{"id":111803,"date":"2008-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-12T14:13:47","modified_gmt":"2017-02-12T08:43:47","slug":"venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  221 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nVenu @ Venugopal and Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6056 of 2007)<br \/>\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge of the Karnataka High Court holding  the<br \/>\nappellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 392 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;) and sentencing<br \/>\neach of 10 years imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tProsecution version in a nutshell is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 24.6.2001 at 9.00 p.m. on Mulbagal-Punganoor road<br \/>\nPWs 2 and 3 were going on a Bajaj Scooter. When they were<br \/>\nnear &#8216;Kirumani Mitta&#8217; of &#8216;Buddadoru village&#8221;, accused persons<br \/>\n2 to 5 intercepted PWs 2 and 3, and robbed the gold chain,<br \/>\ngolden ear drops, thali and cash of Rs.400\/- by threatening<br \/>\nwith knife. The accused tied the legs and hands of PW-2 and<br \/>\nPW-3 and threatened them not to escape and get out from the<br \/>\nplace for about ten minutes after their departure. The victims<br \/>\nwent to Punganoor Police Station and later on lodged First<br \/>\nInformation Report with Nangali Police (Kolar Dist.) on<br \/>\n25.6.2001. The Traffic Police while checking found A-2, A-3<br \/>\nand A-4 were going on the scooter (M.O.6) they had robbed<br \/>\nfrom PW-2, the deadly weapons like knives, pistol, iron rod,<br \/>\netc. were hidden in the scooter. On interrogation, the accused<br \/>\npersons admitted the commission of offence in question.  A-5<br \/>\nand A-8 were arrested on the information given by A-2 to A-4.<br \/>\nAt the instance of A-2, the gold jewellery (M.Os.2 and 3) are<br \/>\nrecovered from PW-6-Pawn broker. The Bajaj Scooter (M.O.6)<br \/>\nwas seized from A-2, A-3 and A-4. PW-13 with whom the ear-<br \/>\nstuds and the chain were pledged by A-2, testified to the said<br \/>\nfact. PWs 2 and 3 identified A-2 to A-5 as the persons who<br \/>\nrobbed them.  Prosecution claimed that the identification of<br \/>\naccused persons by PWs 2 and 3 coupled with the recovery of<br \/>\njewellery at the instance of A-2 and seizure of scooter from A-<br \/>\n2, A-3 and A-4 clinchingly established the guilt of A-2 to A-5.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe investigating agency submitted charge sheet for<br \/>\nalleged commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of<br \/>\nIPC. The case was split up against A-1, A-6 and A-7 as they<br \/>\nwere absconding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar referred to the<br \/>\nevidence of PWs 1 and 2, the recovery of the scooter, the<br \/>\nrecovery of stolen articles and identification thereon to<br \/>\nconclude that accused persons are guilty and accordingly A-2<br \/>\nto A-5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n395 IPC. Accused 7 and 8 were acquitted as the evidence was<br \/>\nnot sufficient to find them guilty. Considering the gravity of<br \/>\nthe offence, custodial sentence of 10 years imprisonment and<br \/>\na fine of Rs.5,000\/- each was imposed.  In appeal, the High<br \/>\nCourt found that the offence committed was covered under<br \/>\nSection 392 IPC, but considering the gravity of the offence<br \/>\nupheld the sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants submitted that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 does<br \/>\nnot show that any knife was used for robbery. On the<br \/>\ncontrary, evidence of victim clearly shows that she raised hue<br \/>\nand cry when accused persons tried to snatch the stolen<br \/>\narticles from her.  It was also submitted that the appellants<br \/>\nhave suffered custody of more than nearly 8 years and the<br \/>\nsentence deserves to be reduced to the period already<br \/>\nundergone.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLearned counsel for the respondent-State on the other<br \/>\nhand submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed<br \/>\nand the maximum sentence is 10 years. It is submitted that<br \/>\nthe robbery was committed on the highway at about 9.00 p.m.<br \/>\nThat being so, the sentence can be upto 14 years.  Considering<br \/>\nthe gravity of the offence and the large scale highway<br \/>\nrobberies, no leniency should be shown.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSection 392 IPC provides for punishment for robbery.<br \/>\nThe essential ingredients are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tAccused committed theft;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tAccused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tdeath, hurt or wrongful restraint.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tFear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tHe did either act for the end.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tto commit theft.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tWhile committing theft.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tIn carrying away or in the attempt to carry away<br \/>\nproperty obtained by theft.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt is to be noted that the Section 392 provides<br \/>\npunishment for robbery. It is punishment for the offence<br \/>\ndefined in Section 390. Punishment is higher if it is committed<br \/>\non a highway and between sunset and sunrise. Section 390<br \/>\nwhich defines &#8220;robbery&#8221; reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>390. Robbery.- In all robbery there is either<br \/>\ntheft or extortion.\n<\/p>\n<p>When theft is robbery.-Theft is &#8220;robbery&#8221;<br \/>\nif, in order to the committing of the theft, or in<br \/>\ncommitting the theft, or in carrying away or<br \/>\nattempting to carry away property obtained by<br \/>\ntheft, the offender, for the end, voluntarily<br \/>\ncauses or attempts to cause to any person<br \/>\ndeath or hurt wrongful restraint, or fear of<br \/>\ninstant death or of instant hurt, or of instant<br \/>\nwrongful restraint.\n<\/p>\n<p>When extortion is robbery.-Extortion is<br \/>\n&#8220;robbery&#8221; if the offender at the time of<br \/>\ncommitting the extortion, is in the presence of<br \/>\nthe person put in fear, and commits the<br \/>\nextortion by putting that person in fear of<br \/>\ninstant death, of instant hurt, or of instant<br \/>\nwrongful restraint to that person or to some<br \/>\nother person, and, by so putting in fear,<br \/>\ninduces the person so put in fear then, and<br \/>\nthere to deliver up the thing extorted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation.-The offender is said to be<br \/>\npresent if he is sufficiently near put the other<br \/>\nperson in fear of instant death, of instant hurt,<br \/>\nor of instant wrongful restraint.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe provision defines robbery which is theft or extortion<br \/>\nwhen caused with violence of death, hurt or wrongful<br \/>\nrestraint. When there is no theft committed, then as a natural<br \/>\ncorollary there cannot be robbery. Robbery is only an<br \/>\naggravated form of offence of theft or extortion. Aggravation is<br \/>\nin the use of violence of death, hurt or restraint. Violence must<br \/>\nbe in course of theft and not subsequently. It is not necessary<br \/>\nthat violence actually should be committed but even attempt<br \/>\nto commit it is enough.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe authors of the Code observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In one single class of cases, theft and<br \/>\nextortion are in practice confounded together<br \/>\nso inextricably, that no judge, however,<br \/>\nsagacious, could discriminate between them.<br \/>\nThis class of cases, therefore, has, in all<br \/>\nsystems of jurisprudence &#8230; been treated as a<br \/>\nperfectly distinct class &#8230; we have, therefore,<br \/>\nmade robbery a separate crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>There can be no case of robbery which<br \/>\ndoes not fall within the definition either of theft<br \/>\nor of extortion; but in a practice it will<br \/>\nperpetually be a matter of doubt whether a<br \/>\nparticular act of robbery was a theft or an<br \/>\nextortion. A large proportion of robberies will<br \/>\nbe half theft, half extortion. A seizes Z,<br \/>\nthreatens to murder him, unless he delivers all<br \/>\nhis property, and begins to pull off Z&#8217;s<br \/>\nornaments. Z in terror begs that A will take all<br \/>\nhe has, and spare his life, assists in taking off<br \/>\nhis ornaments, and delivers them to A. Here,<br \/>\nsuch ornaments as A took without Z&#8217;s consent<br \/>\nare taken by theft. Those which Z delivered up<br \/>\nfrom fear of death are acquired by extortion. It<br \/>\nis by no means improbable that Z&#8217;s right arm<br \/>\nbracelet may have been obtained by theft, and<br \/>\nleft-arm bracelet by extortion; that the rupees<br \/>\nin Z&#8217;s girdle may have been obtained by theft,<br \/>\nand those in his turban by extortion. Probably<br \/>\nin nine-tenths of the robberies which are<br \/>\ncommitted, something like this actually takes<br \/>\nplace, and it is probable that a few minutes<br \/>\nlater neither the robber nor the person robbed<br \/>\nwould be able to recollect in what proportions<br \/>\ntheft and extortion were mixed in the crime;<br \/>\nnor is it at all necessary for the ends of justice<br \/>\nthat this should be ascertained. For though, in<br \/>\ngeneral, the consent of a sufferer is a<br \/>\ncircumstance which very materially modifies<br \/>\nthe character of the offence, and which ought,<br \/>\ntherefore, to be made known to the Courts, yet<br \/>\nthe consent which a person gives to the taking<br \/>\nof this property by a ruffian who holds a pistol<br \/>\nto his breast is a circumstance altogether<br \/>\nimmaterial&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe words &#8220;for that end&#8221; in Section 390 clearly mean that<br \/>\nthe hurt caused must be with the object of facilitating the<br \/>\ncommitting of the theft or must be caused while the offender is<br \/>\ncommitting theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry<br \/>\naway property obtained by the theft.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tAs the provision itself provides when the highway robbery<br \/>\nis committed, deterrent punishment is called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tIn the instant case, the evidence of the victim, her<br \/>\nhusband, the factum of recovery of the vehicle used has<br \/>\nclearly established the commission of offence by the<br \/>\nappellants.  The offence was committed on a public road.<br \/>\nThere is no dispute that it was not a highway. It is also not in<br \/>\ndispute that the offence was committed during sunset and<br \/>\nsunrise that is, at about 9.00 p.m. <\/p>\n<p>13.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/46627\/\">In State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja<\/a> (2004 (1) SCC 475), it<br \/>\nwas inter-alia observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Imposition of sentence without considering its<br \/>\neffect on the social order in many cases may be<br \/>\nin reality a futile exercise. The social impact of<br \/>\nthe crime e.g. where it relates to offences<br \/>\nagainst women like the case at hand, dacoity,<br \/>\nkidnapping, misappropriation of public money,<br \/>\ntreason and other offences involving moral<br \/>\nturpitude or moral delinquency which have<br \/>\ngreat impact and serious repercussions on<br \/>\nsocial order and public interest, cannot be lost<br \/>\nsight of and per se require exemplary<br \/>\ntreatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing<br \/>\nmeager sentences or taking too sympathetic a<br \/>\nview merely on account of lapse of time or<br \/>\nconsiderations personal to the accused only in<br \/>\nrespect of such offences will be resultwise<br \/>\ncounterproductive in the long run and against<br \/>\nsocietal interest which needs to be cared for<br \/>\nand strengthened by the required string of<br \/>\ndeterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tAbove being the position, there is no merit in this appeal<br \/>\nwhich is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 221 of 2008 PETITIONER: Venu @ Venugopal and Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/01\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM [&hellip;]<\/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-111803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-12T08:43:47+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-12T08:43:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1681,\"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\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-12T08:43:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-12T08:43:47+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-12T08:43:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008"},"wordCount":1681,"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\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008","name":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-12T08:43:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venu-venugopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venu @ Venugopal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111803","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=111803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}