{"id":86719,"date":"1997-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2"},"modified":"2017-09-28T14:59:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-28T09:29:03","slug":"g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","title":{"rendered":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S Kurdukar<\/div>\n
Bench: M. M. Punchhi, S. P. Kurdukar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nG. SELVARAJ, M. SUSEELA ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/09\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nM. M. PUNCHHI, S. P. KURDUKAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
M. Suseela etc.
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao
\nS. Muralidhar, Adv. for the appellants
\nV.G. Pragasam, Adv. for the Respondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
M. Suseela
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 502 OF 1994
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.P. KURDUKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     For committing the murder of Seethalakshmi, her husband
\nSelvaraj (A-1) and Suseela (A-2) – the wife of elder brother
\nof A-1\twere out  up for  trial for  the offences punishable
\nunder Section  302\/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.\t The
\nSessions  Court.   West\t Thanjavur  at\tThanjavur  vide\t its
\njudgment dated\tMarch 23,  1987 convicted  both the  accused
\nunder Section  302\/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced both of them
\nto  suffer   life  imprisonment\t  and  RI  for\tthree  years
\nrespectively.  Two separate appeals were filed by A-1 and A-
\n2 in  the High Court of Judicature at Madras and on scrutiny
\nof the\toral and  documentary evidence\ton record,  the High
\nCourt by  its common  judgment dated July 22, 1993 dismissed
\nthe same.  It is against this judgment of the High Court, A-
\n1 and  A-2 by Special Leave have filed two separate Criminal
\nAppeals Nos.  502 of  1994 and\t501 of\t1994 respectively to
\nthis Court.   Since both these appeals arise out of a common
\njudgment, they are being disposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A\tmarriage   between  A-1\t  and  Seethalakshmi  (since
\ndeceased) which\t took place  on or  about October,  1984 was
\nproved to be unhappy within a short time.  The elder brother
\nof A-12,  A-2 and  her two  minor children and Seethalakshmi
\nwere staying  in one  room tenement  at village Ariyathidal,
\nTaluka\tKumbakonam  in\tThanjavur  district.\tA-1  at\t the
\nrelevant time  was doing the work of rickshaw puller and was
\nearning his  livelihood.   It was alleged by the prosecution
\nthat within  ten days  of marriage,  A-1 sold  away the gold
\nring presented\tto him\tat the\ttime  of  wedding  and\tsoon
\nthereafter, he also disposed of all jewellery items given to
\nSeethalakshmi  during  her  marriage.\t On  query  made  by
\nSeethalakshmi about her jewellery items, A-1 got annoyed and
\nbeat her  with the  belt.  It appears that on a complaint by
\nSeethalakshmi to  the  Gram  Panchayat\tin  respect  of\t ill
\ntreatment meted\t out to her, a meeting was held ad a fine of
\nRs.15\/- was  impose on A-1, Seethalakshmi also suspected the
\nconduct of A-1 as it was rumoured that he was having illicit
\nrelations with\tA-2.   Being fed  up with  this\t atmosphere,
\nSeethalakshmi came  to her parents house.  Vijayalakshmi (PW\n<\/p>\n
1) and Thyagarajan (PW 3), parents of Seethalakshmi consoled
\nher and sent her back to the house of A-1 with an advice not
\nto get\tdepressed by  such incidents and things would be set
\nright in  due  course.\t  It  was  further  alleged  by\t the
\nprosecution that  a week  prior to  the\t date  of  incident,
\nSeethalakshmi along with A-1, his brother Subramaniam and A-
\n2 came to the house of parents of Seethalakshmi to celebrate
\na local\t festival called  “Thali”(the sacred  thread tied on
\nthe brides neck at the time of marriage).  At that time, A-1
\ninsisted that  his mother-in-law  should give  money on this
\noccasion.   Due to  financial constraints, Vijayalakshmi (PW\n<\/p>\n
1) could  not meet  the said  demand which  according to the
\nprosecution widened  the strained  relations further between
\nthe  couple.\tSeethalakshmi  thereafter  returned  to\t her
\nmatrimonial house  but within  a week her parents received a
\nmessage that  A-1 was  always quarreling  with her  for\t not
\nsatisfying his demand.\tSeethalakshmi during her stay at her
\nparents house  complained to  them that A-1 was ill treating
\nher for\t money and  causing a lot of harassment to her.\t The
\nquarrels between  Seethalakshmi, A-1  and A-2  were known to
\nthe persons residing in the adjacent houses.  Shanmugham (PW\n<\/p>\n
3) and\this wife  Pushpavalli (PW 4) were the neighbours and
\nwere residing on the backside of the house of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Prosecution then  alleged that  on 11th April. 1985, at
\nabout 11.00  a.m., A-1\tand A-2\t picked up  a  quarrel\twith
\nSeethalakshmi.\tShanmugham (PW 3) went and inquired with A-1
\nand A-2 as to what the matter was and thereafter he left for
\nKumbakonam.  Pushpavalli (PW 4), a house wife also heard the
\nquarrels between  Seethalakshmi, A-1 and A-2, At about 12.00
\nnoon, Krishnamurthi  (PW 6),  a close  relative came to meet
\nSeethalakshmi and  on inquiry  with the accused, he was told
\nthat she  had gone  to Kumbakonam.  Soon thereafter, A-1 and
\nA-2 left on a bicycle.\tShanmugham (PW 3) at about 1.30 p.m.
\nreturned to  his house\tand at\tthat time, A-1 told him that
\nSeethalakshmi committed\t a suicide  and her body was hanging
\nto the\tceiling.  A-1 requested to help him in lowering down
\nthe dead body but he refused to do so.\tOn 11th April, 1985,
\nat  about  8.00\t p.m.,\tA-1  lodged  the  FIR  stating\tthat
\nSeethalakshmi  had   committed\ta  suicide.    A  crime\t was
\naccordingly registered\tunder Section  174 of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\t On 12th April, 1985 at about 4.00 a.m., the
\nFirst Information Report was received from Sub Inspector Mr.
\nRosario (PW  10), who  then went to the spot immediately and
\nheld  the   inquest  on\t  the  dead   body.  He\t seized\t the
\nincriminating articles\twhich were  found in  the room.\t The
\ndead body  was sent to the Govt.  Hospital at Kumbakonam for
\npost-mortem.   After completing\t the investigation, both the
\naccused\t came\tto  be\t charge\t sheeted  for  the  offences
\npunishable under  Sections 302\/34  and 201  IPC.   Both\t the
\naccused were arrested on 28th April, 1985 at Swami Malai bus
\nstand.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Both  the\t accused  denied  the  allegations  levelled
\nagainst them and according to them, they were not present at
\nthe time  of alleged incident.\tAccording to them, when they
\nreturned home  late in the afternoon, they saw the dead body
\nof Seethalakshmi  hanging and  therefore, A-1  went  to\t the
\npolice Station\tand lodged  the\t First\tInformation  Report.
\nThey have  been falsely implicated in the present crime and,
\ntherefore, they be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The   prosecution\t case\tentirely   rested   on\t the
\ncircumstantial evidence\t and in\t order to prove the same, it
\nexamined s  many as  15 witnesses  of whom Sunder Raj (PW 5)
\nturned hostile.\t  Prosecution  also produced and relied upon
\nthe post  mortem examination  report and  the piece of cloth
\nand a  nylon saree  (MOs 1  and 2)  which were\tseized under
\nseizure panchanama from the place of incident.\n<\/p>\n
6.   A serious\tchallenge to the finding of the courts below
\nthat seethalakshmi  died a  homicidal death  was made before
\nus.   According to  the learned\t counsel for the appellants,
\nSeethalakshmi had committed suicide and the medical evidence
\neon record also supports the theory of suicide propounded by
\nthe accused.  We will deal with this issue little later.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Coming to\tthe first circumstance, namely, the marriage
\nbetween\t  Seethalakshmi and A-1 was a totally unhappy affair
\nis  proved  by\tVijaylakshmi  (PW  1),\tTyagarajan  (PW\t 2),
\nShanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4).  Vijayalakshmi (PW\n<\/p>\n
1) and\tThyagarajan (PW\t 2) are the parents of Seethalakshmi
\nwho had\t stated that  within ten  days of the marriage.\t A-1
\nhad  started   disposing   of\tthe   ornaments\t  given\t  to
\nSeethalakshmi and  on resistance  by her,  A-1 used  to beat
\nher.   They further  deposed that  at the  time\t of  “Thali”
\nceremony,  A-1\t demanded  money   but\tdue   to   financial
\nconstraints, they  could not meet the said demand.  Whenever
\nSeethalakshmi used  to come  to their  house,  she  used  to
\nnarrate various\t painful incidents including beating and use
\nof abusive language by A-1, For no rhyme or reason, A-1 used
\nto pick\t up quarrels  with Seethalakshmi.   This evidence of
\nVijayalakshmi (PW  1) and Thyagarajan (PW 2) was accepted by
\nthe  courts   below  and   despite  strenuous  efforts,\t Mr.
\nMurlidhar, learned counsel was unable to persuade us to hold
\ncontract.   The evidence  of the  parents stood corroborated
\nfrom the testimony of two neighbours, namely, Shanmugham (PW\n<\/p>\n
3) and\tPushpavalli (PW\t 4).  They testified that there used
\nto be  often quarrels  between Seethalakshmi on one hand and
\nA-1 A-2\t on the\t other.\t After going through the evidence of
\nthese witnesses,  we have no manner of doubt that there used
\nto be  quarrels in  the house  of A-1  and Seethalakshmi was
\nrequired to  face the  ill treatment meted out to her by the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The next  circumstance relied  upon by  the prosecution
\nwas that  A-1 had  every opportunity  to commit the crime in
\nquestion as  she was  staying in the house of A-1 along with
\nA-2, her  husband and  two children.   On the fateful day of
\noccurrence, viz.,  11th of April, 1985, at about 11.00 a.m.,
\nShanmugham (PW\t3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4) heard the noise of
\nquarrel from  the house of A-1.\t Shanmugham (PW 3) when went
\nto inquire  from the inmates of the house of A-1, he was not
\ngiven proper  reply and\t it is his positive evidence that at
\nthat time,  A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and Seethalakshmi on
\nthe other  were quarreling.\tHe then left for Kumbakonam.
\nPushpavalli (PW 4) who was in her house came out and saw the
\nquarrels between  Seethalakshmi on  one hand and A-1 and A-2
\non the other.  She then returned to her house.\tAt about the
\nsame time, Krishnamurthi (PW 6) who happened to be the close
\nrelative of  Seethalakshmi came\t to  the  house\t of  A-1  to
\nenquire about  her and\the was\ttold that  she had  left for
\nKumbakonam.  Sometime thereafter, Pushpavalli (PW 4) saw A-1
\nand A-2 going on a bicycle.  On careful consideration of the
\nevidence of these witnesses, the courts below found the same
\nas trustworthy\tand accordingly reached a conclusion that on
\n11th April,  1985 at  about noon  time, quarrel was going on
\nbetween Seethalakshmi  on one  hand and\t A-1 and  A-2 on the
\nother and  soon thereafter both the accused left on bicycle.
\nWe have\t perused the  evidence of these witnesses and we see
\nno reason to upset the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The next  vital circumstance  is that Shanmugham (PW 3)
\nand Pushpavalli\t (PW 4)\t saw Seethalakshmi  alive  at  about
\n11.00 or  11.30 a.m. in the company of A-1 and A-2 when they
\nwere quarreling.   Within  two hours  when Shanmugham (PW 3)
\nreturned from  Kumbakonam at  about 1.30  p.m., A-1 told him
\nthat  Seethalakshmi   has  committed  a\t suicide.    It\t is,
\ntherefore, clear  that Seethalakshmi died during this period
\nof two hours.  Shanmugham (PW 3) then testified that A-1 met
\nhim near  his house  and he  requested him  to help  him  in
\nlowering down  the dead\t body but,  however, he\t refused  to
\noblige him.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Now what  we are  required to consider is whether death
\nof Seethalakshmi was homicidal or suicidal?  In this behalf,
\na very\tcrucial circumstance pressed into service and proved
\nby the\tprosecution was\t hat Seethalakshmi was seen alive in
\nthe company  of A-1  and A-2  and within  two hours, she was
\nfound dead.   A-1 and A-2 therefore, were expected to give a
\nreasonable explanation\tas to  how Seethalakshmi died.\tThey
\nhowever pleaded\t alibi and  feigned  ignorance\tas  to\twhat
\nhappened in the afternoon.  The only explanation given by A-
\n1 and  A-2 was\tthat when they came home;  they saw the dead
\nbody of\t Seethalakshmi hanging to the rafter of the ceiling.
\nA very\tcrucial point that needs to be considered is whether
\nthe plea of suicide could fit in the facts and circumstances
\nof this\t case.\t the height  of the roof and rafter from the
\nfloor as  12′. A  kerosense tin was seized from the place of
\noccurrence but\tthe height  of it  could not be more than 2.
\nHaving regard  to these\t circumstances, it  appears to us an
\nalmost a  difficult task  for Seethalakshmi  to tie  a nylon
\nsaree to the rafter in the ceiling at such a height and then
\nhang herself.\tIn  view of these circumstances, we rule out
\nthe probability of Seethalakshmi committing a suicide.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The next  circumstance relied  upon by  the prosecution
\nwas the\t disappearance of  A-1 and  A-2 who were arrested on
\n28th April,  1985 at  the bus  stand.\tAlthough,  both\t the
\naccused had  denied that  they were not in the town but this
\ndenial has no meaning and was rightly rejected by the courts
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The next  circumstance relied  upon by  the prosecution
\nwas the\t medical evidence  of Dr.  Swaranlata (PW 9) and the
\npost mortem  examination report\t to establish  that death of
\nSeethalakshmi was  a homicidal.\t  Dr. Swaranlata (PW 9) held
\nthe  post   mortem\texamination  on\t the  dead  body  of
\nSeethalakshmi and  report is  Ex.P-4.  She testified that on
\nboth sides  of the  front region  of the  neck, several nail
\nscratch marks  were seen.   A contusion of about 4′ x 3′ was
\nseen below  the jaw  which was\ton the hyoid bone.  The said
\ninjury, however, did not extend sideward and backwards.\t The
\nhyoid bone  was fractured.  On dissection, the extravasation
\nof the\tblood was found in many parts of the tissues beneath
\nthe skin.   The\t right chamber\tof the heart was filled with
\nblood whereas  the left\t chamber was  empty.  The lungs were
\nclotted with  blood.   The stomach  was found  empty and the
\nsmall intestine\t were filled with gas.\tThe liver and spleen
\nwere clotted  with blood.   The\t cause of death was that the
\ndeceased was  strangulated and\tdied due  to  the  resultant
\nsuffocation of\tbreath.\t  The nail scratch marks on the neck
\nand  the   fracture  of\t  the  hyoid   bone  were   due\t  to
\nstrangulation.\t The doctor then opined that indications for
\nsuffocation were  seen.\t  There was swelling of the face and
\nthe blood  vessels on  the neck.   Frothing  blood was\tseen
\ncoming out from mouth and nose.\t She then opined:\n<\/p>\n
     “When a  person hangs herself while
\n     alive there  will marks on the neck
\n     region to\tindicate  this.\t   Those
\n     marks  were  not  present\tin  this
\n     case.   The swelling did not extend
\n     to the  rear of the neck.\tIf it is
\n     a death  by suffocation,  the  left
\n     chamber of\t the hear  will be empty
\n     and the  right chamber will be full
\n     of blood.\t If  it is  death due to
\n     suffocation   by\t hanging,    all
\n     chambers  of   the\t heart\twill  be
\n     empty.   For the  above reasons, it
\n     cannot be\tsaid that this is a case
\n     of death by hanging”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Dr. Swaranlata (PW 9) admitted during cross-examination
\nthat saliva  was not dripping from the mouth.  Mr. Murlidhar
\nwhile disputing the medical evidence drow our attention to a
\nTreatise lyons\tMedical Jurisprudence 10th Edition page 353.
\nHe heavily  relied upon\t the passage at page 353 which reads
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Marks  of\t saliva\t trickling  down
\n     from one  or  other  angle\t of  the
\n     mouth indicate  that the  body  was
\n     hanged during  life;  their absence
\n     does not  show that death had taken
\n     place before the body was hanged.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have gone through the evidence of Dr. Swaranlata (PW\n<\/p>\n
9) and\tthe post  mortem report\t (Ex.P-4) and  we find\tthat
\nthere are  certain loopholes  but one  thing is certain that
\ndeceased and  nail marks  around the  neck  an\tin  case  of
\nsuicide;   there could\tnot have been any possibility of any
\nsuch nail  marks.  We are, therefore, of the considered view
\nthat the  theory of  suicide set up by the appellants was an
\nafterthought.  We, therefore, hold that Seethalakshmi died a
\nhomicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Now  the\timportant  question   that  falls   for\t our
\ndetermination is  as to\t whether on  the basis\tof the above
\ncircumstances and  the material\t on record, could it be said
\nbeyond\treasonable  doubt  that\t both  the  appellants\twere
\nresponsible for\t causing the death of Seethalakshmi.  As far
\nas the\tcomplicity of A-2 is concerned, the only evidence on
\nrecord is  that a  quarrel was\tgoing on in the house of A-1
\nbetween him  and A-2  on one  had and  Seethalakshmi on\t the
\nother.\tNeither Shanmugham (PW 3) nor Pushpavaili (PW 4) had
\nstated that they inquired from A-2 as to what was the matter
\nand why\t the quarrel  was going on.  All that their evidence
\nindicated was  that they heard the noise of quarrel assuming
\nthat A-2 was in the house that by itself would not lead to a
\nconclusion that\t she had also participated in committing the
\ncrime.\t The only  circumstance used  by  the  courts  below
\nagainst A-2  was that  A-1 was having illicit relations with
\nA-2 and\t it was\t because of this A-2 had participated in the
\nsaid crime.  Except the bare words, in the nature of hearsay
\nevidence  of  Vijayalakshmi  (PW  1),  Thyagarajan  (PW\t 2),
\nShanmugham (PW 3) and Pushpavalli (PW 4), there was no other
\nreliable evidence  on record.\tEven  these witnesses stated
\nthat they  overhead about  the illicit\trelations for  which
\nthere  might  not  be  any  foundation.\t   The\tevidence  of
\nVijayalakshmi (PW  1), Thyagarajan (PW 2), Shanmugham (PW 3)
\nand Pushpavalli (PW 4) also did not indicate that A-2 had at
\nany time  caused ill treatment for money from the parents of
\nSeethalakshmi.\t In our considered view, the prosecution has
\nfailed to  prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-2 has shared
\na common  intention to\tcommit the  murder of  Seethalakshmi
\nand\/or cause  disappearance of\tthe evidence  to screen away
\nthe offender.\tIt  is in  these circumstances,\t we give the
\nbenefit of  doubt to  A-2 and acquit her of all the charges.
\nOn  careful   consideration  of\t the  oral  and\t documentary
\nevidence on  record, we\t are of the considered view that the
\norder on  conviction  and  sentence  of\t G.  Selvaraj  (A-1)
\nsuffers from  no  infirmity  and  therefore,  calls  for  no
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
14.  For the foregoing conclusions, we allow Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 501\t of 1994  filed by  M. Suseela (A-2).  The orders of
\nconviction and\tsentence passed\t against  her  by  both\t the
\ncourts below  are quashed and set aside and she is acquitted
\nof all\tthe charges.   The bail bonds of M. Suseela (A-2) to
\nstand cancelled.   Criminal  Appeal No. 502 of 1994 filed by
\nG. Selvaraj (A-1) is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 Author: S Kurdukar Bench: M. M. Punchhi, S. P. Kurdukar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: G. SELVARAJ, M. SUSEELA ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/09\/1997 BENCH: M. M. PUNCHHI, S. P. KURDUKAR, M. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - 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\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\" \/>\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=\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-28T09:29:03+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-28T09:29:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\"},\"wordCount\":2930,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\",\"name\":\"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-28T09:29:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - 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\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-28T09:29:03+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997","datePublished":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-28T09:29:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2"},"wordCount":2930,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2","name":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-28T09:29:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvaraj-m-suseela-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-september-1997-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997"}]},{"@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\/86719","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=86719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}