{"id":112234,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-19T02:49:21","modified_gmt":"2015-04-18T21:19:21","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THEE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT IBANGALQRE\nDATEI) Tms 'i'E~IFZ 25'?\" DAY 01:' NOVEMBER, 2::i{1'0 \"j,T '\nPRESENT K 3\nT}-II?) I-iON'BI.E MR. JUSTICE} K;ASI?._E3EE\u00a7I-\ufb02ivfi'i\u00a7A(5'  \nAND ' \" V V\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEKN.KESHAVAI\\EAf\u00e9A':2'xNA\nCR.L.A._ No.45?' 2905 \" ~ '\nBE'I'WEEN:\u00bb\u00bb V . A .\nState of Karnatak;-3._,   \nBy SidIaghatta_.Ru1fal.PoIice\u00a7 2   \nH   _. _      Appeilant\n[By Sri P.M.;'Na'q_vaz';\"  \" V_   '\n m:w  ' ' ' .   '- .. . .\nS\/ 0'. uN\"a;cee1=.Ah--am\u00a2d,_ '' \" \"\n\nAged 2.6 y62a1?s.._ _ \n,Q.r:c: Silk .professi0'n.\n\n  \n\n.. Sg[0;.}\u00a31;Ssa.insab.\n 'Ag'i::.1 55 _',I66_,Z'S.\n\" .__Oc(:: SiIk~pr0f'essi<).n,\n\n _ 3. f3\u20ac'E\u00e9.l::;ij0'};1x1,\n\nW\/ 0; A2661' Ahamed,\n\n ..   45 years'\n\n" ,   -AI."-1as\u20ace1.1z21.\n\nS \/ 0. Nazeel' Ahamed,\nAgcid 23 y<-jaws,\n\n\n\n \n\n2\n\n5. Mubeena  Mtibeenataj.\nD \/0. Nazemr Ahamed,\nAged 19 years.\n\nAll are R\/at First Kamiikaiiagar,\nSidiaghatta Town.\nKolai' District.\n\n{By Snit. N. Padmavathi, Advocate] \n\n   H   it\n\nThis C1'l.A. is filed U\/s.s78{i)"& ts) of Cr'.;AP'}e."by=--'tins" \nState PP. for the State praying that this H':m'b1e C,"ciu.ijt_ may r '\n\nbe pleased to grant leave to  an appeaJ_V.=ag\u00e9;;irist the\njudgment and order of acqu.it'ta1 dated-.V09.07'.2004 passed by\nthe Add}. S.J.. Fast 'I'1'ae1< C()u'i't--I.._:'K.01's_1* in S.C'.No.104\/98\naequitting the Resposldent-gAee-use-d'~._ T01' the offences\npunishable U \/Ss.498--A, 30_4'wB',:.,'302 r\/w."\u00bb.See..34 of UPC. The\nAppel1an.twState prays th&1I..IIh\u20ac.Va"iZ}OV[\u20ac cii't:t,e1*'=rrVi---'i"y be set aside.\n\nThis appeai...t:.'cof;ai1'ig'"xfdi" ,ihea1*ii'ig on this day.\nKEsHAvA1mrtAm.Ni\\."J; _.\u00ab.._\u00a71'eliVe.i*ed_'the following:\n\n \n\n\u00a7;__iviENT\n\nThis:  State is directed against the\n\n.--iv.'jUd\u00a7\u00a713:lCVI1TT'\ufb01nd.'"0'i"f3\u00a721f__vda'L\u20acd 09.07.2004 passed by the\n\n Pi'e'sidin.g'\u00ab.y 'O_i'I'ir:_er, Fast Tractk Courtwi, Kolar, in\n\n aCqL1it't:iiig the Respondentts\/Accused<\/pre>\n
. Nosrl’  the charges levelieci against them for the<\/p>\n
hi’\/;’eei1,.eesVVVpumshable under Secttieiis 498~A and 304\u00bbB I’\/W<\/p>\n
    EPC and Sectiorls 3. 4 and 6 01′ the Dowry Prohibition<\/p>\n
 ” ‘A(\u20act’,. {For short. DP. Act) \/\/)
\n” ‘{%\u00a7?;..\/’i<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
2. The case of the prosecrutiori in brief” is as under:<\/p>\n
PW2 — Esmail Khan is the father of the dece\u00e9asecl<\/p>\n
Mobeenataj. PW1 — }Z)ha.sihagirkh.ar1, PW6 —   _<\/p>\n
Khan and PWIB M Jaheeruddinkhan are _1.h.eV.A4_:E3Jjoi:he1?s   <\/p>\n
PW2. They are all residents of Ch:bini,a_rnani”‘.yto\u20acyn–,_ f<\/p>\n
No.2 — Nazeer Ahmed and A(fC1\u00a3_$ed  Beehvij.12aVi1 are} the <\/p>\n
parents of Accused Nos.l. 4  ‘Fhe~.acic:ised;: are the
\nresidents of Sidlaghattaf d_ec’eas–ed~1i\u00a7\/Iobeenavtaj  given
\nin marriage to Accused No.  was solemnized<\/p>\n
on 23.03.1997: ;i\u00a2,;1:theohottsie ofiixzjyrzrgVmjchixitamani. Prior<\/p>\n
to the.\u00bb’rriarriageiif;negotiations””vsfere held. During the
\nnegotiat’i.Q11s; the’.t’accL1,sedT;ge1;soI1s demanded dowry of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,O0O}4<–.._invv a'\u00ab…'\u20ac}iratcch, gold kapali ring to the<\/p>\n
 bI'iCt'ifj:\u00a7.I'0v('3x}.'A3,V goid""n.ec_k1ace, gold ring, jumki. golden mati.<\/p>\n
 watch. a_1me'rahv, __cot etc. to the bride as dowry. PW2 agreed<\/p>\n
  and paid a sum of Rs.9,000\/– in cash<\/p>\n
_ andih\u00e9igoldy and other articles agreed at the time of the<\/p>\n
and promised to pay balance of Rs.6.000\/- after<\/p>\n
.  soxriehtiriizer. After the marriage, the deceased stayed with her<\/p>\n
""I'1usband and in-laws in the mat1'in"ioI1ial home at<\/p>\n
Sidlaghatta town. Thereafter, since balance dowry of
\nRs.6,000\/- was not paid, the accused started demanding<\/p>\n
PVV2 to pay the agreed balance dowry in cash. Ho\\vet{ere.:.j\u00a3?_Vv'2<\/p>\n
could arrange only a sum of Rs.l,OCiO\/~ and  .
\naccused to grant him some more t_in1e_ to pay" K"
\ndowry of Rs.5,000\/~. However. since  dicdgnot <\/p>\n
balance amount of Rs.5.Of)3(}\/.3 the 'a.ccusedyj'v..pVersons , '<\/p>\n
subjected the deceased to cruelty' .haras's:<nent physically
\nand mentally. On 27.O8.A–1._9-97,  No.1 along with
\nthe deceased came to theH_houVs%f(')f\u00abfeturned to the<\/p>\n
matrimonial l'1C').V1'E1'6:l:,]'ll the evening' a1ong~-with utensils worth<\/p>\n
Rs.2.00t3\/~\u00bb   On the next day i.e., on
\n28.08.1997 'morning:iat"~..gi'bcctit 8.00 a.m., PW2 received<\/p>\n
information abotit the death of his daughter–l\\\/Eobeenataj in<\/p>\n
"Vane  ofygthellacciised. Immediately, PW1, PW2, ewe.<\/p>\n
  went to Sidlaghatta town, saw the dead<\/p>\n
bodyrof thei:deceased~Mobeenataj in the house of Accused<\/p>\n
 _  "No.1  i:.njuri.es on her body. Suspecting that the deceased
\nA V~:hacdVllb*een done to death by the husband and relatives of<\/p>\n
 .___"'hug:sband, PW]. lodged a written cf\u00e9mplaint to the SEC),<\/p>\n
'?\n<\/p>\n
‘..Jl<\/p>\n
Sidlaghatta Police Station as per i\u00a3x.Pt at 10.30 a.n–1_, on<\/p>\n
28.08.1997. Based on Ex.P1. the police
\nCr.No.68\/1997 for the offences punishable  ‘
\nso4–13 and 302 we and st,1bniit.ied__iI%’.lR_’to  ‘ jti\u00a7_i;gai::t,i’qg1a-1_V ‘A ”
\nMagistrate as per Ex.P6. and <\/p>\n
death of the deceased had oeet1\u00a7*red Witvhin V7′  the 2 L’<\/p>\n
date of the marriage. the LO.   and
\nthe Taluka Executive  ptbbinquest: over the
\ndead body. Aeeoi’d_ingIy,vAPW5::–.  Executive
\nMagistrate     “t’he dead body of the
\n  noon and 2.30 p.rn. on
\n28.08. also noticed the injuries
\non the xddead the statements of the blood<\/p>\n
reIatiVe_s oftheVVde<:\u00e9~asedVaiid other persons. Thereafter. the<\/p>\n
– V. \u00ab_ dead w_as su”bjer\u00e9.t.ed to Post Mortem examination. PW4 —<\/p>\n
I)1’V..Log;av1ia.ya.ki’–..who eondueied the PM examination in Govt.<\/p>\n
S-i:d1.a”glie1tta and submitted PM report as per<\/p>\n
E\u00a7XiP-2. \u20ac)13’ii’?_Et'(\u00a5.\u00bb’ that the death was due to shock and asphyxia<\/p>\n
 “as a res-tutti of sudden aeclusion of respiration. fracture of<\/p>\n
  ‘*.Traeh’ea and Lalynx by st1’aI1gu1ation. During the<\/p>\n
(1<\/p>\n
irivestigation staten1ent.s of witnesses were 1’ec01’ded. Further<\/p>\n
investigation was tzlken over by Anti Dowry <\/p>\n
Bangalore and after Completirig the i11\\restigaf:ib’11.  V’<\/p>\n
sheet came to be \ufb01led for the offratices })t’,1I1iSi'”1’2Lb’}f3VVVL,1.i1d\u20aci7_ V<\/p>\n
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP.\n<\/p>\n
and 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
3. After c0mniit.tg_ai  t()h’the”xt3ou1’t of
\nSessions, as could be  the learned
\nSessions  the offences
\npunishable and 302 1190. The
\naccused”p’l~e\u00ab2td’ed iit\u00a7;t’–gujih1\u00bbtyv’t’e1?”t11e’;charges levelled against
\nthem stifidu  No specific charges were
\nframed fediathe   under Sections 3, 4 and 6<\/p>\n
of the D.P.  Proseetadttien led evidence by examining PW}<\/p>\n
 __t0 I?i_4W’~14._sa11d piaeed\u00bb—reliance 011 documentary evidence E3x.P1<\/p>\n
 ‘tQ”P2x:V.P9_.’The \ufb01ileiezicte of the accused was one of total denial<\/p>\n
“‘zmd’__  in’1p1icat.i011. As could be seen from the<\/p>\n
stiggestion pm. to the p1″0seC11ti011 witnesses in the CFOSSW<\/p>\n
 examinaittoii. the defence of the accused was that, PW2 had<\/p>\n
db0rr\u00a7)tved a sum of R.s.5.0()O\/~ from Accused No.1 and in<\/p>\n
spite of repeated demands made by Accused No.1, PW~2_ did<\/p>\n
not ret.t.1rn the money. Ult.in1at.ely. when the deeeasued<\/p>\n
demanded her t’athe1*~PW2 to I’\u20aclE,l1’I1 the .fan1o1:V1’r;.t’  V’<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/~. she was scolded and on .a4cooi-;iz1t.V”o’t’fthis,’_’she_V V<\/p>\n
committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
4. After hearing botlllthe sides and onessessnieiit –. L’<\/p>\n
of oral and documentary evidence, ,the learnled Sessions
\nJudge by the judgment —-1inder\u00ab__ap~pe.al–._act1’uitted the accused
\npersons of t.he charges levelled ‘holding that the<\/p>\n
prosecution   .t:\u00a7yprol\\}\u00abe t;he_Vehai’ges. Being aggrieved
\nby the  ol”‘e;equ–;.t;ia.l’, the”‘SetaV:te is in appeal.<\/p>\n
5}, l we  P.M.Nawaz, learned Acldl. spp<\/p>\n
fer the State  S:_ntL’~'”}N.Padmavathi, learned counsel<\/p>\n
‘V’~..V_appearin.g for theaeetised. Perused the records, carefully<\/p>\n
 e::<arnin.<::vc'i'ii*ljieV xo'1':al and documentary evidence and also read<\/p>\n
the it 1.t'nde1* appeal.\n<\/p>\n
  In the facts and circumstances of the case. the<\/p>\n
‘points. that arise for consideration in this appeal are:<\/p>\n
i) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified
\nin acqiiitting responderits\/accused persons of the<\/p>\n
charges levelled zigeliiist them?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether the judgment”: under appeal  3<\/p>\n
perversity or illegality cialliiig for  V’<\/p>\n
this Court’?\n<\/p>\n
7. it is the submission of Slll”-1′,’  the it<\/p>\n
judgment under appeal suI’ie1’sl’i'”rl.-:V:i.’I”11 peiversity etndlvtillegality
\nas the learned Sessions “J..1,1dgei’lhla’sl\ufb02fiotll”appreciatedl the oral
\nand documentary evidence  and the<\/p>\n
reasonings adop-t’.ed-. by; leai*1ie_dVVv.Se’ssions Judge is<\/p>\n
perverse. “””  <th'e.l\u00bb '3;udghi'e'il1t under appeal calls
\ninte1~I'ere;1_ee   his further submission that<\/p>\n
the learnedll'S_ess.io1lis' JAu_dgell-~'has not framed proper points for<\/p>\n
 cons.id&:erat'ion "the_____j.udgme11t and this has led to an<\/p>\n
 eri'oi1eous'judgIne11t. It is also his submission that': the oral<\/p>\n
e.v~i.dle~n,ee 'ofl_"m_atei*ial witnesses though are closely related to<\/p>\n
. the   highly consistent. and cogent with regard to<\/p>\n
;p1'e he1a1'riage negotiatiozis, demand of dowry by the<\/p>\n
_ =_aC.CtiSed and later acceptance of dowry. According t.o him,<\/p>\n
 tlie evidence on record also saiisfa(7torily establishes that the<\/p>\n
\/3<\/p>\n
H}<\/p>\n
in acquit:t.irtg t.he accused persons. It is her further<\/p>\n
submission that. the learned Sessions Judge has
\ncogent and acceptable reasons for not : V'
\nof the close relatives of the decea_sed.__as  ll
\nsitting in appeal against. the jt1dgrr1e1'1:\u00a7_'_'lc;ilV <\/p>\n
lightly interfere with the judgoie-qt Aaclc1L:it'rtalrecorded by * it<\/p>\n
the Court below, merely_ on the___g1;lrottr1d_V tl1at  View is
\npossible on the same  fgt "l1l(::r:lt:rther submission
\nthat though the Ar_11edica1~– presence of
\nsome ligature   injuries on other
\nparts of thel'b.od_g\ufb01\u00bb'&:olh.  it may be held that
\nthe  the prosecutiori has
\nnot placed lanlyl  "show that the deceased was<\/p>\n
four1d.i.n. tl1el"ooir1pa'ny.l'ot' Tally of the accused persons at or<\/p>\n
the time oflldeath, therefore, the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
 Judge in acquittirig the accused persons for the<\/p>\n
offeijiee ;)t.tt'iisliiable under Section 302 IPC.<\/p>\n
9.” t” It is her fu.1’ther submission that in the light. of<\/p>\n
it   recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the<\/p>\n
l  u pr\u00a7;)secut’.ioz1 has failed to prove the charges with regard to<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
  cro1i1sider”1′.he case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
the demand and aeeeptaiiee of dowry. the charge L_1_1_ider<\/p>\n
Section 304\u00bbB IPC has been rightly held as 1iot.\u00abjpr:o’c.red,V.A<\/p>\n
Therefore, the learned eounsel stlbmits that  <\/p>\n
under appeal does not call for i11E’eri’e!?en_c_?e bylthlils”  <\/p>\n
10. We have bestowed our lS\u00ab\u20ac1’i:O’LlA.E} eoi1sViderati”oi1’~_to”.<\/p>\n
the subinissiolis made on bothlsides. We are “eoli1eeiods of l’<\/p>\n
the fact that the appellaie.  a;afjeavl..against the
\njudgment of acquittal cai1hoi’. the judgment of
\nacquittal recorded    is established
\nthat the  or illegality either
\non aceo’LIiii:..:  03- ‘the evidence or non
\neonsideratiori __e\\’lride11cQ. on record. It is also<\/p>\n
well settledwtjhat riierelvheriause another View is ossible on<\/p>\n
 the ~ \u00e9eame set; o1″~–eeVV_i_d_er1ce, the appeilate court should not
\n \u00bbsi1bsuti’LuAte.Ait\u00e9ewriew if the View taken by the trial Court is<\/p>\n
reasoriafoltifhawaihg regard to the evidence on record. Keeping<\/p>\n
i’hisu””wei;l: .s”et’.l:leCl principles of law in mind, we proceed to<\/p>\n
1-?\n<\/p>\n
1 1. Perusai OfjL1C1g1?\ufb02\u20acI1E. urlder appeat indicates that
\nthe Eearned Sessions Judge has not framed proper point;-2. for<\/p>\n
eonside1’at.io11 in the course of the judgment. NOI1\u20acth.\u20ac’1\u20acS’S_he<\/p>\n
has eiaboretteiy considered the orat and C1__C:*’.(‘\u00a7ti1i1V_6i7l.,:’E’c’11T;’xf<\/p>\n
evidence with regard to wit the offences 1’I_1entioi1ed:”in_ the<\/p>\n
charge sheet. No doubt Charges are framed only’ for’offeii’oesu’<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 498–A. and”3_(.)2.<\/p>\n
no speci\ufb01c cliarges are i’ran1eid_V’fo1′ the”ofien_ees j31ji’iiSh\u00e9b1\u20ac * V<\/p>\n
under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of \u00a3.XCt~..t_:However. the
\nprosecution has been at1owed.’to  orat and doo’umentary<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the offerirges”p1,ihis11ah_1extirtder Sections 3,<\/p>\n
4 and    to note here that the
\np1*osecuto1je’\\xt1’1o the prosecution on behalf of the
\nState. are ufidet\u00e9 “itnoxv before commencing the trial
\n* .._,g:S V’dL:e~’:)i:’i’o.1i’i~:’wh:\u00a7it ot:i:eriC’eSV the Court has framed the cliarge. If
\n ,_’_.a’\u20ac:e’oi’di_:rt;t:V:&to’i;he_;.p1~osecL1tor neoessaiy and relevant: Q1-1a1’ges
\n  it is their duty to bring the same to the
\n‘V._1’1OtiC\u20ac Court and seek atteration, addition or detetion of
\n haviiig regard to the mederiats ptaced atong with the<\/p>\n
t  fihai report fited under section 1.73 Cr.P.C. In the Case on<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
hand, the iearned Pubiic Prosecutor who appeared Vii-‘1__ the<\/p>\n
case appears 10 have been not made any such <\/p>\n
bring to the notice of the court that the c}121u”r;ges..\u00abTiIb’o.2;” ”<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 3. 4 and E_\u00a7~Gf._Lh6  .\u00e9;re’_jnO’i_V Vb<\/p>\n
framed. Even after ieading the 0|’ai’:.eVi;c1erIce1’wi’th.lregafd. <\/p>\n
those offences, at the time ()f”a_r’g-L.1n1er1At’,v-alss, the ‘s_ai::!..c”lel’ect. * V<\/p>\n
appears to have not been l)1’011g1nf’tc_ the ncti'<:e'v _(')AI' VAt_f1e court.
\nSection 464(1) of C1'.P.CA:\u00ab–._ciirec'AtV;s 'fnxtgling, sentence or
\norder by a courteof cornpeiheni; fsball be deemed
\ninvaiid n1e1*e1_y?_.:v()4\u00a2rb1:1'{bee   was framed,
\nunless in 1b.e   cf appeai a fa\ufb01ure of
\njustice  on account of such
\n0missi0n'xrn""irfegu_fAs.\u00a3iAtf.:_'"In':"E\\,T\u00e91i11 Pal Vs. State of Haryana,<\/p>\n
AIR 2010 SCb32:V92;.{he.'Ag)\u00abe; in “pa.ra 9: —\n<\/p>\n
“._;’9′ L
\n {i} xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx\n<\/p>\n
(ii) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx<\/p>\n
(iii) In ju(igir1g 21 qu.est1’n of prej1,1dice, as of<\/p>\n
guiii, the c0u1″1.s I’I1US’1 act’. with a brozzld Vision and 100};<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
to the substance and not to the technicalities,-_and<\/p>\n
their main concern should be to see XX-‘l’l\u20actl1V\u20ac7I”.”ll1’\u20ac<\/p>\n
accused had a fair trial. Wl]\u20acl’.h\u20acl’ he knew V\\’\u00abl”1E1t’_l’..(\u00a7”\\Fi\u00a33,S’
\nbeing tried for, whetehr the main facts SQl:lg.l1″;._l.0llbf\u00e9lf l
\nestablished against him we1’e_explained”tovhirli” t’?;m~iyV l’<\/p>\n
and clearly. and whether he  lftill ‘and1:ig:e1d:.’<\/p>\n
chance to defend himself,”\n<\/p>\n
12. in View of the fact~that the”pi’osecution”l’ias: led ”<\/p>\n
oral evidence with regaijd. to ioffenees.landvtllel defence
\nhas not objected for lealdiingt  the ground
\nthat no cliarges_a1’e  charges for
\nthose offenc_e–s-  an#y:;’pitej:1:Jldilced to the accused<\/p>\n
nor on tliat _it”can\u00bb__held that the trial is vitiated.<\/p>\n
13.  lelazfned Sessions Judge during the course of<\/p>\n
~ , t  uihi:lVeVc_onsideri’ng the offence punishable under
\n    6 of the DP. Act” after refei-ring to the oral
\n evidence of PW} to PW3. PW6. PW8 to<\/p>\n
by -V Pwlli .  has held that the evidence of these
\n :,\ufb02:wit::esses. with regard to the alleged prewrr1ar1’iage
\n i’t_eg’c:’ti21t:ior1s and demand and acceptiancre of dowry by the<\/p>\n
” ‘”a’c(:used cannot be accepted. The l\u20ac’\u00e91F”l’}\u20ac’d Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
(. .,
\n“‘<\/p>\n
has disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses for.__the<\/p>\n
following reasons: ~<\/p>\n
The evidences of these wit.1r1esseS,’:are_uI1vi.:gi11j}””-e<\/p>\n
inconsistent. discrepant and fut}~-o\u20ac’i”0rn’i.ssio1′;sit <\/p>\n
and irnprovements.\n<\/p>\n
The agreement ViZ.. Kaui’.BiidaA’said”t’_Q. have<\/p>\n
wr1’tt.en at the ti_r1’1e__ ot”‘ma1*1fiage”‘ itallgsn .and
\nexchanged between uth.exdpa_rt:ies” is  produced.
\nThe video ca~s_settes””ofnr.:’th’\u00e9%’n. ;;ia1~riage ‘ceremony
\nwhich depicts  of dowry is
\nnotP1.70du.c\u20acd~g. ‘ ‘   .~<\/p>\n
Th;e”‘_neu1’sor:s gin7 W11ose–v.Vp_resence dowry of<\/p>\n
  tohave been given are<\/p>\n
not’V”‘:iarneci_.noi’~’t:~hej7 are examined before the<\/p>\n
‘There doubt about as to whether<\/p>\n
xrdowrydot’VRs.9;0OO\/W in cash was paid prior to<\/p>\n
tr.he”:narriage or at the time of marriage.<\/p>\n
“i’7.1f0m the evidence on record reasonable<\/p>\n
 ivinference can be drawn that PW2 was not in<\/p>\n
 fjin:;_incia.! position to pay dowry of Rs.9.O00\/W.<\/p>\n
‘  evidence of these witnesses with regard to<\/p>\n
the pre~rnarriage negotiations and demand as<\/p>\n
well as acceptance of dowry is completely<\/p>\n
omission during the investigation. As admitted<\/p>\n
ih<\/p>\n
by the Teihsildar examined as PW4 and Police<\/p>\n
Officer ~ PW14.\n<\/p>\n
14. According to the Add]. Public P1’oseeaaltorl’i’the<\/p>\n
reasoning assigned by the learned Sessio_ns’-.cVJ’ui_dge to-\u00ab<\/p>\n
disbelieve the evidence of these witncsslels isl’xhig1″1–lyl p_er_vlersel”\u00ab<\/p>\n
and contrary to the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the light of t.hel*stibniissions;-Welearefully
\nexamined the evidence ioi=7__the_se rna1;\u00a7I’.ia’l..\u00abwit1ieslses and we
\nfound that the learned Sessions  is justified in<\/p>\n
disbelieving the’evi’_’dene_e of for the above<\/p>\n
reasons. No: the ‘evid_enee_’ of the witnesses cannot be
\ndiscarded pi”: the v.groiii’Id”-that\ufb01they are closely related to the<\/p>\n
victin1–..or deceased. Nonetheless the evidence of such<\/p>\n
‘  .witfieesse’s:wi:ll& have  carefully and cautiously scrutinized<\/p>\n
 ebeiorenai’:\u20ac:e\u00a7’:t.ingdhe same. in the instant. case according to<\/p>\n
‘i.1ieevidVei;1ce_. ‘oi’ these witnesses, few days prior to the<\/p>\n
‘V.,:11arria’g,\u00a7e{‘:. negot.iations were held and during such<\/p>\n
Zriegotijatioiisl the accused demanded dowiy of Rs. 153000\/W in<\/p>\n
” cash and gold 01’nan’1e11t,s. However. in the ci’oss~exarninai,ion<\/p>\n
(\/7<\/p>\n
of PW2. it is elicited that Accused Nos.2 and 3 attende_d__l.he
\nmarriage negotiations. PW2 admits in the C1’OSS-\u20acXE1FIiVl’l?;Elitlt5I1_’
\nthat at the time o.fn:1a.1’1*iage negotiation a w1’itte;j
\nvi2c., Kaul Bida came into existence  it
\nbetween the pE11’ti\u20acS. l’IOW\u20ac?\\-‘t3I’, tl1e:V.sai:d_’i
\nwas not produced before ihe”:\u00a7,”o1;V1’t. 2Nvobieen
\nmade by the PW2 to hand OV\u20ac1f_’ft:}lC:”S\u00a2E\u00a7i1\u20ac   during
\ninvestigation nor the  efforts. It is
\nalso in the evide\ufb02k\u00e9et  :t’}.19cv”  this written
\nagreement   investigation.\n<\/p>\n
Thus 3. Vergz  documentary evidence
\nwhich  vlrith regard to the demand
\nand aeoe1;;t_anee  been produced and it has
\nbeen is ‘withheld.lv” Ttie1’efo1:e, in our opinion the learned
\nl”‘Ses’sions”}Jddge is  in drawing adverse in\ufb02uence for
\n  written agreement which came into
\n(i’.D{l_’~3..”l:’.:’e’,l’lC\u00a7v'(V’:  time of pre–marriage 11egotiai.io1’1. It is in the
\nV’~\u00bb.eAVide11L:e__of PW2 that mar1’iage ceremonies are videographed.
\n to PW2 giving and taking of dowry has also been<\/p>\n
vi?deog1’aphed and videoctassettes contains all those details. It<\/p>\n
is also in the evidence of PW2 that copies oi_’,__the<\/p>\n
Videocassettes were given to both bride and britiegrooiii<\/p>\n
parties. It is not the say of PW2 that he haricied <\/p>\n
Videocassettes to the LO. during…..invest_igat”i0IT.nor\u00e9\ufb01he <\/p>\n
produced the same before the Cotart :g:i’uriiiig.his”‘e\\}id:ene’e1;_’<\/p>\n
Thus another important material ‘-which 7vVWo;1ii.<,:_1H have <\/p>\n
clinchingiy proved the giving    has been
\nWithheld. 'I.'h.e nor1~prot\ufb02.ti:r;tion oi;.iVide.oi:asset.teA has been
\nrightly Viewed sei"_i0us1y_.by:._the'V..tearn\u00e93~gtV\u00e9essiorls Judge to
\ndisbelieve the V    regard.\n<\/p>\n
16; “””    evideriee of PW2, he gave cash
\nof M   about 15 days prior to the<\/p>\n
marriage. flt\u00ab,is.furt:her_ ‘ei.i :ited in the eross–examination of<\/p>\n
 PW2\u00ab~\u00a7.&1hat when”i1e___gave Rs.9,000\/~ in his house, about 9
\n persons:we11e”~–present. According to him 4 persons from<\/p>\n
aztefustedv side  5 persons from his side were present and<\/p>\n
except ttiose-‘*9 persons no other persons have seen giving the<\/p>\n
  a:Ar12o’t:r1tV.”‘}-ie has not stated the names of those persons who
\ni  ‘we”re7 present at the time of handing over the Cash of<\/p>\n
-~.EIts.9.000\/– to Aoctzsed No.1. This eirettrrlstance in our<\/p>\n
,4 “.3<\/p>\n
om…\n<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
opinion has been rightly viewed seriously by the learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge to hold. that there is no c\u00e9ogentfand<\/p>\n
acceptable evidence to establish that PVV2 ha11ded–.ov:ei’–. ~<\/p>\n
of Rs.9.000\/~ to Accused No.1 prioipto the  <\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge after 1-eferiincg {hie etfidencell<\/p>\n
other witnesses has heid thatthere is-..seriousvl as to <\/p>\n
whether cash of Rs.9,000\/– waslllpaidjew  ‘p1*io}1* to the
\nmarriage or at th.e t;irne.._.o”\u00a3’_1i1.a1’1:ia.;:e~–…_’As’~such there is no
\nconsistency in the_eviden.ce.:of1hese_wttnesses'”in this regard.<\/p>\n
17. ..Tite.._pi:o.sec\u00b0uti_Qn also examined PWs.9 to 11
\nwho were”‘stat”ed tc\ufb01he “i–hd–elpenden”tl persons present at the
\ntime of3_ma,rriagle’i’ieg(;i;.iati o’i1s; However, PWs.9 to ll have<\/p>\n
not support\u00e9ed the  prosecution, as according to<\/p>\n
then1;,’ih..ey did\u00bb Anot’latt’end the marriage negotiations. They<\/p>\n
lditaxle  treated  Thus the evidence of PWs.9 to 11<\/p>\n
is of’no–v.\u00bb_assis_tance to the prosecution in proving the pre<\/p>\n
niarriage rieiggo\ufb01iations. No doubt, in the cross–examination of<\/p>\n
  Taitika Executive 1\\\/iagistrate, it is elicited that<\/p>\n
 _l’dt1ri.ng inqt.iest.. he did not come to know anything about prev<\/p>\n
it :n1’a:”r.i’age t’.alk.._ about demand. of Rs.l5,000\/\u00ab and gold<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
ornaments to the bride and bridegroom and that no_body<\/p>\n
stated before him anything; about the demand l’ci.if”vd’owr*\u00a7;<\/p>\n
during negotiations. In our opinion these answers_\u00e91::3’itea–., ~<\/p>\n
from PW5 is contrary to the eonte11_t.s…o_f_  li”‘ep_’ort~_i.v <\/p>\n
Obviously the witness has given this a’ns’\u00a7ver\u00bb._wiihot1Vt<\/p>\n
looking into the inquest rejior-t. submitted hirn and<\/p>\n
marked in evidence as lf3X.P.3.  to state
\nthat during the trial.   should not be a
\nmute spectator and he  during
\ntrial.   _.\u00a7irevv1\u00a7ltit;;*\u00abbefore recording the
\nanswer, it   the Presiding Officer to
\nverify the   pjroeeed to record the answers.<\/p>\n
in the ease’– on’haiid,:’t’,h_is\u00abstep appears to have not been<\/p>\n
taken by the vlear’neAd_v’Se~ssions Judge who recorded the<\/p>\n
 evideincelA’of the”witn_esses. Similarly from the evidence of<\/p>\n
:AP’.V_Vll4–PlS?I,  elicited that during his investigation, it was<\/p>\n
lL_no\u00a2i_;. re’-ze’a.letil’thlat. there was a marriage negotiation three<\/p>\n
dlays’befores:th.e marriage, and it was not revealed that during<\/p>\n
 the nivestigation whether any ornaments were given to<\/p>\n
it Aeensedl No.1 or the deceased. Before recording this answer<\/p>\n
\/?\n<\/p>\n
‘$<\/p>\n
(<\/p>\n
:-..2
\n: ..~<\/p>\n
18. The Whole case of the prosecution rege1rditigl”\u00bbthe<\/p>\n
offence punishable L1I}d\u20acI’ sections 4984-\\ and <\/p>\n
was that since PW2 could not pay balan_ee’~..eoi”:.A_1dow”r’\u00a7’;~l<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/t agreed to be paid, the”: acet1’sed._ s-t1’oj:ec.t_,;-gll”theli<\/p>\n
deceased to cruelty and harassme11t.7._ Ho_wever,_”_tt;he Eearjf1’e.t;1’*<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge in the  his ‘—finding the
\nprosecution has utterly ‘failed  thlevacetised h.ad
\ndemanded dowry of  prewmarriage
\nnegotiation and :l0.000\/t towards
\ndowry ieavtgttgh  held that the
\n llar1’dv~-8\u00e9()4–E3 IPC has not been
\nmade  iifosecution that there was a prew<\/p>\n
marriage lEnegotiation7._ during such. negotiation, the<\/p>\n
 &_ accu\u00a73ed_llden1andedVVa___sL1n1 of Rs.}5OOO\/W, as dowry and out<\/p>\n
 \u00bboi”t\u00bbhe  had paid only Rs.9000\/- is held to be not<\/p>\n
‘proved.V”Vihe:.,_further case of the prosecution that for non\u00bb–<\/p>\n
payrnen’toI'”.ba1ance dowry the deceased was coerced and<\/p>\n
._su.’ojected to cruelty and liarassment cannot be held as<\/p>\n
 “plroveld. No doubt, the death of the deceased had occurred<\/p>\n
 “”tVithiK1 7 years from the date of the marriage and her death<\/p>\n
‘it<\/p>\n
was otlieiwise than under nat’t11*al circumstances. However.<\/p>\n
the evidence on record. does not sat.isfact.orily estabiisli<\/p>\n
the deceased was subiected to cruelty or ha.ra*ssnien:lt.’~int *<\/p>\n
connection with dowry soon before her death. ‘I’heer;efol1’cV,_lt’.he_V V<\/p>\n
important ingredient to coiistitute”. ofif_et’1’V:}’_-1V0{lI.S’ prior to conduct of PM<\/p>\n
exami11at’1on”doeshotfinv\u00e9anjfWay create doubt in the case of<\/p>\n
the pIfOSeCutt(“)n_Tab0t1t thetime of death of the deceased. This<\/p>\n
.”ahs’we’1~i,_e3iei–ted frof1’i””‘PW4 on the face of it cannot be<\/p>\n
 _ae'<;e;jted';' ~ V'<\/p>\n
 jftettordiiag to the prosecution. PW1 lodged a<\/p>\n
"'-=.__"-cgnipiaimjfas pea' ;EZx.P} at 10.30 a.m. on 28.08.1997. in the<\/p>\n
 it has been clearly stated that at about 8.00 a-m.<\/p>\n
 u ori that day. ctoniplainz-int. received information about the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
death of the deceased and immediately. they came to<\/p>\n
Sidlaghatta and after seeing ihe dead body. cornpla\u00abir’1t:.wa’s_A
\nlodged. As could be seen from the FER ~\u00ab\u00bb Ex.P6 co_a”i;plaifri~.g”hfaxid”v ~
\nF’iR reached the jurisdictional Magist_rai;e_at. ZQOO V6nV’_*i;he–_ <\/p>\n
same day. According to the evidenceA:4oi’ii5″\\f>Ji3 4’\u00bbTI’ah_s’iidai’,i’–..h’e?.i_i<\/p>\n
conducted the inquest. betweeI’;’  and’Asvl
\nper the PM report and the eviderice-l.of’ exaniiiiiation
\nwas conducted between  ‘.:’il.\u20ac”_\u00bbbt:lr1e say of PW4
\nthat the death might haVfewtal_<en   prior to
\nthe conduct   tolbe"accept.ed. the death
\nmust have iovccillilifiiodl   by which time
\nalready    and inquest was being
\nconducted;JObyiotislyyythiisjanswer given by PW4 cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.    time of death of the deceased<\/p>\n
. V.  be:do1.,ibted.llCi\ufb01lvt.he other hand. the contents of the<\/p>\n
3'.r1L'1;,i_elst;  i;nd.icates that the dead body was first seen at<\/p>\n
abolitll5.3.0lal};.il: on 28.08.}997. Thus from the above, it is<\/p>\n
 *r.:lear thatA'1.t.11e death of the deceased was homicidal and it
\n o"ccu.1'1'ed in the house of Accused No.1 with whom she<\/p>\n
K  was residing as on the date of death.  ,<\/p>\n
27.08.1997 along with utensiis worth Rs.2.000\/–. It is not
\nstated in Ex.P1 that the deceased also had accompanied the<\/p>\n
Accused Not to Chintamani and they together went<\/p>\n
Sidlaghatta. However during the evidence  ~<\/p>\n
stated that on 27.08.1997 both deceased an_d."Acci,_i:sede  <\/p>\n
came to Chintamani and on the saine day'; t,1'iey'~vx}ent <\/p>\n
along with utensils worth   no
\nconsistency as to whether   hand the
\ndeceased came togetherA"\u00ab–to"  __27.OEA%.V1A997 and
\nwent back to Sidlaghatta\u00bbt,o\u00e9etherA\u00e9ih'  Except the
\nsay of PW2  No.1 and the
\ndeceased' along with utensils
\nworth \/Atialhjsoiutelyjithere is no evidence to indicate<\/p>\n
that Accused. No,V1'V._wa–s Vprzesent in the house during that<\/p>\n
 night, The leariied Sessions Judge 1'efer1*ing to several<\/p>\n
.dec_is1or_i's.A\u00a2hasobserved that the Courts cannot proceed on<\/p>\n
A-.prr;_surs1,p'i–ion'amid conjunctures to hold that the deceased<\/p>\n
was_iast.V.seeh'iin the company of Accused No. 1. during that<\/p>\n
night. lrijthe absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence<\/p>\n
 pr-ove t.he presence of Accused No.1 in the house, it cannot<\/p>\n
\/I<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
be said that Aeeusecl No.1 was responsible for the homi.(__:_idal<\/p>\n
death of the deceased. In this View of the n1atter..’inj’\u00abour_<\/p>\n
opinion, the learned Sessions J udge is justified  ‘ .<\/p>\n
the eteeused for the charge punish;1b.1.e__ttladuefi-‘seuetion 3013;, <\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
IPC. The judgment under appeal, ih our .opin1′,oI1, “iS’VL’;’f:.:5’t1_X1″‘(1V”<\/p>\n
and reasonable having regard’t:Q’\u00ab.tihe et\ufb01delxee
\nit cannot. be termed as pe1’ver_s_u_e”‘-or–j}1egs1;..xTh’ere:fore, the
\njudgment under appealv  hot.  {oh tnte1’fe,~eA1’1ee by this
\nCourt. Accordingly, the <\/p>\n
8:31,-5%<\/p>\n
       FUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THEE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT IBANGALQRE DATEI) Tms ‘i’E~IFZ 25′?” DAY 01:’ NOVEMBER, 2::i{1’0 “j,T ‘ PRESENT K 3 T}-II?) I-iON’BI.E MR. JUSTICE} K;ASI?._E3EE\u00a7I-\ufb02ivfi’i\u00a7A(5’ AND ‘ ” V V THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEKN.KESHAVAI\\EAf\u00e9A’:2’xNA CR.L.A._ No.45?’ 2905 ” […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-18T21:19:21+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-18T21:19:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4329,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-18T21:19:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-18T21:19:21+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-18T21:19:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":4329,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-18T21:19:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-mohammed-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed on 25 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/112234","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=112234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}