{"id":148011,"date":"2009-06-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-05-16T22:01:56","modified_gmt":"2014-05-16T16:31:56","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNA'I'AKA, SANGAI,CI\u00bbI\u00a7\u00a7I+:.\nDATED THIS THE 6\"\" DAY OE JUNE,   A' \nPRESENT 'E E I\nTHE IIONELE MRS. JUSTICE  \nAND \u00ab  . .. . _ \u00ab. --.\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTIcE\"A..V:'N. VENUGOPIXLIAHEGOWDA\n\ncrI.A.I\\.I_o. I~2Ii'7SI\u00a7f  ( A)\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSTATE OF KA;RI\\II9f_i'AKI\u00a7 T   APPELLANT\n\n[By Sm.\" I'>';I\u00a2I,: .--'AIjI:>L. '{S'I+>IJJ' \n\n1 RAVI'I7{UMAR_@'AS{ri'OK\n\n5 \"S10 GAI\\I_GAI)IIAR EELCHADA\n 22 YRS, BEH..I_ND STATE BANK\n COMPOUND,\n S_IL\\\/'ERGATE, KULSIIEKAR,\nII IVIANQALQRE\n\nVI-SHWANATHA S \/0 CHENNAPPA RAI\n.3'2,Y:RS, KALENJA HOUSE.\n'IN 'FRONT OF VISHNUMURTHI TEMPLE.\nA  KALENJA VILLAGE\n\n VIA BALLARE2. SULLIA TQ\n\n... ACCUSED\n\n Sri. M MURALIDHARA M AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1. 8: R2]\n\nTHIS CRLA. IS FILED U\/S. 378(1) :31 (3) BY THE SPP.\nFOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT\nMAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST\n\n\n\nTl-IE JUDGEMENT DT. 18.12.2001 PASSED BY THE II\nADDITIONAL S.J., D.}{., MANGALORE. IN S.C.NO,EVil\/2001.\nACQUl'f'I'ING- THE ACCUSED~RESPOI\\lDENTS \n\nOFFENCES PUNISHABLE U\/Ss. 450 AND 302 \n\nSEC. 34 OF IPC.\n\nTHIS APPEAL COMING om FoAR..1\u00bb:EA.fi1i\\1t3*\ufb01~1ls I4_l)_AY\",_ I \u00b0 \n\nMANJULA CHELLUR J. DELIVEREK) mTE\u00aba,FoL'LowlNe'.Qf Seeor1clIAdditior1al\n\nSessions Judge, Daksh.ina-   1 2.2001.\n\nI'2.lllIl'lheiicase:?o'f tli'e;prose\"ou'Ei'on before the trial Court in\nbne1'1\u00e9-_a\u00e9 11r1ILler:'\u00ab..'IV  V. \n\n. PW}-4..l13'.'M.1'V\\_RdhIlit1\u00a7\"ISVand pws Rohithaksha are the\n\n '~    deceasved...Smt.DeVaki and they were all living at a\n\n ' alrlil-a.gAe._ir1raniarea called Kuclupu at Mangalore. PW4 Lalitha\n\n'hy\"\"occu\ufb01ajljoi1 a teacher is none other than Wife of PW3\n\nRohlthaksha. PWS. 3 and 4 had Children who were also\n\nI  xreslndinlg with them. PWI Rohini is also a teacher who was\n\nSyvborklng at Mulki and she was given quarters at Mulki.\n\nI \"Therefore she was stayirlg at Kudupu with her mother and\n\nsome1.i.mes at Muiki in the quarters allotted to her.\n\n\n\nDuring Christmas Vacation in the year \n\nchildren of PWs.3 and 4 had gone to  \n\ngrandmother's place and PW1. 4} an_dMdeeeased'_'Aweifeu\"\n\nstaying in the house in their residenoev  \n\n26.12.2000<\/pre>\n
 when none of the”-._othetr0’familywere)<\/p>\n
present at home Smt.DeVaki  agedabout: 86 years
\nwas murdered with the_ii1teI’i_tio;n vofttobibing vaiuable things
\nfrom her possession. A.Aoe_o’rdiogii,Lto’ddthejoroseeution Rohini<\/p>\n
the daughteriof  deceased retur’r’\u00a7ed”h’ome at about 12.30<\/p>\n
noonrarid ‘oniiehearirig “1n’oaVninug”s’ounds from the house she<\/p>\n
tried  ‘open  door-._iv_hieh was locked from inside.<\/p>\n
Therefore0″s1’1e*rL1Shed0’fo–~’nthe back door but the same was<\/p>\n
  inside. ….. ..He-nee she raised alarm and eailed for<\/p>\n
‘ ;heEpj1’rorn:’thje’ neighbourhood. In response to her cry PW2<\/p>\n
‘said to haxf-edarrived at the spot. Both of them apprehended<\/p>\n
dang.er’Vto.t:he life of deceased Devaki. It is the further case of<\/p>\n
 ., ‘Liaiseuprodsecution that PWs. E <3: 2 peeped through the Window<\/p>\n
0'-sitziate in the bedroom of Smt.Devaki and they saw A1 and<\/p>\n
0 it  holding two ends of the twisted Cloth which was tied<\/p>\n
around the neck of the deceased being pulied and deceased<\/p>\n
was lying on the cot. When PW] questioned Al who
\nother than the nephew of PW4 Lalitha he
\nperson calling by name urging h_1'_m. to"   th\ufb01eu'
\nspot. On noticing the AI and 2 runniiig  <\/p>\n
they chased them to a certain'*-distancelland tretti\u00a7l'1.eCl horned"<\/p>\n
Meanwhile PWi6 M\u00bb Smt. Mohini"-::_n1other.o[ lPv'\\?V2vvf%a1*rived at
\nthe spot and noticed thetilidead b-;j)dy'4oEV'L'Dhev;1ki in the bedroom
\nand several persons gathered at the "\n<\/p>\n
On _precei\u00a5Jin.g.Vinfcrrnation hoyet” the phone, police<\/p>\n
arrived”   erlglnr\u00e9d PW} and others. The
\ncornpla.int._ of.  is at EXP] was recorded.
\nMeanwhilehighertauthozrities from police arrived at the spot.<\/p>\n
 cond\\.ucted”inq.ue’st and sent the dead body for autopsy.<\/p>\n
writtenvl.co:<1_1plaint of PW1 which is at, ]33x.Pl was received<\/p>\n
'a\u00e9:"2'.15p;}g;_. and registered at 2.30p.m. in Cr.No.388\/2000<\/p>\n
on llthefilexoi' Kadupu police, Mangalore. The FIR at Ex.I?8<\/p>\n
\u00bb "was dispatched to the Court through PW9 and EXP}<\/p>\n
"reached the Court by 5.20p.m. on 26.12.2000.<\/p>\n
3. During the course of investigation the spot rnahazar<\/p>\n
and spot sketch came to be drawn and several art’icI\u00e9:sujwevre<\/p>\n
seized under different mahazars. The blood  <\/p>\n
material tied around the neck ot”V-i,he’-dece–ase_d’<\/p>\n
sent for opinion of medical expert3P’W:5\\;’S <\/p>\n
Conducted autopsy. The matte_r’ia_i artitlesiwere aisowsetnt to”<\/p>\n
FSL, Bangalore, for ESL ar1d—-:Sero’}~ogy reportgi PW8 B.
\nNanjundappa is the  Mangalore.\n<\/p>\n
PW? K. Vishwanath poojar\u00e9ijg. ,;j1e_ okigxww gave Ex.P4 to<\/p>\n
confirm” the.  the”residenee”‘in the name of PW3 where
\nthe offence_ took’  also the fact of deceased and<\/p>\n
others 1ivi’ng._\u00a7 in the sa,id”h’ouse. PW17 K. Narasimha Bhat is<\/p>\n
 ‘~   _engineer..wh’o drew the spot sketch as per EX.P-1 1.
\n ‘  Chan_drashekar is the PSI who not only received<\/p>\n
ieiegjhoneiriessage regarding the commission of offence but<\/p>\n
is the virho visited the spot, recorded the complaint of PW}<\/p>\n
it xa.’rS1d_ sent the same to Police Station through PC for<\/p>\n
AS;fe>gistrat,ion of the case. It has aiso Come on record that the<\/p>\n
it mudistance between the Police Station and the spot of incident<\/p>\n
is about 4 to 5 kms. PVV18 PK. Shashidhar is the 10 who<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
took up “further investigation from PWl9 and filed charge
\nsheet. He not only apprehended and interrogate-d_ the<\/p>\n
accused but al_so filed the charge sheet. From <\/p>\n
material placed through the evidence of PWs..–;l:” V’<\/p>\n
prosecution tried to bring on 1’eco.rdA\u00bbVthye d=t1’ect”et1ide1iceyfor V<\/p>\n
the commission of offence by Al  <\/p>\n
also part of the family of th\u00bbe_v’dQCeas\u00e9\u00bbdVW’h_Ql”apf{yed…at thewl<\/p>\n
spot subsequent to th.e_ incidentuafteiaheating.thepvvnews over
\nthe phone. pws. 2 andy.yPWl?5–.are the son and<\/p>\n
rnothei*ytfh’o..:llved’\u00ab th’e:neighboi’hood of the deceased and
\nthis fact  not  defence. PW5 ~ Sujandas is<\/p>\n
another resident of’7_>’lo~c’ality who lives in the vicinity of the<\/p>\n
    the dec’eased’S1nt.Devaki who said to have seen A}<\/p>\n
‘  -near the railway track at about 1.30 pm. on<\/p>\n
26\u00a7’}l2.2GGVf}’;_ he also questioned the cause for their running.<\/p>\n
Prosecutioti tried to bring on record extra-judicial confession<\/p>\n
 said.’ to have been made by A1 regaining the cornmissio-n of<\/p>\n
‘offence before this gentleman. PW6–Dr.P. Bhaskar Alva is<\/p>\n
it  the doctor who conducted the autopsy and issued PM report<\/p>\n
marked at Ex.P2. Further opinion rega1’ding material used<\/p>\n
and 2 pleaded not guilty to the charges and _1;hoe’1’.edafter<\/p>\n
evidence was recorded. In all 19 witnesses were  <\/p>\n
apart from EXs.P1 to P11 and EXs,l\u00a7A)m1b and.2″for:’the’=tle\u00a3e11ce”=<\/p>\n
and M01 to .5 material objects lwe1″e’aljsol*n”ia.i’ked”‘for <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
5. As already stated   Vetlxidence of
\nPW} and 2 co1’1*oboratel’c’l.l)~\\r_the  PWs.3, 5 and 16.
\nprosecution brotight on Support of the
\ncharges leyelliled  that PWs.1 and
\n2 aciuall.y– slaiJ\u00bb’*,}~\\.lit”ari’d.d_j2~–.strahgulating the deceased Smt.
\n hue and cry by PWI they ran<\/p>\n
awaiy”ih.:rough~ the lback door of the house which was seen by<\/p>\n
   Though PW2 tried to catch hold of them<\/p>\n
 ‘by chasing therh to a certain distance he was unsuccessful.<\/p>\n
Tt’ie1’e[_o’re,heAreturned back. According to the prosecution by<\/p>\n
 Athye  the conterits of EX.P1 came to be recorded by the<\/p>\n
ll”p.ol_1’nce within a span of 1 and 11\/2 hours from the time of<\/p>\n
__;loi”fence in question the names of Al and 2 came to be<\/p>\n
disclosed in the complaint and the FIR reached the<\/p>\n
Magistrate on the very same day at 5.2(3p.m. without any<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
delay either in receiving the complaint or in registerilrightlie<\/p>\n
case or the FIR reaching the Court at 5.20p.rn.  <\/p>\n
6. As against this the defen;:deA”tried\u00a2_t’o  on: record’<\/p>\n
different and contradictory defence”e\\ienz with regard <\/p>\n
cause of death of the decease–r;l:\u00a7V”v.iAccordingto  death”<\/p>\n
could not have been caused by”‘stran’g’u.lat.ion’ as projected by
\nthe prosecution as  with regard to
\nthe material _w.’a–th strangulation said t.o
\nhave been;  iotVVP”\\:Vs.l and 2. They
\nalso r’nad_e.setieral_rst1ggest.i_onsf to t.he doctor PW6 indicating
\nthat the i<:1eceasedV  sustained injuries while trying<\/p>\n
to 'put, the  for drying on a rope by climbing on the<\/p>\n
  E"';:[:"l':e"3r~.\u00ab_.also  to bring on record the fractures<\/p>\n
 .sustainggdvnby-.t..lie deceased could not have resulted in the<\/p>\n
deathsof thleideceased. This is so far as the actual cause of<\/p>\n
 death-._.o'f the deceased in order to say whether it was a<\/p>\n
i'  'horriicidal death amounting to murder.<\/p>\n
Ultimately their<\/p>\n
fdefence seems to be even if the Court comes to a conclusion<\/p>\n
that it was homicidal death it was not within the knowledge<\/p>\n
of PW:-3.1 and 2 who committed the murder of the deceased<\/p>\n
l(}<\/p>\n
as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the
\nPW16 would indicate that it was not
\npersons to notice what exactly
\nAccording to the defence o'r1_\ufb02acco'a–1nt..nof  <\/p>\n
dispute between PW 4 and hei*,lorotiher's._son[whio  none V<\/p>\n
other than the  inlcolliidsion with
\nPW} conspired to eliminate knock off
\nthe entire p1"Qp;\u00a7;n\ufb01,. which; of wife of her
\nbrother   'A1. In other words,
\nacco1*(jinlgV   3 and 4 taking undue<\/p>\n
advantage ._ of  have tried to accuse A1 of<\/p>\n
comr_nittald"o.f 't1'1\u00a2  The Learned Judge did not focus<\/p>\n
  }1iisct1s,sion'ii\/ith…regard to the so called enmity between<\/p>\n
V    however he did not accept the case of the<\/p>\n
it –..Vl'1na.rk at the backside of the neck of the deceased.<\/p>\n
xi?'<\/p>\n
he<\/p>\n
.:second reason was nondisclosure of the names of<\/p>\n
'pro'secutiori for several reasons.\n<\/p>\n
it  The first and foremost was the absence of a ligature
\nl The
\nthe
\naccused 1 and 2 to the police over the phone by PW1 while<\/p>\n
iritirnating murder of her mother. Another important lacuna<\/p>\n
“git it _ <\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
11. While referring to the above circumstances..to”V;go’ V.<\/p>\n
against the case of the prosecution. the arg__ti’rnVentA_i’vof  <\/p>\n
defence counsel is to the effect that P’.’V”v’s.i’3_a-inds:4\u00ab._are””theV”.
\nmaster minds in. conspiring the case to. e1imin;_ate~ <\/p>\n
No.1. The1’ei’ore, the suspicious.circumstaimeas.’_=sLirronnding V<\/p>\n
the fact of commissionof~~o_ffen.’c.e”1:5y–: two at:’cu’sed would
\nultimately persuade the Cotirt \u00a2o1:i::fi:~;<i+i.{h;3a judgment and<\/p>\n
order of acquit'ta1\u00ab\u00abj._oassed by  Keeping in mind<\/p>\n
the above: arguniveiitsth.e"V_;51foscCution and also the
\ndei'encte';d"Wei.shaved':fgone–.througt3~~the evidence of Witnesses,
\ndocutndentaryd evidence .a'nr._1'a1s\u00a2 the reasoning of the learned<\/p>\n
trial udge': , h =<\/p>\n
 Eihe points' that would arise for our consideration<\/p>\n
 'are: ' '<\/p>\n
{vi} _VdA4j'iWhether the judgment and order of acquittal.
\ndeserves to he set aside'?\n<\/p>\n
(2) What order?\n<\/p>\n
LE3. So far as the death of the deceased Devaki is<\/p>\n
concerned, it is not in dispute that she was found dead on<\/p>\n
” _sit”uation and circumstance.\n<\/p>\n
km<\/p>\n
E H1E11’1I’1\u20acI’.\n<\/p>\n
F\u00bb)
\n,;J<\/p>\n
the deceased. By that time P.W.1 had called local done”
\nShetty to ascertain the condition of her rnoth_e_r’.~-._  isaiid<\/p>\n
doctor KB. Shetty said to haye de’c!_ai?edi’ <\/p>\n
Therefore. she called the police by rin’gin’g.numbe_rA  00. it <\/p>\n
18. According to,.the   is full
\nof contradictions and :,’to”-tiiiedmentioning of the
\nactual words t1sed__ by  accused No.2
\nand so also  rtj.n’V’i’rorn the front door
\nto the   inside the house. The
\ndefence C.ourisei.’tried\u00bbb’to\u00bb_jargue.’ that by hearing the sound of
\nsome one  front door or back door, the<\/p>\n
as,sai1ancts whowere inside would have immediately ran away<\/p>\n
. “from  spot without giving scope for anyone to identify<\/p>\n
1″ ~_th\u20acVI11 ‘i it .. V<\/p>\n
..  How 3. Witness or an assailant acts in a particular
\nH cannot be stated in a definite
\nin a1} probability, when she knocked at the front
\ndoor and the back door. the accused might not have noticed<\/p>\n
their presence as they must. have been busy with their action<\/p>\n
on the deceased inside the bed room of the deceased<\/p>\n
Only when P.W.1 questioned the action of <\/p>\n
accused No.1 seems to have realised that lo*ne~_wa_s”=<\/p>\n
watching them and then he must have”ale1’tedl <\/p>\n
that their plan was spoiled’: ‘Accoi”ding to <\/p>\n
even wasting a second, these accused said” to lhlavevfgrun away
\nthrough the back door\u00bb.  h;Voi_i.s’e,_’~.7ll<1ye evidence of bot.h
\nP.Ws. 1 and 2 so far watching \u00abivindow, noticing<\/p>\n
the accused  otlthefdee-eiased and the action<\/p>\n
of t}1e"accti.sed  th'e;decelasedllis categorically stated by
\nthem  tlierelnll iirnaterial contradictions in their
\nevidence.' \u00b0P,.W.l saidtoahlave given her statement within two<\/p>\n
 after seeing.._.t_he ghastly incident over her mother. In<\/p>\n
' she must have been out of her wits when the<\/p>\n
'police arriveyduand she must have been in total shock to<\/p>\n
discloses the entire facts giving minute details of the incident.<\/p>\n
 x\u00a3t:l".:nust have taken some time for her to come back to<\/p>\n
ldnormalcy to behave like a nonnal person. It is also noticed<\/p>\n
H that except her. none of other family members were present<\/p>\n
at that time. It is also to be noticed that the evidence of<\/p>\n
'29<\/p>\n
22. It is the case of the prosecution that accosted’:-\u00ab 3<\/p>\n
was in the habit of asking money from the
\nand the deceased Devaki used to  of”\n<\/p>\n
given to her by P.Ws. 1 and_3.\n<\/p>\n
prosecution that in order to take:inoney’fro1’nd thedddedceased
\nand also other Valuablespthis  rndadebyviaccused
\nNo.1 with the assistance 5:   any unknown
\nassailant would’:ly_gtve  ‘Eliouse during the
\nabsence  house, definitely valuables
\nand “the cupboard kept in the
\nsame housde __been missing. Even the gold<\/p>\n
orr1a1_’nents”on’~ the the deceased were still on her<\/p>\n
    arrivedat the spot. If the assailants were to be<\/p>\n
‘ =l:rio\\:s_mv..to~  1 and others, there was no reason that P.Ws. 1<\/p>\n
.’andd3 wotilddiimplicate innocent persons leaving out the real<\/p>\n
culprits…wVho took away the life of the deceased. Therefore.<\/p>\n
 from any angle when the facts were looked into, we are<\/p>\n
diuriable to accept the defence of the accused that the crime<\/p>\n
committed by some unknown persons was made use by<\/p>\n
P.W.l at the instance of P.Ws. 3 and 4. The evidence of<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
P.W.2._ corroborates the evidence of l3′.W. 1.: how  3
\nwas attracted to the cry of P.W.2._ when he   Q
\ncar in front of the house, how he
\nrun after the accused, how he  <\/p>\n
learns the name of accused No.2,a1i.d how’-h.e’wa_s ‘i>.r5i”‘sibie to it<\/p>\n
catch hold of them though  lanxattelmpte. The entire
\nscene must have been   as he was a
\nneighbour of   to the deceased
\nfor quite    etridence of P.W.16 —-\n<\/p>\n
mother'”o”i”  come in the Way of
\naccepting  and 2? On careful perusal<\/p>\n
of the evidte–r_ic.e of this ivi.ti’1ess P.W.2 ~ Rajesh indicates that<\/p>\n
   theucry,____when he looked for source of the cry he
\n‘ noiicedV4P.tW,llf’vin front of the yard of the house, he rushed to<\/p>\n
 he did not notice whether his mother<\/p>\n
acconiipanied him or not. He says his mother also came to<\/p>\n
it  nthespvoi. In aii probability she would have come there on
\n‘shearing the cries and this Witness definitely does not speak<\/p>\n
 that his mother accompanied him when he went to the spot.<\/p>\n
So also P.W’.1 does not disclose before the Court that P.W.16<\/p>\n
railway track.\n<\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5.<\/p>\n
24. We do not rely upon the:\u00abso1’_Acalledaextra <\/p>\n
confession made by accu.sed_ “No.1 ‘r.ega1’di1:ig”‘.th..e crgirne <\/p>\n
committed by him.\n<\/p>\n
25. Next coiningzti\ufb01to   registering the
\ncomplaint, fi1l}’1g’C~.fV’th\u20ac   the Court.\n<\/p>\n
the totality.    that day would\n\nindicate that     and 2 saw accused Nos.\n\n<\/pre>\n
1 and:’.2 c.o11irnittin_g*the.._cri_1jne.f By 1.00 p.m., she informed
\nthe police, ‘l’he”police,. at the spot using a vehicle<\/p>\n
coyreritng the V’d.i.s_tance’ of 4-5 kilorneters. After the police<\/p>\n
.’  the spot, they must have first enquired into the<\/p>\n
    they would have recorded the statement.<\/p>\n
  within less than two hours from 12.80 noon,<\/p>\n
 A. statement of P.W.l was recorded by the police. By 2.30 pm.
\n case was registered in the police station as Crime No.<\/p>\n
388\/2000. Within 1 hour 45 minutes from the time the<\/p>\n
crime was coi’rm1ittecl. the complaint came into existence.<\/p>\n
The police arrived only after receiving the information over<\/p>\n
in this way the evidence of’..~\u00ab~l7.’_.j”\\?’*.7..2-“Visit” V.<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
to the accused when there is no scope for any doubt\u00bb<\/p>\n
entertained with regard to the genuinenessfaf  *<\/p>\n
placed before us. Under these circurnstancesrivejallcwgthe it<\/p>\n
appeal and pass the following O1’d\u20ac1″a:V’<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed Vsetting aside  <\/p>\n
order of acquittal against _reVs’pD_ntlent .No.s._  and 2.
\nRespondent Nos. 1 and   of the offences
\npunishable und_er_Sectio’ns.  r\/w Section 34<\/p>\n
IPC.\n<\/p>\n
Heard regardpirig ‘sentence.\n<\/p>\n
 _Havir1’g_regardA’–._to'”‘the age of the accused and the<\/p>\n
‘ V’  ‘CiVl’I3.i:iri1’E’:.taF1\u00a73\u20acS ‘wi’1ich the untimely death of the deceased<\/p>\n
 ‘has’we are of the opinion that so far as the<\/p>\n
‘offence. punishable under Section 450 IPC.. is concerned.<\/p>\n
 rigorous imprisonment of five years would be just and<\/p>\n
 progner. So far as the offence punishable under Section 302<\/p>\n
V’;IPC., as the offence in question would not fall under the<\/p>\n
category of rarest of rare cases, we impose imprisonment. for<\/p>\n
life and a fine of Rs.5000\/~ (Rs. five thousand) each to the<\/p>\n
accused. In default of payment of fine ameunt, the  <\/p>\n
shall undergo further rigorous in1’pris0nrnenth:”‘~-fprhi6 K <\/p>\n
months.\n<\/p>\n
The accused are directed ‘iqsurreuder bef0Vre\u00ab-the.*tria1 , ‘<\/p>\n
Court to serve the sentence irnp.0aed_ against them. <\/p>\n
The remuneration for the ibsegfvicasv rendered by the<\/p>\n
learned Amicsjs’-i\u00b0}_d1*iae;=is  \/’~.<\/p>\n
Sd\/\u00ab\ufb01n
\nIudj\u00e9<\/p>\n
Sd\/gi
\nJudge<\/p>\n
SAK\/N33.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNA’I’AKA, SANGAI,CI\u00bbI\u00a7\u00a7I+:. DATED THIS THE 6″” DAY OE JUNE, A’ PRESENT ‘E E I THE IIONELE MRS. JUSTICE AND \u00ab . .. . _ \u00ab. –. THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTIcE”A..V:’N. […]<\/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-148011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - 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-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\" \/>\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 Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\\\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2702,\"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-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\\\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\\\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - 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-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009"},"wordCount":2702,"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-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-16T16:31:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ravikumar-ashok-so-gangadhar-on-6-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Ravikumar @ Ashok S\/O Gangadhar on 6 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/148011","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=148011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}