{"id":1299,"date":"2008-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-15T21:11:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-15T15:41:42","slug":"prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & K.Ramanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF I-{ARXATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDated : This the 19\"! of November, 2%\nPREEENT\nTHE HOIVPBLE MR. JUSTICE 8.8. BAKNURMATH\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.  .. 3 A\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3.o:\u00ab:Q12.._oos *._\"' V  V\n\nBE'l\"WEEN:\n\n1. Prabhakar Kumar,\nS\/o Abid Singh,\nAged abcmt 24 yeazs,\nR\/atBabanvillage, _  .  _  \nLalckisaradistxict,      \n\n2. Mohan Kumar,  V\n\nS] 0 Rs:-zjendra Si'a'g11,\"\n\nAged about 24 yca.:*'::5_' ' _\n\nR\/a Hindupu.r.vi1}agc,' _\n\nThana Pcast,   \"  \u00a2 V\n  I  A.  ..... \nLa1(kisaJ*ay'i.,di:2!;t1Qt, -- < ' V. V\n\nBihar.   " V , .. APPELLANTS.\n\n P-1. Padii1ava\ufb02i1;vz;iciv.)\n\n'- -    \n  Felice Station.  RESPONDENT.\n\nSxfj Hhlawaz, Max SPF)\n\n\n\nThis Criminal Appeal is \ufb02ied under Section 374(2)\n\n{3r.P.C:., by the advocaie far tlm appellants against the \u00a7udgme_z_1_t\n\ndated 8.4.2005 passed by the ?residi11g oat-car, Fast \n\nC-o'u1't~IX, Bangalore City, in SI}-.No. 517\/2002   ~\n\nappellants\/accused Nos. 2 and 3 for thtif',.Q\ufb01'\ufb011'1Cf:Sh:31f\u00a3#iL\ufb01'J\u00a5\u00e9h1E:, \n\nundar Sections 302, 392 IPC and sente11v<\u00a7i:ng;' 1;'\n\niznprisonmcnt for life and also santehcsgl  V'toVpa3%'  \u00a2i.;.ii11_VeVVVc2:7f\nRS.5000] -- in default to undergo SJ.  _1:.:1i:e o ffcnce\npunishable under Section  Ali\u00e9fj  se\u00e9ltgtncmg\nthem to undergo R.I. for'?   Rs.300()].\n\nin default to u1:1(it\u20ac_i9g1<3\u00abv:;1iT'L~$:3 ,I._afof   the offence\n\npunishable: milder   oxdercd that both the\n\nsentences shall  Vco'n{;u1=\u00a3'eni1"3{,'. " ' \u00ab '"\n\n 5\u00e9tp;@{:a1vA_   and msetsvad for judgment is\n\ncoI\ufb01i:n g 511. 1  f\ufb02nnouncement of Judgment this day,\n\n  J2, 'd\u00e9liff\u00e9r\ufb01d the following:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
  “appeal is by tha convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3<\/span><\/p>\n
 ‘  the judgment of conviction: and substantive<\/p>\n
 <, se.'niience of imprisonment imposed on the accused by the<\/p>\n
judgment dated 8th April 2005 passed by the Fast Tract Court<\/p>\n
6:4"\n<\/p>\n
No.IX, Bangalore, in S.C.No. 51′?\/2002.<\/p>\n
2. It is to be noted here itself that even though   ‘ <\/p>\n
have been tried for the o\ufb01enees punishable unti\u00e9er   <\/p>\n
:20-B and 392 1130., since Saketkumar (aceu:<;ed~ 'No'}'}.) if<\/p>\n
to be juvenile, his case has been
\nappellants [accused Nos. 2  3] hasfei m'<%:'d~   said<\/p>\n
sessions case.\n<\/p>\n
3. The  to :_ t13e”‘pfesent case as per<\/p>\n
the prosecution .fcg1l0ws;   ..  7<\/p>\n
One  $2, ‘miss having a shop by name
\n‘Sha Vastimal   who was dealing in home
\nap’pl.Li}an.ce’g~ et%..,BaIi’g;a}ore.\u00ab Vv\ufb01ccording to him, the deceased and<\/p>\n
iipthe p’3’resei1t. by name Nsvaram was Working as a<\/p>\n
 .T”NianagerA  the  for the past 35 years. According to him,<\/p>\n
 ~ Na\ufb01xsli Kumax’, P.W.19 — Srinivas, accused No. 1 —<\/p>\n
  and acc\ufb01sed No.3 – Mohan Kumar were all<\/p>\n
h  in his shop. According to the prosecution, the shop<\/p>\n
  on the gonad floor and in the 3″‘ and 491 \ufb02oor, the<\/p>\n
 kieeeased and other employees were resi\ufb01ing. According to him,<\/p>\n
about one year prior to the incident, he along with his son had<\/p>\n
6,1\/(W<\/p>\n
left for Rajasthan in respect of the marriage of his daughter and<\/p>\n
during that time, the deceased Manager — Navaram was <\/p>\n
charge of the same. It is not much in dispute that <\/p>\n
Kanthilai – a nephew of the deceased is also !’CSi(\u00a7Z’l’eI1:f.  M<\/p>\n
Bangaiore having a business of his ow1:1′.'”” 1~’.r:co\u00a7a:di1_3vgf  <\/p>\n
prosecu\ufb01on, P.W. 8 – Naresh    _ <\/p>\n
accountant in the said shop and on’ he
\nover the cash of Rs. 1,34,000*1\u00a7z   1′!.1OI;t.iy] to
\nthe \u00e9eeeased Manager – Navarent the owner
\nP.W.7 — Bavarlal     Rajasthan.\n<\/p>\n
According to the  :;1ece*aS[cd  staying in the<\/p>\n
3″‘ \ufb02oor of   handing over the
\nmoney in the  \u00abtdeceased, a}} the 3 accused
\nwere pI’6SC]:I:t\u00bb and  aware of the availabiiity of
\nIth”e..C’1ecejesed.\u00abv Coming to the (‘late of incident, it<\/p>\n
is  ” at about 9 a.m., accused No.3 –\n<\/p>\n
 t\u00b0*Mohan   19 ~– Srinivas came to his house aed<\/p>\n
~ .t.tig3tfo\ufb01ned thaLt_N”avaram has been munlered in the mom he was<\/p>\n
   visiting the spot, he saw the dead body of<\/p>\n
h  bearing injuries on his gerson and as such, he goes to<\/p>\n
4′ jurisdictional police at Chickpet and gives a written<\/p>\n
 complaint as per Ex.P.7 at about 9.45 3.111. On receipt of the<\/p>\n
same, P’.W.5 — the S.H.O. and 19.8.1. registers a case in Czrfgme<\/p>\n
\ufb01”‘”‘<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
found in the 3rd \ufb02oor of the premises No.1S4\/ 155 belonging tp<\/p>\n
P.W.7 who had a shop on ground \ufb02oor at AS. Char <\/p>\n
Bangalore. The evidence of the autopsy doctor cleaxflf   j”<\/p>\n
that the deceased Navaram had received a_s._z..n1any   <\/p>\n
and stab injuries on his entire body’  asjjsetr  ijf<\/p>\n
doctor and his repoit, these i11juIieS’–._V}n7er’eA’~.etnte’
\nnature, which couid be caused by  ectge  like
\nM.Os. 16 and 17 and the to sahoek and
\n}:1eme:rrhage as a result. {if mjxl\ufb01i\ufb01le.  by the
\ndeceased. Hence,   the
\nsaid Navamm met K Veetablished beyond
\nany doubt.  us is ~ whether
\nthe pm-secutioti   reasonable doubt that
\nit is these; “Nos. 2 and 3} with juvenile
\n  1;)’. and have caused the death crf<\/p>\n
 It is also to be seen Whether the<\/p>\n
 . \u00bb”‘pVmsecutio.;1V hae.esjtat)\ufb01shed that the object of this murder was<\/p>\n
”  ‘reb\u00bb.the suiuie-f Rs. 134,000] – said to be in passession of the<\/p>\n
 4: ~-tieee”@e_ed_bet’A_the relevant point of time.<\/p>\n
 Ga peruse} of the entire gmsecu\ufb01o\ufb01 ease 311:1 the<\/p>\n
 evidence led, it is to be nested that them are no eye Witnesses; to<\/p>\n
the actual -assault and as such, the entrixe case of the<\/p>\n
\ufb01e,<\/p>\n
‘ex<\/p>\n
E1<\/p>\n
proseeutti-mi is baseei on evidence of circumstantial in nature.<\/p>\n
These CiI’C11}33.SU;’3I1C\u20acS are as follows:<\/p>\n
3)<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
61)<\/p>\n
Motive;\n<\/p>\n
Robbery of large sum ef Rs.1,34,(}0{)\/–~    ‘<\/p>\n
homicidal death of Navaramg<\/p>\n
Accused Nos} and 3 were empieyeee.\n<\/p>\n
with the deceased, P.W:-3.8′
\nP.W.7 – Bavar1a1@ ‘DeepchaIi{i;~..  ‘
\nAccuses} Nos. 3 and    floor of<\/p>\n
the businevssj ‘premises’ ‘tc:l;e1eeeV_ \ufb02legdeceased was<\/p>\n
si:ayfing_ l’J,;11    .’ _ ‘
\nO11 tlie, eirenieg   ‘bf 25.5.2002 large cash of<\/p>\n
Rs. \u00a7;34,(\u00a7OO,L{–‘ieas  \u00a5:\u00a7;}e custody of the deceased and<\/p>\n
–  _  had ‘kept  “” Sam ‘  e in a cup board in the mom<\/p>\n
 relevant time of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
V  4{\u00a7a$_1.staying;\n<\/p>\n
A  the .ae,-\ufb01ised Imew about the deceased having in
\ncu9;te@?;y such a large amount;\n<\/p>\n
. _’I’he accused were near the scene of offence during the<\/p>\n
Infaet it is accused N05.\n<\/p>\n
I and 3 who have inforaeed about the \ufb01nding of the<\/p>\n
dead body to P.W.6;\n<\/p>\n
K54,<\/p>\n
E2<\/p>\n
h) Recovery of the cash, blood stained az\ufb01cies <\/p>\n
Weapons at the instamres of and the  ‘<\/p>\n
statements made by the accused;\n<\/p>\n
i) Fimiing ofa shirt button \u00ab~ M.(),; \u00bb14__oz1   <\/p>\n
one of the shirts I\\e”i.O. 18 seized E311   iriflf<\/p>\n
accused No.2, was found  oi’v-a’b11ttcr\u00bb:s’A\u00e9:1_1a<\u00a7
\nbutton found at the spot mafC:l1ec\u00a5.._\u00bb_wit.li the Inissing<\/p>\n
button on M.C).18. V<\/p>\n
7. At the  \u00a3ov%b.e  \u00e91ts”‘i;7e have already
\nhelei that the e’ec\u00a7;a\u00e9.\u00a2d Navaram is not
\nmuch in dissufe  by the pmseeution
\nthmugh $he e\ufb01idgeiice of [inciuding mahazar
\nwitnesses]  -the   poiice officials as well as the<\/p>\n
e\ufb01deiiee bf autapsy deetar,<\/p>\n
8. A .__’IV’he  ‘eircumstance mo\ufb01ve is aiieged to be for<\/p>\n
~ .T.Ti\u00a7?.b}:$i:1g the dveeeased of large sum in his possession. It is the<\/p>\n
 V\u00a5:l_:ze”‘Aprosec.13tio11 that accused Nos. 1 and 3 as Well as the<\/p>\n
H V’V:\u00e9eeVesseq:1 were working in the shop of P.W.’? siong with P.W.8<\/p>\n
19. In this regard, the a;rgume11t of the learned<\/p>\n
 .VCi<)unse1 fer the accused is that there is absaluteiy no<\/p>\n
documentazy evi\u00e9ence produced to show such employment of<\/p>\n
5\/4<\/span><\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused by P.W.’?. On peruse} of the entire evidence, itis<\/p>\n
\ufb02ue that no documentary evidence in respect <\/p>\n
employment of accused Noe. 1 a:t:t{i 3 by P.W.7  :”<\/p>\n
regarding their stay in the premises is prc>_d.;.1eed. :.<L5weg;\u00a2:  <\/p>\n
should not deter us from accepting the ;ee–.:.\u00a7:1\u00e9nc\u00a2-\u00bb ef if <\/p>\n
witnesses in this regard, if thee'j_sa;x11e 'is.
\nacrceptabie. In this regard, the
\nthe employer himself. He has tesmts that
\nSaketh Kama}: 3"'uvenile._ (acettseri   No.3<\/p>\n
Mohan Kumar aioug   and P.W.19 –\n<\/p>\n
Srinivas were wori;i;.1gi:_”t1i;    stated that the
\npremises coneiste  the ground \ufb01twr was the
\nshop Whereas   tiietitieeeased was staying anti 03:1
\nthe 4&1  0’E4.;I’\u00e9)..Vt’:J.\u20ac*:V’|AiA!\u00a3V7V()1;kII1.t-iI3L’.t’!…1011g with accuse\u00e9 Nos. 3. and
\n3   a sugges\ufb01on to this witness that<\/p>\n
the ‘  ” u.f1et:’.:.~working and he is falseiy deposizag,<\/p>\n
 44i\u00e9ib’so1uteIy,t1Vo  material is elicited from this Wimess. It<\/p>\n
~ –t\u00e9.jV\u00bb-net-\u00bbas if it  Witness alone who speaks about tile said<\/p>\n
 ‘jg;;.ep1e\u00a7%;ag;\u00a7t;_\u00ab lnfact, P.W.6 the br0ther-ix3,–1aW of 1=.w.7 and<\/p>\n
h  i?’.Ws.8 and 3.9 the Ccwemployees of accused<\/p>\n
 ‘E%Q_s_;f1 and 3 have \u00e9eposed to this e\ufb01ect. Their evidence is net<\/p>\n
  cormborated to each other but in the absence of any cross-<\/p>\n
exazninatien as to why they are faieely imp\ufb01ca\ufb01ng these<\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
empleyer. No doubt, he was not pzeeent. on 25.5.2002 but had<\/p>\n
gone to Rajasthan one month eariier but his evidence <\/p>\n
had learnt this amount from Naresh Kumar — P.W.8,   j” <\/p>\n
found fault with. Admittedly and undisputedly,  <\/p>\n
employer and he would be a1:1x:ious :’:a.boi_i1A. it  1″<\/p>\n
mandatory transactions of his shopV__vth;t)u\u00a7hv.\n<\/p>\n
Manager and employees  ae    t_  the
\nconsideration of the  dd 19 that on
\n25.5.2002 P.W.8 gave aeash ttie deceased
\nwhich he kept in the  Vt \ufb02oor. it is
\nalso estabiished   he was handing
\npver the money   Nos. 1 and 3<\/span>
\nwere present infact seen the deceased
\nkeeping the mene\u00e9t’    There is nothing strange
\n  Gt the’ ‘accused as they were also co~<\/p>\n
empioyeee   in the eame buiiding on the 4&3<\/p>\n
 _1f\ufb01e-or.\n<\/p>\n
  ‘ti t”‘If_1:1e presence of accused Nos. 1 and 3 while Navaram<\/p>\n
V.  and also just immediateiy after his dead body was<\/p>\n
~V.gj1;i;ee:overed, they are spoken to by P.W.8 eonnbomted by the<\/p>\n
 evidence of P.W.6. Apart from them, there is umlmpeachable<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.17 the Security Guard who had just taken<\/p>\n
\ufb01g\/.\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances against them as faise. But they have not trieezi to
\nexplain or Show that they were not employed by ?.W.7 or th;i\u00a3.\u00bbj
\nthey were staying somewhere eise falsifying the case ..
\nprosecution that they were residing on the 431   <\/p>\n
premises and the murder did take place  the ~3*’fi   ‘ifI~\u00a7rVe11′} <\/p>\n
on re-appreciation. of the evidence in  W\u00e9.  V<\/p>\n
the prosecution has established the tjreeettee ef  _e.ee31\u00e9\u00a7e(i*V::Vot
\nonly at the time of P.W.8.   of
\nRs.1,34,000\/~ t0 the deeeasedtt\u00e9bettt. Veve’t1t’:t1te\u00a3?eatter’ till the<\/p>\n
eiead body of the ciecea5ed__.<\/p>\n
\n\n1 1.   as to the guilt of\nthe accused    to the hxves\ufb01ga\ufb01ng\nof\ufb01cer,   of accused Nos. 1 and 3 on\n<\/pre>\n
}C’tT12.e;t.r wjere “tt1te’i1:’cV>gated and they gave voiuntary<\/p>\n
state’t1te1;t_    to accused No.2, had two shirt<\/p>\n
  as “elader Shirt’ at Sudhamanagar.\n<\/p>\n
 to  on taking the police, accused Nos. 1 and 3<\/span><\/p>\n
 accused No.2 – Prabhakar stating that they had<\/p>\n
 ‘V.’jh_2;jt1tIed’;over the cash of Rs.1,34~,O{}\u20ac}\/- to him for safe keeping.<\/p>\n
VV”~–..C)iiVj1tteIIogat:ion of said accused No.2, it is stated that he took<\/p>\n
 tithe police and the mahazar Witnesses to the place where he was<\/p>\n
residing in the same premises and from the plastic bag which<\/p>\n
fee.\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
contained rice, the cash of Rs. l,34~,()O0]- was recovered. \u00a31; is<\/p>\n
also alleged that the accused also produced two blood <\/p>\n
clothes said to have been used in the crime and e1;:1~ea::.\u00a7_’;_\u00a7’.;* ” <\/p>\n
Pxabhakar accused No.2 leads the police  3<\/span><\/p>\n
wimesses to the 4th. cross of Lz-Jlbaghl  _ja’7g=.:di<:'I,V' _ <\/p>\n
plastic bag is pointed out. On Iecovely of Vlih.e:'saB3e,
\npants axe recovered. it is sigI1i\ufb01caotve\u00ab..\u00a3o'.uote
\nshirt ~ M.o.1s had one buttoi:x..V_;'z3is\u00a7:iiisg;'.._evideiice"of the
\n1.0. has been corroborated " ,v   mahazar
\nwitnesses P.Ws. 9,     cross
\nexamination,  evidence in this
\nrespect has been In this mgajnd, it
\nis mainly conteiidedbgf diet the gpmsecution has not
\nesmb\ufb01she\ufb01   llleccused Nos. 1 and 3 and
\n   more importantly it is alleged<\/p>\n
thai  involvement of accused No.2 and his<\/p>\n
 ialleged Volpeltazryledflltement leading to discovery is of false. The<\/p>\n
~   for the accused pointing out to Ex.D.1 – the<\/p>\n
 4'V'l.I3.'l'__\ufb01l}\u00a3'.Ii\u00a71tiO11 given to the accused, vehemently contended<\/p>\n
' iflhel\ufb01arrest in Ex.D. 1, the arrest of all the accused is shown<\/p>\n
 'at,  em. However, it is argued that the recovery' mahazar,<\/p>\n
 tehich is drawzu at about 5.45 p.m. sta\ufb01ng that it is only after<\/p>\n
accused Nos. 1 and 3 who gave voluntary statement and led the<\/p>\n
gem<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
police and pamzhas to the spot, they founci Pmbhakar — accused<\/p>\n
No.2 Working at the factory premises. it is contended ,<\/p>\n
per Ex.[}. 1 when accused No.2 was in custody of the   <\/p>\n
couid not have been present at the V-fa’c’tory  Vttatj. <\/p>\n
Sudhaxnanagar so as to lead the    3<\/p>\n
recovery of cash, the weapons and  st”-aigged …I:i
\nthis negard, on perusal of the, Station…:cti’ouse..LADieiy;t~ isiseen
\nthat the mentiolzjng of   ’emf along w\u00e9til
\naccused Nos. 1 and 3  inistggieeoest\u00e9itement given.<\/p>\n
by the 1.0 and   S.H.D., of the
\nrelevant dates    arrested around 7
\n13.111. it appesrs -.as a] routine, while giving the
\narrest i.3:1timatioi1V._toVs1f1d 3, have also mentioned
\nthe nsme”of’ aecoseel    as such there is possibie
\nioteteoce\u00e9  was aiso arrested along with<\/p>\n
aeeutsetit   4.30 pm. But we are satis\ufb01ed after<\/p>\n
  of,t11ev_S~. that at the relevant point of time the fact<\/p>\n
 ,_t:No \u00e9oubt the police have not produced any<\/p>\n
 the alleged friendship or link between<\/p>\n
 Nos. 1 and 3 on one hand and accused No.2 on the<\/p>\n
 But that fact has been practicaily established through<\/p>\n
 the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 19. These co-employees of accused<\/p>\n
Nos. 1 and 3 have as alreaeiy noted categorically stated that<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
12. The \ufb01ial Court has infant considered ail these;<\/p>\n
aspects at length and in our view, has arrived at a }’\u00a3.1$.’>’\u00a3”.~’ \u00a3.\u20ac.=”1:..<_.Zi'< ". <\/p>\n
proper conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the resuit and for the <\/p>\n
\ufb01nd that the appeal \ufb01led by acc11set1V__I$Eo$3. 2:
\nmerits and is liable to be rejcgcted  tl:1.e’:’  of
\nconviction and setntcnce pass\u00e9\u00e9\u00a7..i’brAt.i”;c for the o\ufb01ences
\npunishable under Sec\ufb01cns  V;\n<\/p>\n
14.   though we have
\nreferred th\u00e9  accused No.1 in the
\ncrime in q11e$.tAi\u00a3j3:;,4″six1Ce,_.i\u00abi:a\u00a7. i:L\u00a7 :_\u00e9i–#\u00a7:i:\u00a7;v.\u00e9i1i1e: and to be tried and he
\nis not on    ease, any observations made for
\n iii; i\u00a713{f}1V\u00a3\u00a5V]fI’J;(vi’f!I’iEH”t’viS incidental and should not be<\/p>\n
 5.3  against him since ht: has to be tried in<\/p>\n
  compaajt\u00e9nt  ‘:i;e., by the Juvenile Court.<\/p>\n
4’<\/p>\n
sd\/-‘
\nIudge<\/p>\n
Sd\/-~
\nJudge<\/p>\n
I N311!\u00bb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 2008 Author: S.R.Bannurmath & K.Ramanna IN THE HIGH COURT OF I-{ARXATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated : This the 19″! of November, 2% PREEENT THE HOIVPBLE MR. JUSTICE 8.8. BAKNURMATH THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. .. 3 A CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3.o:\u00ab:Q12.._oos […]<\/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-1299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-15T15:41:42+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-15T15:41:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2236,\"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\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-15T15:41:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 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":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-15T15:41:42+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-15T15:41:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008"},"wordCount":2236,"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\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008","name":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-15T15:41:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-kumar-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-chikpet-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhakar Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By Chikpet … on 19 November, 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\/1299","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=1299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}