{"id":76346,"date":"2008-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-26T22:16:22","modified_gmt":"2015-12-26T16:46:22","slug":"murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:14\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD) NO.88 OF 2007\n\nMurugesan\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nState rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nWest Police Station,\nKumbakonam,\nThanjavur District.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n(Crime No.275\/2002)\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the\njudgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.214\nof 2003, dated 20.02.2004.\n\n!For Appellant  ...  Mr.R.Murugappan\n^For Respondent ...  Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, APP\n\n- - - -\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
\n\tThis appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions
\nJudge, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.214 of 2003, whereby the sole accused\/appellant
\nstood charged under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. On trial, he was found guilty
\nas per the charges and awarded with life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
\nRs.5000\/-, in default to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 7 years
\nR.I. under Section 506(ii) IPC. Hence, this appeal has arisen at the instance of
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be
\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the friend of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4
\nbelonged to the village of the deceased. On the date of occurrence, namely on
\n24.06.2002 at about 8.15 p.m., the deceased accompanied by this wife, P.W.1 and
\nothers were waiting in the Kumbakonam bus stand to go to their native place. The
\nmini bus bearing registration No.TN 49 V 5288 was in the bus stand. P.W.8 was
\nthe Driver and P.W.10 was the Conductor of the said mini bus. The deceased got
\ninto the said bus along with his wife. When he found the accused sitting on the
\nseat meant for women, he told him “why you are sitting in the seat allotted to
\nwomen”. There was a wordy altercation and there was also exchange of filthy
\nlanguage.  The accused took the knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on
\nhis abdomen. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 4. Immediately, the accused fled
\naway from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)P.Ws.1 and 2 took the severely injured to the Government Hospital,
\nKumbakonam, where P.W.15, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital,
\nKumbakonam gave first aid to him and he has issued Ex.P.16, the Accident
\nRegister. For further treatment, he was taken to the Thanjavur Medical College
\nHospital, where P.W.14, the Doctor has admitted him and gave treatment to him.
\nHe has issued Ex.P.15, the Accident Register.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)On intimation given from the hospital, P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice went over to the hospital, found the deceased unconscious and recorded
\nthe statement of P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.P.1. Then, he came to the police
\nstation and on the strength of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.275 of
\n2002 under Sections 324, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC. Ex.P.10, the F.I.R. was
\ndespatched to the court. Then, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and made
\nan inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.2, the
\nobservation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch. He recorded the statement of
\nthe witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\td)On 28.6.2002, the accused was arrested and was sent for judicial remand.
\nThe police received a message from the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital that
\nthe severely injured died on 29.06.2002 at 9.30 p.m. On receipt of the
\nintimation, the case was altered to Sections 294(b), 506(2) and 302 IPC.
\nEx.P.12, the amended F.I.R. was despatched to the court.\n<\/p>\n
\te)The investigation was further taken up by P.W.17, the Inspector of
\nPolice. He proceeded to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and conducted
\ninquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and
\npanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. The dead body of the
\ndeceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy along with the requisition.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)P.W.6, the Doctor attached to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, on
\nreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the
\ndeceased.  She has noted the external and internal injuries in Ex.P.3, the post-
\nmortem certificate, wherein she has also opined that the deceased would appear
\nto have died out of the injuries sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)The application for taking the accused into the police custody was made
\nby the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the police custody was ordered. The
\naccused voluntarily gave confessional statement, which was recorded in the
\npresence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.4.
\nPursuant to the confessional statement, the accused produced M.O.2, knife, which
\nwas recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. The
\naccused was again sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered
\nfrom the deceased and from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by the
\nForensic Science Department. Ex.P.21, the Chemical Analyst’s report, Ex.P.22 and
\nEx.P.23, the Serologist’s reports were received. On completion of the
\ninvestigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report before the
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
\nthe prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and 2 M.Os.
\nOn completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was
\nquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found
\nin the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No
\ndefence witness was examined. After considering the submissions made and looking
\ninto the materials available, the trial court took the view that the prosecution
\nhas proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, this appeal has arisen
\nbefore this court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel has
\nmade the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)The occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on
\n24.6.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. in a mini bus parked in the Central Bus stand,
\nKumbakonam, in which P.W.8 was the Driver and P.W.10 was the Conductor. Four
\neyewitnesses have been examined by the prosecution, out of them P.W.1 was the
\nwife and P.W.2 was the friend of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 belonged to the
\nvillage of the deceased. Thus, they are interested witnesses. The first strong
\ncircumstance against the case of prosecution was that all the Doctors, who
\nexamined medically and treated the deceased from 24.06.2002 to 29.06.2002, have
\ncategorically spoken to the fact that he was conscious, but his statement was
\nnever recorded by any police officer. On the contrary, the statement of P.W.1
\nwas recorded and they have proceeded with the investigation. On the death of the
\ndeceased, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC and hence, the non examination
\nof the deceased would cast a doubt on the prosecution case. If really he was
\nunder serious condition, they would have informed to the Judicial Magistrate
\nconcerned and recorded the dying declaration, but not done so.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Secondly, when the statements of P.Ws.1,2 and others were recorded under
\nSection 161 Cr.P.C. and when they were examined before the court, they have
\ncategorically mentioned that the accused was already known to them. But, in the
\naccident registers issued by the Doctors pertaining to the deceased, it is found
\nthat he was attacked by a unknown person. Thus, it casts a doubt whether those
\nwitnesses could have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)In the instant case, originally, the case was registered under Sections
\n324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded from the
\nwitnesses reached the court only in the month of October, 2002. The additional
\nstatements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after the case
\nwas altered to Section 302 IPC, reached the court in the month of July, 2002.
\nThus, this would cast a doubt as to whether those statements have come into
\nexistence as put forth by the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for
\nacquittal, but not done so by the lower court.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Even assuming that the accused has actually stabbed the deceased and
\ncaused injury, it was due to a wordy quarrel between the accused and the
\ndeceased in the mini bus. Secondly, the occurrence has taken place on 24.6.2002.
\nHe was taken to the hospital and he died on 29.06.2002, i.e. after a period of 5
\ndays. Thus, this would indicate that when he stabbed the deceased, he has no
\nintention to cause death or to cause such injuries that will cause death. Hence,
\nthis legal aspect of the matter has got to be considered by the court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. It
\nis not the fact in controversy that one Kamaraj, the husband of P.W.1, following
\nthe incident in the parked mini bus at Kumbakonam Central bus stand at about
\n8.15 p.m. on 24.6.2002, was taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam and
\nthereafter, he was taken to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and he died
\non 29.06.2002, despite treatment given to him. Following the inquest made by the
\nInvestigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.6, the
\nDoctor, who has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein she has
\nopined that the deceased would appear to have died out of the injuries
\nsustained. Thus, there was ample evidence produced by the prosecution that he
\ndied out of homicidal violence. The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal
\nviolence was never questioned by the appellant\/accused before the court below.
\nHence, without any impediment whatsoever, it could be recorded so factually.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.In order to substantiate the charged levelled against the
\nappellant\/accused, the prosecution marched four witnesses, as eyewitnesses. It
\nis true, P.W.1 was the wife, P.W.2 was the friend of the deceased and P.Ws.3 and
\n4 belonged to the village of the deceased. But, that cannot be a reason to
\nreject their testimony, since the court is unable to see any strong circumstance
\nor reason to reject the same. Further, their evidence is found to be in one
\nvoice and they have clearly narrated as to how the incident has taken place and
\nas to how the accused happened to attack the deceased. Their evidence is fully
\ncorroborated by the evidence of P.W.15, the Doctor attached to the Government
\nHospital, Kumbakonam, who has examined the deceased medically and has issued
\nEx.P.16, the Accident Register. The ocular testimony is also fully corroborated
\nby the evidence of P.W.14, the Doctor attached to the Thanjavur Medical College
\nHospital, who has also issued Ex.P.15, the Accident Register. This would go to
\nshow that the testimony given by those witnesses stood fully corroborated by the
\nmedical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Yet another circumstance is the recovery of the weapon of crime pursuant
\nto the confessional statement given by the accused while he was in police
\ncustody and witnesses have been examined to that effect. All put together would
\ngo to show that it was the accused, who stabbed the deceased and caused severe
\ninjury and as a direct consequence, he died.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is
\nthat in the accident registers issued by the respective Doctors, it is stated
\nthat one unknown person has attacked the deceased. But, in the statements
\nrecorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also during evidence before the court, the
\nwitnesses have stated that he was the known person. At this juncture, it is
\npertinent to point out that in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has categorically mentioned the
\nidentity of the accused. It is not the case of the defence throughout the trial
\nthat he was not available in the bus either, or he did not commit the offence at
\nall. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. The evidence  of the
\nwitnesses would point to the complicity of the offender.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The other contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
\nthat originally, the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer reached
\nthe court in the month of October, 2002, but the further statements recorded by
\nthe Investigating Officer reached the court in the month of July, 2002. The
\ncourt is of the considered opinion that though this comment is found to be true,
\nit will not take the truth of the prosecution case. Originally, the case was
\nregistered under Section 324 IPC and other provisions and subsequently, it was
\naltered to Section 302 IPC and other provisions. After the case was altered to
\nSection 302 IPC, additional statements of the witnesses were recorded and they
\nwere sent to the court within a short time. Thus, this would not cast a doubt on
\nthe prosecution case. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant in that regard has got to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.So far as the second line of argument is concerned, the court is able
\nto see sufficient force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there was a wordy altercation
\nbetween the deceased and the accused, since the accused was sitting in the seat,
\nwhich was allotted to women. Hence, due to provocation, the accused has acted
\nso. Further, there was single stab given. The deceased was taken to the hospital
\nand he died after 5 days. All would be indicative of the fact that he had no
\nintention to cause death, but as a direct consequence of the attack, the death
\nwas ensued. Under these circumstances, the act of the accused cannot be termed
\nas murder, but it would be one culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence,
\nthe act of the accused would attract the penal provisions of Section 304(II) IPC
\nand awarding punishment of 5 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice.
\nLikewise, there is evidence to show that the accused threatened the witnesses
\nand therefore, his conviction under Section 506(2) IPC has got to be confirmed.
\nBut, at the same time, the sentence of 7 years R.I. imposed on him for the said
\noffence, in the opinion of the court, has got to be reduced to one year R.I.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under
\nSection 302 IPC are modified to one under Section 304(II) and he is directed to
\nsuffer 5 years R.I. and while confirming the conviction imposed under Section
\n506(2) IPC, the sentence alone is reduced to one year R.I. Both the sentences
\nare directed to run concurrently.  The sentence already undergone by the
\nappellant is ordered to be given set off. The fine amount imposed under Section
\n302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount imposed under Section 304(II) IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal
\nappeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Inspector of Police,
\n  West Police Station,
\n  Kumbakonam,
\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n  Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD) NO.88 OF 2007 Murugesan .. Appellant Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.275\/2002) […]<\/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-76346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-26T16:46:22+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-26T16:46:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2455,\"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\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-26T16:46:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-26T16:46:22+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-26T16:46:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008"},"wordCount":2455,"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\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008","name":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-26T16:46:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugesan vs State Rep. By on 14 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76346","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=76346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}