{"id":97259,"date":"2004-12-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-01T00:15:20","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T18:45:20","slug":"vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 28\/12\/2004 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N. DHINAKAR   \nand \nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN     \n\nCrl. Appeal No.647 of 1996\n\nVellai Thurai                          ...         Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, rep. by Inspector of Police\nTondiarpet Police Station               ...           Respondent\n\n\n        Appeal under  Sec.374 of Crl.P.C.  against the conviction and sentence\nimposed upon the appellant by the learned Principal\nSessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.163 of 1996 dt.19-8-1996. \n\nFor Appellant          ::  Mr.  John Sathyan\n\nFor Respondent         ::  Mr.  V.M.  Rajendran\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Delivered by N.  DHINAKAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                Accused No.1  in S.C.  No.163 of 1996 on the file of Principal
\nSessions Judge, Chennai is the appellant.  He was  tried  along  with  another
\naccused,  who  was  arrayed as A-2, and the allegation against them is that at
\nabout 11.30 p.m.  on 24-4-1995, the appellant and A-2, who  was  acquitted  by
\nthe trial court, went to the tea-stall of the deceased and asked the deceased,
\nwho  was  taking  his  food inside the tea-stall, for some water and since the
\nwater was not given immediately, the  appellant  kicked  the  food-plate  from
\nwhich the  deceased  was  taking  his food and stabbed him.  The learned trial
\nJudge, finding the appellant guilty under Sec.302 IPC, sentenced him  to  life
\nimprisonment while he acquitted A-2 under Sec.302 IPC read with Sec.34 as well
\nas Sec.341 IPC.  The appellant as well as A-2 were acquitted under Sec.506(ii)
\nIPC.  The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The case of the prosecution is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Radhakrishnan  (deceased)  was  the owner of a tea-stall and Prakash (
\nPW-1) was employed under him in the said tea-stall.  Velayutha Nair ( PW-2) is
\nthe father of the deceased.  At about 11.30 p.m.  on 24-4-1995, the  deceased,
\nPW-1 and PW-2, Chandran and others were in the teastall having their food.  At
\nthat  time,  the appellant, who came there on a cycle-rickshaw along with A-2,
\nasked the deceased for some water.  The deceased in  turn  asked  Chandran  to
\nbring  water  for  the  appellant  but Chandran took some time in bringing the
\nwater.  The appellant got angry since the water was not  supplied  immediately
\nand started shouting.  The deceased asked him not to shout as the water had to
\nbe pumped out and brought.  The appellant not satisfied with the answer of the
\ndeceased,  kicked  the  food-plate from which the deceased was taking his food
\nand started trampling him.  When the deceased  attempted  to  run  inside  the
\ntea-stall,  he  was caught hold of by A-2 and the appellant stabbed him on the
\nchest.  When PW-1 and PW-2 tried to  apprehend  the  appellant  and  A-2,  the
\nappellant  threatened  them  with  knife  and ran away from the place with the
\ncycle-rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
        PW-1 and PW-2 took the injured Radhakrishnan to  the  Stanley  Medical
\nCollege  Hospital  and produced him before PW-3 who, on examining the injured,
\npronounced him dead.  Ex.P-2 is the copy  of  the  accident  register.    PW-3
\nthereafter sent the intimation to the Tondiarpet Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
        On  receipt  of intimation, the Inspector of Police (PW-9) reached the
\nStanley Medical College Hospital and finding PW-1 there, questioned him.  PW-1
\ngave a statement regarding the incident.    The  statement  was  reduced  into
\nwriting.   PW-9 returned to the police station on the complaint (Ex.P-1) given
\nby PW-1, registered a case in Crime No.301 of 1995 against the  appellant  and
\nA-2  under  Secs.341  and  302  IPC by preparing the printed First Information
\nReport.  Ex.P-12 is the copy of the printed F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
        PW-9 took up investigation and reached  the  scene  of  occurrence  at
\nabout 4.15  a.m.  , prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P-6) and drew a rough
\nsketch (Ex.P-13) in presence  of  the  witnesses.    He  seized  blood-stained
\ntar-portion under  a  mahazar.  He questioned the witnesses and recorded their
\nstatements.  He then proceeded to the Stanley  Medical  College  Hospital  and
\nexamined the  Doctor,  who  examined the deceased.  He sent requisition to the
\npanchayatars for conducting inquest and after  arrival  of  the  panchayatars,
\ninquest was conducted between 7.00 a.m.  and 9.00 a.m.  Ex.P-14 is the inquest
\nreport.   He  sent  the  body  of the deceased with a requisition (Ex.P-3) for
\nconducting autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        Dr.   Thangaraj  (PW-4),  Additional  Professor,  Forensic  Medicines,
\nattached to the Stanley Medical College Hospital,
\non  receipt of Ex.P-3, requisition, conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the
\ndeceased and noted the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
        “An oblique stab injury 4 X 1 cms on front of left side of chest 4 cms
\naway from midline and 21 cms below the left  mid-clavicular.    On  dissection
\nthere is an  oblique cut 4 cms.  long involving sixth intercostal muscle.  …
\nBruising of retro-sternal tissues to an extent of 10  x5x0.5  cms  seen.    On
\nfurther  dissection  there  is  an  oblique  cut over the anterior wall of the
\npericardium to a length of 2.5 cms …  On  further  dissection  there  is  an
\noblique  cut over the antereo-inferior wall of the right ventricle to a length
\nof 1.5 cms to its full thickness  communicating  with  the  right  ventricular
\nchamber  with  bruising  of tissues of the heart along the lower border of the
\ncut to an extent of 2×0.5×0.2 cms.  The depth of  the  wound  is  12  cms  and
\ndirection of the wound is upward and backwards.”\n<\/p>\n
PW-4  was  of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock
\nand haemorrhage due to stab injury to the heart.  Ex.P-14 is  the  post-mortem
\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n
        PW-9 questioned  some  witnesses  and  recorded  their statements.  He
\nsearched for the accused and on the information received, he proceeded to  the
\njunction  of  Suriyanarayana Chetty Street and Jeevarathinam Road and arrested
\nthem at about 6.00 p.m.  on 25-4-1995 in  the  presence  of  witnesses.    The
\nappellant  gave a statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion thereof
\n(Ex.P.10), he took the police party to his house  and  produced  blood-stained
\nknife  and  blood-stained  shirt  (M.O.6),  which  were seized under a mahazar
\nEx.P-11.  Accused were brought to the police station and locked-up.    On  the
\nnext day,  they  were  sent  to  court  for remand.  The material objects were
\nforwarded to the court with a requisition to send them for chemical  analysis.
\nAfter  the  completion  of  investigation,  final report was filed against the
\nappellant and A-2 on 25-9-1995.\n<\/p>\n
        When the appellant and A-2  were  questioned  under  Sec.313  Crl.P.C.
\nregarding  the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied
\nthe same and pleaded not guilty.\n<\/p>\n
        The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution case and held that  a
\ncase  under  Sec.302  IPC  is  made  out against the appellant and accordingly
\nconvicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The cause of death of Radhakrishnan is not disputed by the
\ndefence and the same stands established through  the  evidence  of  PW-4,  who
\nconducted autopsy  and issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-14).  The cause of
\ndeath was stated to be shock and haemorrhage on account of the stab injury and
\nthe corresponding internal injury to the vital  organs  of  the  body.    This
\ninjury,  in  the  opinion  of  PW-4,  was sufficient in the ordinary course of
\nnature to cause death.  On  the  medical  evidence,  we  therefore  hold  that
\nRadhakrishnan had died on account of homicidal violence.  This takes us to the
\nnext  question  whether  the learned trial Judge was correct in convicting the
\nappellant under Sec.3 02 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Learned counsel for the appellant  made  two  contentions,
\nviz.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  That even if the entire facts as projected by the prosecution are
\ntaken to be true, from the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the
\nevidence  available  on  record, it could be said that the appellant could not
\nhave intended to cause the death of the deceased as he had no motive or  prior
\nenmity  against  the  deceased  and  the occurrence having taken place without
\npremeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, he  may  be  given
\nthe benefit of ‘Exception 4’ to Sec.3 00 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  The  appellant,  in  the course of sudden quarrel, gave only one
\nblow with the knife, which accidently landed on the vital part, viz.  chest of
\nthe deceased, which proved fatal and, in these  circumstances,  this  being  a
\ncase  of  ‘single  stab  injury’,  the  appellant  may be given the benefit of
\n‘Exception 4’ to Sec.300.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgment  of  the
\nSupreme Court in THOLAN v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU<\/a> (1984 SCC [ Cri.] 164).\n<\/p>\n
                4.  On these contentions, we have heard the learned Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   PW-1  and  PW-2  were  examined by the prosecution as the
\neyewitnesses to the occurrence.  It is the evidence of PW-1, who was  employed
\nunder the deceased, that at about 11.30 p.m.  on 24-4-1995, himself, PW-2, the
\ndeceased and others were having their food and at that time, the appellant and
\nA-2,  who came on cycle-rickshaw to the tea-stall, asked the deceased for some
\nwater.  The deceased in turn asked Chandran to bring water and on seeing  that
\nwater  was not supplied immediately, the appellant started shouting and kicked
\nthe foot-plate of the deceased and trampled him to the ground.    Sensing  the
\nbelligrent  mood  of  the  appellant,  the  deceased  tried  to run inside the
\ntea-stall but he was caught hold of by A-2 and the appellant  stabbed  him  on
\nthe chest.    When  PW-1  and others tried to apprehend the appellant and A-2,
\nthey were threatned with knife-point and the appellant and A-2 ran  away  from
\nthe scene.    Immediately  the  injured  was  taken  to the hospital where, on
\nexamination by the Doctor, he was pronounced dead.  A complaint was  given  by
\nPW-1  to  PW-9 Inspector of Police, who reached the hospital on receipt of the
\ninformation.  Similar is the evidence of PW-2.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  On going the  evidence  of  PW-1  and  PW-2,  we  find  no
\ninfirmity in  the  evidence  of both the eye-witnesses.  The testimony of both
\nthe witnesses are reliable and  trustworthy  and,  therefore,  can  safely  be
\nrelied upon.    It is not in dispute that PW-1 is the employee of the deceased
\nand PW-2 is deceased’s father and, therefore, their presence in the  tea-stall
\nat the  time  of occurrence is natural.  We, therefore, accept the evidence of
\nPW-1 and PW-2 and hold that it was the appellant who stabbed the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Now let us deal with the contentions raised by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled  to  the  benefit  of
\n‘Exception  4’ to Sec.300 since firstly, the appellant did not intend to cause
\nthe death of the deceased as the incident took place in the course of a sudden
\nquarrel and secondly, that  this  is  a  case  of  ‘  solitary  stab  injury’.
\nConsidering  the  facts and circumstances of the case, we find it difficult to
\ncountenance the contentions raised by the learned counsel.   Here  is  a  case
\nwhere  the  deceased,  his  father and his employees, after closing down their
\ntea-stall around 11.30 p.m., were having their food in the  tea-stall  and  at
\nthat  time  the  appellant  and A-2 came there and asked the deceased for some
\nwater.  The deceased asked his employee Chandran to get some water  and  since
\nthere  was  delay  in  bringing the water, the appellant in a belligerent mood
\nstarted shouting at  the  deceased,  kicked  the  food-plate  from  which  the
\ndeceased  was taking his food, trampled him to the ground and when he tried to
\nrun away, stabed him on the chest.  In the above scenario,  we  cannot  accept
\nthe  contention  of the learned counsel that the incident occurred without any
\npremeditation in the heat of passion upon a ‘sudden quarrel’.    We  therefore
\nhold  that  the  appellant  is not entitled to the benefit of ‘Exception 4’ to
\nSec.300 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Now, let us analyse the Tholan case, cited  supra,  relied
\nupon by the learned counsel for the appellant.  After having carefully perused
\nthe  judgment,  we are of the opinion that the said decision will not apply to
\nthe facts and circumstances of the present case.  In Tholan case, the  learned
\nJudges,  taking  the  facts and circumstances therein, were satisfied that the
\nappellant therein wielded a weapon like a knife  and  therefore  he  could  be
\nattributed  with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was
\nlikely to cause death  and  in  such  a  situation,  he  would  be  guilty  of
\ncommitting an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.  The decision in the said
\nwas rendered on the facts and circumstances therein and that the Supreme Court
\ndid  not  lay  down  any  law  that in cases where there is single injury, the
\naccused  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  ‘Exception  4’  to  Sec.300   IPC
\nirrespective of  the  other  circumstances.    The judgment relied upon by the
\nlearned counsel is, therefore, of no assistance and will not go to the  rescue
\nof the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   In  this  connection, we may refer to the decision of the
\nSupreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v.  VEDANAYAGAM<\/a> (1995) 1 SCC  326  wherein
\nthe question that arose for consideration was whether the High Court was right
\nin  holding  that  whenever  there  is single injury the offence would be only
\nculpable homicide though the medical evidence is to the effect that  the  same
\nis  necessarily fatal and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
\ndeath.  In this case, the accused gave a knife blow on the left chest  of  the
\ndeceased as  a  result  of  which  the deceased fell down and died.  The trial
\ncourt convicted the accused under  Sec.302  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  life
\nimprisonment but, on appeal, the High Court, relying on the decision in Tholan
\ncase,  cited  supra,  held that the offence would come down to Sec.304 Part II
\nIPC.  The finding of the High Court was challenged before the  Supreme  Court.
\nThe  Supreme  Court after elaborately considering the decisions in Visra Singh
\nv.  State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465) and Jagrup Singh v.   State  of  Haryana<\/a>
\n(1981)  3 SCC 616, distinguished the decision in Tholan case, cited supra, and
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Thus it is clear that ingredient of clause 3rdly  is  not  the  intention  to
\ncause death but on the other hand the ingredient to be proved is the intention
\nto cause  the  particularly  injury  that  was  present.   It is fallacious to
\ncontend that wherever there is  a  single  injury  only  a  case  of  culpable
\nhomicide is made  out  irrespective  of other circumstances.  …  there is no
\nlegal  basis  whatsoever  for  the  High  Court  to  hold   that   since   the
\nrespondent-accused  gave  only  one blow, though found to be sufficient in the
\nordinary course of nature to cause death, clause 3rdly of Section 300  is  not
\nattracted.  …   It is important to note that there was neither a quarrel nor
\na fight between the deceased and the  accused.    The  words  uttered  by  the
\naccused  against the deceased followed by stabbing with the dagger on the left
\nside of the chest of the deceased, would clearly indicate that he intended  to
\ncause that particularly injury which was objectively found to be sufficient in
\nthe ordinary course  of  nature  to  cause  death.    …    there is no doubt
\nwhatsoever that the accused intended to cause that particular  injury  on  the
\nchest which  necessarily proved fatal.  Therefore clause 3 rdly of Section 300
\nIPC is clearly attracted.  The High Court erred in holding that  ‘the  accused
\ndid  not  intend  to  cause  his  death  by inflicting the injury on the chest
\nbecause there was no premeditation and therefore the offence would be culpable
\nhomicide.  This view of the High Court is not correct and as  discussed  above
\nclause 3rdly  of Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted.  For all these reasons,
\nwe set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the  judgment  of  the
\ntrial  court  convicting  the  accused under Sec.302 IPC and sentencing him to
\nundergo imprisonment for life.”\n<\/p>\n
                10.  In HUKAM CHAND v.  STATE OF HARYANA<\/a>  (2002)  8  SCC  421,
\nwhere  the deceased died due to infliction of single blow on vital part of the
\nbody by the appellant (accused), the  Supreme  Court  rejected  the  plea  for
\nconversion  of  conviction to that under Sec.304 Part I instead of Sec.302 IPC
\nand justified the conviction und er Sec.302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In STATE OF U.P.  v.  PREMI AND OTHERS<\/a> (2003) 9  SCC  12,
\nthe  Supreme  Court,  while  rejecting  the  contention that the respondents (
\naccused) had no intention to kill and that only a single blow was inflicted on
\nthe head of the deceased and,  therefore,  their  conviction  deserves  to  be
\naltered to be one falling under Sec.304 IPC, observed as follows:
\n“The  mere fact that only a single blow was inflicted on the head by itself is
\nnot enough to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC”\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The facts in the present case are identical to the one in
\nVedanayagam case, cited supra.  In the present case, as  narrated  above,  the
\nappellant,  on  a  trivial  issue  of  not  supplying water immediately, after
\nshouting at the deceased, stabbed him on the vital organ  of  the  body  in  a
\ncruel and  unusual manner.  Of course, the appellant came to the tea-stall not
\nwith the intention to cause the death of  the  deceased  but,  the  subsequent
\ncriminal  act  of  the appellant in shouting against the deceased and stabbing
\nhim on the chest with the knife would clearly indicate  that  he  intended  to
\ncause that particularly injury which was objectively found to be sufficient in
\nthe ordinary  course  of  nature  to cause death.  The intention to cause that
\nparticular bodily injury can be gathered from the kind  of  weapon  used,  the
\npart of the body aimed at, the amount of force employed and the gravity of the
\ninjury suffered.   There is sufficient medical evidence on record to show that
\nthe injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to  cause
\ndeath.  Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the appellant is liable to
\nbe  convicted  under  Sec.302 IPC and was rightly done so by the learned trial
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  We do not find any merit  in  the  appeal.    The  appeal
\ndeserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Jai<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Principal Sessions Judge, Madras\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Collector, Madras\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Director General of Police, Chennai\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Public Prosecutor, Madras\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/12\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice N. DHINAKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN Crl. Appeal No.647 of 1996 Vellai Thurai … Appellant -Vs- State, rep. by Inspector of Police Tondiarpet Police Station … Respondent […]<\/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-97259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - 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\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-31T18:45:20+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\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T18:45:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2914,\"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\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T18:45:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - 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\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-31T18:45:20+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\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T18:45:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004"},"wordCount":2914,"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\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004","name":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T18:45:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellai-thurai-vs-state-on-28-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vellai Thurai vs State on 28 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/97259","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=97259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}