P-7, postmortem certificate.
\nThe defence is also not disputing the fact that Chandran died due to homicidal
\nviolence.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The motive for the occurrence as projected by the prosecution is that
\nAccused No.2, who is the son-in-law of P.W.4 attempted to outrage her modesty on
\nseveral occasions prior to the date of occurrence and this was informed by P.W.4
\nto the deceased viz., her son and the deceased questioned Accused No.2 and
\nstabbed him with a knife and a case was pending against the deceased in respect
\nof that occurrence.  In retaliation, the Accused No.2 also beat the deceased and
\nanother criminal case was registered on the said incident. Accused No.2 informed
\nthe Inspector of Police, who investigated the case registered on the complaint
\nof the deceased, that he should not be held responsible, if the deceased was
\nmurdered within ten days from the said incident.  Therefore, there was enmity
\nbetween the deceased and Accused No.2.  This motive aspect of the case of the
\nprosecution is well established by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It is the case of the prosecution that due to prior enmity, at 11.00
\np.m. on 27.07.1993 when the deceased was sleeping on the pial of the house of
\nP.W.1, Accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased and Accused No.1 stabbed on the
\nchest and neck of the deceased and when P.W.1, by raising alarm, caught hold of
\nAccused No.1, Accused No.1 stabbed her on her left nose and dragged the knife
\nupto the right cheek and on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, P.W.3, who was
\nattending a village panchayat, rushed to the scene of occurrence and Accused
\nNo.1 also attacked him and thereafter both the accused ran away from the place
\nof occurrence.  This part of the prosecution case is supported by the evidence
\nof P.Ws.1 to 3 in one voice.  Nothing was suggested by the defence to demoralise
\ntheir evidence to the occurrence.  Their evidence is cogent, clear and
\ntrustworthy.  Further, the medical evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor who conducted
\npostmortem of the deceased coupled with Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate
\ncorroborates the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased died due to
\nthe injuries sustained by him.  Moreover, P.Ws.1 and 3 also sustained injuries
\nin the course of same transaction which stands proved by their evidence as well
\nas the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, the doctors who treated them.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. On the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1
\nis not the author of Ex.P1, we took pain to go through the original records and
\nwe find that it is only P.W.1 viz., Vellaiammal who had given the complaint and
\nher right thumb impression alone was obtained in Ex.P1 and therefore, this
\ncontention of the counsel fails.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The other contention of the counsel for the appellant that there is no
\nexplanation for obtaining the right thumb impression of P.W.1 in Ex.P1 is also
\nwithout any merit in view of the explanation given by P.W.7, the Head Constable,
\nwho registered the case that when P.W.1 appeared before him and narrated the
\nincident, he reduced it into writing and obtained her right thumb impression as
\nthere was a bleeding injury in the left thumb of P.W.1. This explanation given
\nby P.W.7 appears to be convincing.\n<\/p>\n
  \t17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has
\nestablished their case that Accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to murder the
\ndeceased attacked him when he was sleeping on the pial and when P.Ws.1 and 3
\ncame to the rescue of the deceased, Accused No.1 attacked both of them with the
\nsame knife.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial Court has
\nrightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the just and correct
\nconclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who are responsible for
\nthe crime and we see no reason at all to interfere with the well considered
\njudgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant\/Accused No.1 is
\ndismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. It
\nis reported that the appellant is on bail.  The bail bond executed  by the
\nappellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.  Learned Sessions Judge is directed to
\ntake steps to secure the presence of the appellant and send him to prison to
\nundergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
ATR\/gb<\/p>\n
Copies to<\/p>\n
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n    Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Inspector of Police,
\n    Narikkudi Police Station.<\/p>\n
\n\n3. The Public Prosecutor,\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,\n   Madurai.          \t\t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU Criminal Appeal No.262 of 1997 Ravi … Appellant vs. State by: Sub Inspector of Police, Narikkudi Police Station, Aruppukottai, Cr.No.123\/93 Kamarajar District. … […]<\/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-67224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - 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\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-16T19:25:32+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-16T19:25:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2787,\"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\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-16T19:25:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - 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\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-16T19:25:32+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-16T19:25:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006"},"wordCount":2787,"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\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006","name":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-16T19:25:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-by-on-18-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi vs State By: on 18 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/67224","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=67224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}