{"id":133102,"date":"2006-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006"},"modified":"2015-06-18T09:42:52","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T04:12:52","slug":"venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  851 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nVenkategowda & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nA. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is preferred by Venkategowda (A-1),
\nMuddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4)
\nGovindaiah (A-5), Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-\n<\/p>\n
7), Lakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva
\n(A-11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah
\n(A-14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-\n<\/p>\n
17), Rama (A-18), appellants herein, questioning the
\ncorrectness of the final judgment and order dated 7.3.2006
\nmade in Criminal Appeal No. 161\/2000 on the file of the High
\nCourt of Karnataka at Bangalore.  The appellants took their
\ntrial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
\nBangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 97 of 1989 for
\noffences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with
\nSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) on
\nthe allegations that all of them formed themselves into an
\nunlawful assembly to cause the death of Venkatesh, the
\ndeceased herein, and in prosecution of the same, they
\nmurdered the deceased and caused injuries to Rajanna (P.W.1)
\nand Kenchaiah (P.W.3).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial court, after examining the prosecution evidence,
\nobserved that there was delay in lodging the FIR and noticing
\nthe contradictions and improvements between the ocular
\nevidence of Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2), Kenchaiah
\n(P.W.-3) and Lakshmana (P.W. 10) came to the conclusion that
\nthe prosecution had not established its case against the
\naccused and consequently acquitted all the accused persons
\nvide judgment and order dated 15.04.1999.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn an appeal filed against the said judgment of acquittal
\nby the State before the High Court of Karnataka, the High
\nCourt, accepting the evidence of one injured witness and two
\neye-witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of the
\ndoctors, found all the appellants guilty of the offences under
\nSections 143, 148 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and
\nsentenced each one of the appellants to undergo imprisonment
\nfor a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- each
\nand in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous
\nimprisonment for one year.  Out of the amount of fine, if
\nrealized, a sum of Rs.20,000\/- each was ordered to be paid to
\nthe injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the balance
\namount of fine to Venkatappa (P.W.7), the father or the legal
\nheirs of the deceased Venkatesh as compensation.   No
\nseparate sentence, however, was awarded for the offences
\nunder Sections 143 and 148 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tFeeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the judgment
\nand order of the High Court, the appellants have filed the
\npresent appeal by way of special leave challenging their
\nconviction and sentence imposed on them by the High Court.
\n\tBriefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants
\nare residents of Village Gangonahalli.  The deceased
\nVenkatesh, Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W. 3), Venkatappa
\n(P.W.7) and Lakshmana (P.W.10) are residents of Village
\nBasvanapalya.  The distance between the said two villages is
\nabout 1.5 to 2 kilometres.  Venketagowda (A-1) is the father-
\nin-law of complainant Rajanna (P.W.1) and Venkatappa
\n(P.W.7) is the father of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe occurrence, in question, took place on 04.11.1986 at
\nabout 6.30 p.m. when Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3),
\nLakshmana (P.W. 10) and the deceased Venkatesh went to the
\nCo-operative Society at Chowdanapalya and collected food
\ngrains from the ration shop.  When they were returning to
\ntheir village, they found Venkategowda (A-1) standing in front
\nof his house armed with a chopper.  A-1 had picked up a
\nquarrel with the deceased Venkatesh, Rajanna (P.W.1),
\nKenchaiah (P.W. 3) and Lakshmana (P.W. 10) on the pretext as
\nto why they had worked in the garden of Thimmappa Gowda
\ninspite of they being asked not to do any job of Thimmappa
\nGowda. Govindappa (A-4) assaulted Rajanna (P.W.1) on his
\nright hand with a spear whereas Govindaiah (A-5) assaulted
\nhim with a club on his back.  Shivanna (A-3) assaulted the
\ndeceased Venkatesh with a club on his shoulder and
\nVenkategowda (A-1) assaulted the deceased with a chopper on
\nthe left thigh whereas Muddegowda(A-2) assaulted the
\ndeceased with a chopper on the left arm and left ear.  As a
\nresult of injuries, the deceased Venkatesh fell down on the
\nground.  After commission of the offences, the appellants tried
\nto assault Lakshmana (P.W.10) who escaped from their
\nclutches and took shelter in the house of P.W. 12 and P.W. 14.
\nRajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W. 3) were persuaded by
\nMoodalagiri (P.W. 2) to go to their village leaving the deceased
\nVenkatesh at the scene of occurrence in an injured condition.
\n\tOn the following day, i.e. 5.11.1986, at about 10.00 a.m.
\nRajanna (P.W.1) went to Kudur Police Station and got the
\ncomplaint (Exhibit P-1) written by a scribe near the Kudur
\nPolice Station.  K.B. Jayaramappa (P.W. 20) who, at the
\nrelevant time, was the Station House Officer of the Police
\nStation, registered a case Crime No. 177\/1986 vide FIR
\n(Exhibit P-30) against the appellants under  Sections 143,
\n147, 148, 149 and 324 of the IPC.  P.W.20 K.B. Jayaramappa
\nwent to the scene of occurrence at about 12.00 noon.  He
\nfound Venkatesh lying with injuries on the footpath between
\nthe houses of Venkategowda (A-1) and Ganghahanumaiah (A-\n<\/p>\n
12).  The Investigating Officer prepared the spot mahazar and
\nsearched the houses of the appellants to recover the weapons
\nof offences but no recovery was effected therefrom.
\n\tRajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) were medically
\nexamined by Dr. D. Rajanna (P.W.9) on 05.11.1986 at about
\n11.00 a.m. and he found simple injuries on their persons.  On
\nthe same day, injured Venkatesh was examined by the Medical
\nOfficer of Nagavalli, who referred him to Tumkar Hospital
\nwhere Dr. C.R. Rangaraju (P.W. 4), the Assistant Surgeon,
\nmedically examined him.  Dr. C.R. Rangaraju (P.W. 4) found
\nthree injuries on the person of Venkatesh out of which
\ncompound fracture of the left femur lower end was grievous in
\nnature while other injuries were simple in nature.  The victim
\nwas shifted after two days to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore.  Dr.
\nRangarajan (P.W.18) medically examined the victim at Victoria
\nHospital.  Venkatesh died at Victoria Hospital on 04.02.1987
\nat 6.00 a.m.  Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.13) conducted post-mortem
\non the dead-body of the deceased Venkatesh on 05.02.1987.
\nAccording to the opinion of Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.13), the cause of
\ndeath of Venkatesh was due to respiratory failure as a result of
\nconsolidation of lungs secondary to fracture of thigh bone.
\nThe factum of death was intimated to the Police Station.  On
\n04.02.1987, K.N. Mariyappa, who at the relevant time was
\nworking as Head Constable in Kudur Police Station, prepared
\na supplementary F.I.R. at 9.00 p.m. and converted the offence
\nfrom Section 324, IPC, to Section 302, IPC, and thereafter FIR
\nwas sent to the Judicial Magistrate and other higher officials.
\nOn completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid by
\nthe Police against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution, in support of its case, examined as
\nmany as 20 witnesses and marked 32 exhibits.  The
\nappellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded not guilty to the
\ncharges and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in
\nthe case because of political rivalry and animosity between the
\ncomplainant party and the accused party.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges.
\nOn appeal by the State of Karnataka, the appellants were
\nconvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.  Hence, this appeal.
\n\tOn behalf of the appellants, Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned
\nsenior counsel, contended that the trial court, on a proper
\nappreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses, namely,
\nRajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W. 3) and the eyewitness
\nMoodalagiri (P.W.2) has rightly come to the conclusion that
\nbecause of prior enmity the appellants were falsely implicated
\nin the case after due deliberation.  Learned counsel contended
\nthat the FIR in this case had come into existence after due
\ndeliberation and there were discrepancies and improvements
\nin the versions of Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2), and
\nKenchaiah (P.W.3),  which were noticed by the trial court  and
\nthese were found to be sufficient to doubt the correctness of
\nthe prosecution case.  Therefore, according to the learned
\ncounsel, the trial court was justified in acquitting the
\nappellants.  He also contended that the High Court, on the
\nsame set of facts and on re-appreciation of the evidence
\nwithout properly noticing the contradictions in the ocular
\nevidence of the injured witnesses and one eyewitness, has
\nerroneously convicted the appellants on flimsy grounds.
\n\tShri Sanjay R. Hegde, the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent-State, however, supported the judgment of the
\nHigh Court concerning the conviction of Venkategowda (A-1),
\nMuddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and
\nGovindaiah (A-5) by contending that there was no reason why
\nthe evidence of the injured witnesses and the eyewitness
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence should be rejected.  It
\nwas his argument that the High Court, as a first Court of
\nAppeal, has a duty to reconsider the evidence and correct the
\nerror committed by the trial court.  He, however, fairly and in
\nour view, rightly stated that the conviction of
\nVenkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda
\n(A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11),
\nGanghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14),
\nBettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17) and
\nRama (A-18) by the High Court cannot be justified for the lack
\nof satisfactory and cogent evidence connecting them with the
\ncommission of the offences.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have independently scrutinized the evidence of the
\nmaterial witnesses in the teeth of the rival contentions of the
\nparties.  On reprisal of the evidence of the injured witnesses
\nRajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) as also the evidence of
\neyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2), it is clear that the evidence on
\nrecord fully establishes the case of the prosecution against
\nVenkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3),
\nGovindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) although, there were
\ncertain discrepancies in the testimony of the injured witnesses
\nand eyewitness in regard to the weapons of offence
\nindividually used by (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) for
\ninflicting  injuries on the person of each of the injured
\nwitnesses (P.W.1) and (P.W.3) as also on the person of the
\ndeceased Venkatesh.  The discrepancies, as pointed out by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants, are minor and
\ninsignificant.   The witnesses were examined in the court after
\na gap of almost ten years.  The injured witnesses were cross-
\nexamined not on the very same day when their examinations-
\nin-chief was conducted, but their evidence was recorded after
\na long gap of time.  On examination of the evidence of Rajanna
\n(P.W.1), we find that he was examined-in-chief on 26.11.1996,
\nbut his cross-examination continued and he was cross-
\nexamined again on 27.11.1997.  Likewise, Kenchaiah (P.W.3)
\nwas examined-in-chief on 28.11.1996, but his cross-
\nexamination took place on 28.4.1997.  Further evidence on
\nrecord would show that the injured witnesses had been
\nsubjected to searching lengthy cross-examination and
\nquestions numbering more than hundred were being put to
\neach witness.  In such type of cross-examination by the
\ndefence, some improvements, contradictions, and omissions
\nare bound to occur in their evidence, but they are not of
\nserious nature and they cannot be treated as vital and
\nsignificant contradictions so as to disbelieve and discard the
\nsubstratum of the prosecution case.  The evidence of the
\ninjured witnesses Rajanna (P.W.1), Kenchaiah (P.W.3) and
\neyewitness Moodalagiri (P.W.2) has been rightly appreciated
\nand accepted by the High Court and we find no cogent and
\nsound reason to differ from the reasoning and finding recorded
\nby the High Court against Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda
\n(A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5)
\nholding them guilty of the offences.  There is no substance in
\nthe argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants
\nthat the evidence of Rajanna (P.W.1), Moodalagiri (P.W.2) and
\nKenchaiah (P.W.3) should be levelled as the evidence of the
\ninterested witnesses. There was no basis for Rajanna (P.W.1),
\nMoodalagiri (P.W.2) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3) to falsely implicate
\nthe appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2),
\nShivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in the
\npresent case.  On the other hand, we find that the evidence of
\nthe injured and eyewitnesses is quite natural, convincing and
\ntrust-worthy.  The learned senior counsel for the appellants
\nthen contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the
\ncomplaint by Rajanna (P.W. 1) and registering the FIR in the
\nPolice Station.  In support of this submission, reliance is
\nplaced on Peddireddy Subbareddi And Others v.  State of
\nAndhra Pradesh<\/a> [AIR 1991 SC 1356] and Amar Singh v.
\nBalwinder Singh And Others<\/a>   [(2003) 2 SCC 518].  We have
\nexamined the ratio of the said decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Peddireddy’s case (Supra), this Court, on the scrutiny
\nof the evidence, found that the testimony of sole witness was
\nclouded with strong suspicion and as the FIR was lodged by a
\ndelay of 15 hours, and in such circumstances, the false
\nimplication of the accused in the said case could not be
\ncompletely ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Amar Singh’s case (supra), it is held that there is no
\nhard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would
\nautomatically render the prosecution case doubtful.  Further,
\nit is observed that it necessarily depends upon facts and
\ncircumstances of each case whether there has been any such
\ndelay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the
\nveracity of the prosecution case and  for this, a host of
\ncircumstances like the condition of the first informant, the
\nnature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts
\nmade  to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the
\nhospital and  the police station etc. have to be taken into
\nconsideration and that there is no mathematical formula by
\nwhich an inference may be drawn either way merely on
\naccount of delay in lodging of the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter perusing the entire evidence on record in the
\npresent case, as noticed above, the incident took place on
\n04.11.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. in front of the house of
\nVenkategowda (A-1) and the manner in which Venkategowda
\n(A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4)
\nand Govindaiah (A-5) had assaulted the injured witnesses and
\nthe deceased, the witnesses were frightened and they fled
\naway from the scene of occurrence to save their lives,
\ntherefore, they did not lodge the complaint with the police on
\nthe same day.  The injured witnesses have explained the delay
\nin lodging the FIR and it was on the following day of the
\noccurrence that Rajanna (P.W.1) along with Venkatappa
\n(P.W.7) went to the Kudur Police Station, which is about 15
\nkms. from the place of occurrence and made the complaint to
\nthe police official.  Having regard to the injuries inflicted on
\nthe body of the deceased as also on the person of the injured
\nwitnesses, it was but natural for Rajanna (P.W.1) and other
\nwitnesses not to venture to go straight to the Police Station
\nand lodge the complaint with the police on the day of the
\noccurrence and the fact that the witnesses left the deceased
\nVenkatesh on the scene of occurrence itself would indicate the
\ngravity of the situation.  It is settled law that the delay in
\nlodging the FIR will not be fatal in every case if the ocular
\nversion of the eyewitnesses is reliable and trustworthy.  The
\nprosecution has explained the reason of the delay and as the
\ntestimony of the injured witnesses was found credible by the
\nHigh Court, the delay in lodging of the complaint and FIR will
\nnot be fatal to the prosecution case.  The sequence of the
\nevents and the manner in which FIR has been lodged have
\nbeen rightly taken into consideration by the High Court and
\nwe do not find any infirmity and perversity in the findings of
\nthe High Court accepting the explanation of the prosecution
\nfor lodging of F.I.R. on the next day of the incident.  The
\nsubmission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants
\nthat the prosecution case should be discarded and disbelieved
\non the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, does not merit
\nacceptance.  There is no material on record from which an
\ninference can be drawn that the material witnesses have
\nimplicated appellants Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2),
\nShivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) in a
\nfalse case.  However, the evidence proved does not permit any
\ninference to be drawn regarding participation of other
\nappellants in the commission of the offences, therefore, the
\nconviction of Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7),
\nLakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-\n<\/p>\n
11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-\n<\/p>\n
14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17)
\nand Rama (A-18), as recorded by the High Court, is simply
\nbased on the inference drawn regarding their participation and
\nexistence of common intention on the basis of conjectures and
\nsurmises cannot be sustained.  The established facts,
\nhowever, conclusively prove the complicity of Venkategowda
\n(A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4)
\nand Govindaiah (A-5) in commission of the aforesaid offences.
\n\tHaving given our careful consideration to the
\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we
\nare of the opinion that the judgment and order of the High
\nCourt suffers from no perversity and illegality to warrant our
\ninterference to the extent of convicting Venkategowda (A-1),
\nMuddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and
\nGovindaiah (A-5) for offences under Section 326 read with
\nSection 149 IPC and Sections 143 and 148 of the IPC.
\nHowever, the conviction and sentences imposed upon
\nVenkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7), Lakkegowda
\n(A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-11),
\nGanghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-14),
\nBettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17),
\nRama (A-18) are set aside and they are acquitted of the
\ncharges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe residuary question is whether the sentence as
\nimposed by the High Court upon Venkategowda (A-1),
\nMuddegowda (A-2), Shivanna (A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and
\nGovindaiah (A-5) is harsh.  Considering the background facts,
\nnamely, the incident took place on 4.11.1986, the nature of
\nthe injuries sustained by the deceased and the witnesses, the
\nfact that Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna(A-\n<\/p>\n
3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) have suffered
\nphysically, mentally and financially in prosecuting the legal
\nbattle in different courts for the past about 20 years, while
\nmaintaining their conviction under Section 326, IPC, read with
\nSection 149, IPC, it might be appropriate to reduce the
\nsentence of Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2), Shivanna
\n(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) from five years
\nrigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment
\neach and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000\/- each instead of Rs.
\n10,000\/- each as imposed by the High Court.  In default of
\npayment of fine, Venkategowda (A-1), Muddegowda (A-2),
\nShivanna(A-3), Govindappa (A-4) and Govindaiah (A-5) each
\nshall further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.  Out
\nof the amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 5,000\/- each
\nshall be paid to Rajanna (P.W.1) and Kenchaiah (P.W.3)
\ninjured witnesses and a sum of Rs.10,000\/- shall be paid as
\ncompensation to Venkatappa (P.W.7) – the father or the legal
\nheirs of the deceased Venkatesh.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
\nabove. Venkataramanaiah (A-6), Rajashekaraiah (A-7),
\nLakkegowda (A-8), Rama (A-9), Shivanna (A-10), Mahadeva (A-\n<\/p>\n
11), Ganghahanumaiah (A-12), Singraiah (A-13), Annaiah (A-\n<\/p>\n
14), Bettegowda (A-15), Chikkanna (A-16), Govindaiah (A-17),
\nRama (A-18) are stated to be in jail undergoing imprisonment
\nin this case.  They shall be released forthwith by the jail
\nauthorities, if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 Author: L S Panta Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 851 of 2006 PETITIONER: Venkategowda & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/2006 BENCH: A. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-133102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - 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\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-18T04:12:52+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T04:12:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3233,\"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\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T04:12:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - 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\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-18T04:12:52+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T04:12:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006"},"wordCount":3233,"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\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006","name":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T04:12:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkategowda-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkategowda & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/133102","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=133102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}