{"id":81400,"date":"2006-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-11-22T10:05:31","modified_gmt":"2016-11-22T04:35:31","slug":"thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 03\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\t\t\t\t\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1648 of 2002\n\n\n\nThangaraj\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\t\t\t\t\n\nvs.\n\n\nState, rep. by\t\t\t\t\nInspector of Police,\nColachel Circle,\nPudukadai Police Station,\nCr.No.8 of 1986,\nKanyakumari District.\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,\nKanyakumari District at Nagercoil, dated 11.06.2002 in Sessions Case No.73 of\n1986.\t\n\n\n!For Appellant\t   \t...\tMr.T.R.Subramanian\n\n\n^For Respondent     \t...\tMr.K.Radhakrishnan,\n\t\t\t     \tAdditional Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant calls in question the legality  of the judgment dated
\n11.06.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No.73 of 1986 on the file of Principal
\nSessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, whereunder the appellant, who
\nwas the sole accused, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
\n324 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with
\na fine of Rs.500\/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months
\nunder Section 324 I.P.C. and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000\/- in
\ndefault to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The charge against the appellant is that on 14.01.1986 at about 1.00
\np.m. at Ananthamangalam, he cut P.W.1 on her left shoulder with palai aruval
\n(M.O.1) and caused injury, which act is punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and
\nin the course of the same transaction, with an intention to cause the death of
\nthe deceased, he cut her on the right side of her neck with palai aruval (M.O.1)
\nand caused her death, which act is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.1. Background facts are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1, Kamalam and P.W.2, Rajakumari are the mother and younger sister of
\nthe deceased in this case viz., Selvi, respectively.  The deceased family and
\nappellant were residing in the same village, viz., Ananthamangalam.  The
\nappellant was a drunkard and womaniser.  Ten days prior to the occurrence, the
\nappellant beat his wife and she left the house.  On 14.01.1986 at about 1.00
\np.m. the appellant spoke with the deceased with a bad intention.   On hearing
\nthe same, P.W.1 questioned the appellant as to why he was speaking so with the
\nladies when there were no male members in the house.  P.W.1 informed about the
\nbehaviour of the appellant to the neighbours.  Immediately thereafter, the
\nappellant, with M.O.1, palai aruval, standing in front of the house of one
\nMuthiah shouted at the womenfolk with obscene words.  By shouting at P.W.1 also
\nwith obscene words, cut her on her left shoulder with M.O.1, palai aruval.
\nWhile the deceased questioned the same, the appellant cut the deceased on her
\nneck and caused her death.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.2. When P.W.2 came to the scene of occurrence,  the appellant tried to
\nassault her, but she escaped and hid inside the house.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.3. P.W.3, Saraswathi, a neighbour, also saw the occurrence.  The
\nappellant ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon.
\n\t 3.4. P.W.1 went to Kulithurai Police Station at 2.00 p.m. on the same day
\nviz., 14.01.1986 and gave a statement to P.W.9, Sub Inspector of Police, who
\nreduced it into writing.  Ex.P1 is the said statement.  P.W.9 registered a case
\nin Crime No.8 of 1986 under Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P11,
\nprinted first information report and forwarded the same to the jurisdictional
\nMagistrate.  He sent P.W.1 to the hospital with a medical memo.
\n\t3.5. On receipt of wireless message from P.W.9, P.W.11, Inspector of
\nPolice, Eraniel Police Station and also in-charge of Colachel Circle, went to
\nthe scene of occurrence at 3.30 p.m. on 14.01.1986.  He prepared, Ex.P2,
\nobservation mahazar and Ex.P.13, rough sketch, in the presence of P.W.4 and
\nanother.  He caused the photographs of the body of the deceased to be taken
\nthrough P.W.10, photographer.  Ex.P12 series are the photos and their negatives.
\nIn the presence of the same witnesses, P.W.11 recovered bloodstained earth
\n(M.O.8) and sample earth (M.O.9) under Ex.P3, mahazar attested by the same
\nwitnesses.  He also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased from 4.15
\np.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 14.01.1986, in the presence of panchayatars and prepared
\nEx.P14, inquest report.  Thereafter, the body was sent through a Police
\nConstable for postmortem with Ex.P9, requisition to conduct postmortem.  He
\nexamined the witnesses and recorded their statements.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.6. In the meanwhile, P.W.7, Dr.Kutralingam, Chief Medical Officer,
\nGovernment Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil, treated P.W.1 at 4.45 p.m. on
\n14.01.1986 and found an incised wound over posterior aspect of upper 1\/3 left
\narm.  He issued Ex.P8, wound certificate, with an opinion that the said injury
\nis simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.7. P.W.11 went to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, at 10.00 p.m. on
\n14.01.1986 and examined P.W.1 and recovered bloodstained clothes (M.Os.2 and 3)
\nunder a mahazar, Ex.P15, in the presence of witnesses.
\n\t3.8. P.W.8, Doctor Rani Enoch, Civil Surgeon attached to Government
\nHospital, Kuzhithurai, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased at 11.40
\na.m. on 15.01.1986.  As per the postmortem certificate, Ex.P10, there was an
\nincised slightly oblique transverse wound of about 7″ x 2″ x 4″ tapping at both
\nends on the right side of the neck starting from 2″ lateral to mandible 2″ below
\nthe right ear running backwards upto 2″ left to the mid line at the back atlanto
\noccipital joint completely broken transversely and spinal cord cut transversely
\ninto two and all blood vessels and muscles underneath cut. P.W.8 opined that the
\ndeath would have caused due to complete separation of spinal cord transversely
\nat the atlanto occipital region.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.9. P.W.11 recovered personal apparels (M.Os.4 to 7) found on the body of
\nthe deceased under Form 95 produced by the constable, who was present at the
\ntime of post-mortem. P.W.11 arrested the appellant on 15.01.1986 at 4.00 p.m. at
\nAmsi on Thengapattanam Road.  The appellant voluntarily gave a confession
\nstatement in the presence of P.W.5 and another.  Ex.P4 is the admissible portion
\nof the statement, pursuant to which, a palai aruval (M.O.1)  was recovered under
\na mahazar, Ex.P5, attested by the same witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.10. As the appellant was found with injuries on his person, P.W.11 sent
\nhim to the hospital for treatment on 16.01.1986.  Dr.Kumaran, Assistant Surgeon,
\nGovernment Dispensary, Thengapattanam, attended the appellant and found an
\nirregular small contused abrasion over the upper and outer quadrant of the
\noccipital bone on the scalp on the left side.  The said Doctor issued an
\naccident register, Ex.P16. The injuries noted on the appellant are simple in
\nnature according to Dr.Kumaran, who was, of course, not examined.
\n\t3.11. P.W.11 thereafter remanded the appellant to judicial custody.
\nP.W.11 has given a requisition (Ex.P6) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nNagercoil, for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the appellant.
\n\t3.12. P.W.6, Thiru.Jayakumaran, Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, recorded a
\njudicial confession statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the appellant after
\nfollowing the requirements of Section 164 Cr.P.C.  The said judicial confession
\nstatement is Ex.P7.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.13. On 18.01.1986, P.W.11 sent material objects with a requisition,
\nEx.P17, to the Court to subject them for chemical analysis and the same were
\nsent to the laboratory under covering letters Exs.P18 and P19.  Chemical
\nAnalyst’s Report, Ex.P20 and Serologist’s Report, Ex.P21, were received from the
\nlaboratory.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.14. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, Colachel Circle, took up further
\ninvestigation and filed the charge sheet against the appellant under Sections
\n324 and 302 I.P.C. on 29.4.86.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.1. Before the Sessions Court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12
\nwere examined as witnesses and Exhibits P1 to P21 and material objects M.Os.1 to
\n9 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.2. The appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of
\nthe incriminating circumstances appearing against him, but his defence was a
\ncomplete denial.  The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any
\ndocument on his side.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on
\nrecord, the learned  Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as
\nreferred to earlier.  Hence, the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced his argument only for
\nmodification of the conviction and sentence.  Elaborating his contention,
\nrelying on the judicial confession statement of the appellant\/accused, Ex.P7,
\nrecorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by P.W.6, Judicial Magistrate, the learned
\ncounsel submits that the appellant, who was in a drunken mood,  attacked the
\ndeceased in a sudden quarrel that took place between him and P.W.1 and when the
\ndeceased intervened, he, in the heat of passion and at the spur of the moment,
\nnot liking the intervention of the deceased, attacked the deceased, which
\nresulted in her death and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
\nException 4 to Section 300 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 \t7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
\nprosecution has  proved its case with the overwhelming evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.
\nFurther, there is no quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and
\ntherefore, the question that the act of the appellant would attract Exception 4
\nto Section 300 I.P.C. does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both
\nsides in the light of the evidence available on record and the materials placed
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Since the learned counsel for the appellant is not seriously disputing
\nthe presence of P.W.1, mother of the deceased and also the injured eye witness,
\nas well as the presence of P.W.2, sister of the deceased and P.W.3, a neighbour,
\nwhose evidence corroborates with each other as to the entire scene of
\noccurrence, and the participation of the appellant and his overt act in the
\ncommission of offence, the only point which remains for our consideration is
\nwhether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300
\nI.P.C., as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant and consequently,
\nwhether the appellant is entitled to any modification of conviction and sentence
\nimposed on him, as pleaded on behalf of the appellant, referred to earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. It is not in dispute that one Selvi, aged about 21 years, was done to
\ndeath.  The prosecution has proved its case that the deceased died due to
\nhomicidal violence through the evidence of P.W.8, coupled with Ex.P-10
\npostmortem certificate.  Further, it is the categorical evidence of P.W.1, the
\ninjured eye-witness and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are also eye-witnesses
\nto the occurrence, that the appellant after attacking P.W.1 with M.O.1, palai
\naruval and causing injury on her, attacked the deceased with the same weapon and
\ncaused her death.  However, the defence taken by the appellant is that he
\nattacked the deceased in a sudden quarrel when he was in the drunken mood.
\nTherefore, it is clear that it is the appellant who attacked the deceased, which
\nlater proved to be fatal.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.1.  The core contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are:\n<\/p>\n
(i) that the appellant was in a drunken mood;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) that he attacked the deceased in a sudden quarrel that took place between
\nP.W.1 and   himself;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) that he attacked the deceased in the heat of passion and at the spur of
\nthe moment, when the deceased intervened;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) assuming he has the knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the deceased
\nwith a deadly weapon would cause her death, he had no intention to cause the
\ndeath nor to inflict such injuries that would cause the death and hence, the
\nappellant is entitled to the benefit of Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC; and\n<\/p>\n
(v) in any event, the conviction of the    appellant and the consequent sentence
\nimposed on him is entitled to be altered to one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.2.  We are unable to appreciate either of the above contentions in view
\nof the settled law on the point, with regard to the award of benefit of Fourth
\nException of Section 300 I.P.C., by the Supreme Court in DHIRAJBHAI GORAKHBHAI
\nNAYAK v. STATE OF GUJARAT<\/a> [(2003) 9 SCC 322], which we respectfully reiterate as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
” 11. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden
\nfight.  The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the
\nfirst exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate.  The
\nException is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of
\npremeditation.  But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation
\nof self=control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion
\nwhich clouds men’s sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not
\notherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the
\ninjury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation.  In fact,
\nException 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been
\nstruck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever
\nway the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties
\nputs them in respect of guilt upon an equal footing.  A “sudden fight” implies
\nmutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then
\nclearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor could in such cases the
\nwhole blame be placed on one side.  For if it were so, the Exception more
\nappropriately applicable would be Exception 1.  There is no previous
\ndeliberation or determination to fight.  A fight suddenly takes place, for which
\nboth parties are more or less to be blamed.  It may be that one of them starts
\nit, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have
\ntaken the serious turn it did.  There is then mutual provocation and
\naggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches
\nto each fighter.  The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a)
\nwithout premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c)  without the offenders having
\ntaken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight
\nmust have been with the person killed.  To bring a case within Exception 4 all
\nthe ingredients mentioned in it must be found.  It is to be noted that the
\n“fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It
\ntakes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time
\nfor the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked
\nthemselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning.  A
\nfight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons.
\nIt is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to
\nbe a sudden quarrel.  It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden
\nor not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the
\napplication of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden
\nquarrel and there was no premeditation.  It must further be shown that the
\noffender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
\nThe expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair
\nadvantage”.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.3. The above said ratio has also been followed in SACHCHEY LAL TIWARI
\nv. STATE OF U.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 410], whereunder the Supreme Court has further
\nheld that for bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to
\nbe established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden
\nfight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having
\ntaken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
\n\t11.4. Again, the Apex Court in BABULAL BHAGWAN KHANDARE  v.  STATE OF
\nMAHARASHTRA<\/a> [(2005) 10 SCC 404], while dealing with the benefit of fourth
\nexception of Section 300 I.P.C., has held as follows:-
\n“19. Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual
\nmanner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or
\nthe manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that
\ncircumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage
\nhas been taken. In Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan1 it was held that if the
\naccused used deadly weapons against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the
\nhead it must be held that by using the blows with the knowledge that they were
\nlikely to cause death he had taken undue advantage.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.5. In the light of the above mentioned legal principles, let us now
\nanalyse the evidence on record:\n<\/p>\n
(i) In the instant case, it cannot be said that there is no premeditation,
\nbecause there was a quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellant, ten days prior to
\nthe occurrence, when P.W.1 questioned the appellant about his bad intention
\nwhile talking with the deceased, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3.   As P.W.1
\ninformed about the bad conduct of the appellant to neighbours, the appellant
\ndecided to do away P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) When the appellant came with a bad intention in order to outrage the
\nmodesty of the deceased, ten days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 has got every
\njustification to object to the conduct of the appellant by complaining it to the
\nneighbours and to oppose the visit of the appellant to her house and that of the
\ndeceased, when there were no male members in the house.  It is, therefore, clear
\nthat neither P.W.1 nor the deceased were the aggressors, but the appellant
\nhimself was the aggressor.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) On the occurrence day, when the appellant attacked P.W.1, the deceased
\nintervened.  By saying ‘you also die’, the appellant cut the deceased with a
\npalai aruval (M.O.1) (measuring 1 foot iron portion).\n<\/p>\n
(iv) There was no fight between the deceased and the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The appellant, taking undue advantage of the situation, had attacked the
\ndeceased, who is a girl aged about 21 years at the time occurrence, with a
\ndeadly weapon  namely M.O.1, palai aruval, in a cruel manner.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) It is to be noted at this stage that in the Indian setting, any attempt to
\noutrage the modesty of woman, either by words or by deeds, is considered to be
\ndehumanising and an act of unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and
\nsanctity of a female.  The want of physical injury is immaterial, as the
\ndignity, honour and reputation of the gender is at stake.  It is for this
\nreason, P.W.1 had rightly objected the conduct of the appellant visiting the
\nhouse of the deceased with bad intention to outrage the modesty of the deceased
\nwhen there were no male members in the house.  That apart, the accused also used
\nobscene words against the deceased as well as P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) In any event, it is apt to refer the nature of injury as found in Ex.P-10,
\npostmortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
“… incised slightly oblique transverse wound of about 7″ x 2″ x 4″ tapping at
\nboth ends on the right side of the neck starting from 2″ lateral to mandible 2″
\nbelow the right ear running backwards upto 2″ left to the mid line at the back
\natlanto occipital joint completely broken transversely and spinal card cut
\ntransversely into two and all blood vessels and muscles underneath cut ….”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.6. If the factual background of the case established by the materials
\non record is tested with the legal principles indicated, the irresistible
\nconclusion is that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Exception 4
\nto Section 300 IPC, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Resultantly, finding no reason to interfere with the well considered
\njudgment of the trial Court, we sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on
\nthe appellant.  Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ATR<\/p>\n
Copies to:\n<\/p>\n
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
\n   Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Inspector of Police,
\n   Colachel Circle,
\n   Pudukadai Police Station,
\n   Kanyakumari District.<\/p>\n
\n3. The Public Prosecutor,\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,\n   Madurai.          \t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2002 Thangaraj .. Appellant vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Colachel Circle, Pudukadai Police Station, Cr.No.8 of 1986, Kanyakumari […]<\/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-81400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThangaraj vs State on 3 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\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-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=\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-22T04:35:31+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T04:35:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3269,\"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\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T04:35:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thangaraj vs State on 3 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":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 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\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-22T04:35:31+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T04:35:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006"},"wordCount":3269,"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\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006","name":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T04:35:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangaraj-vs-state-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thangaraj vs State on 3 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\/81400","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=81400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}