{"id":157441,"date":"2005-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005"},"modified":"2017-11-15T05:35:33","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T00:05:33","slug":"k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P.Singh, S.B.Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1285 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.R.SOORACHARI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P.SINGH &amp; S.B.SINHA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at<br \/>\nBangalore dated 16th April, 1999 whereby the appellant has been found<br \/>\nguilty of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)<br \/>\nand Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has been<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on each count and to<br \/>\npay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences<br \/>\nhave been directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe brief facts of the case may be noticed :- \t\tThe<br \/>\nappellant along with his wife and son was put up for trial before the<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Chikamagalur. They <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-2-<\/span><br \/>\nwere charged under Sections 302\/34, 201, 203, 498A and 304B, I.P.C. as<br \/>\nalso under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  The son of<br \/>\nthe appellant was accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as A-1) while his<br \/>\nwife was accused No.3 (hereinafter referred to as A-3).<br \/>\n\tThe case of the prosecution is that A-1 was married to the<br \/>\ndeceased on 27.5.1990. On 4.10.1990 her dead body was found near a<br \/>\nriver. The next morning at about 10.00 A.M.  A-1 lodged a report at the<br \/>\npolice station to the effect that on the earlier night the deceased had gone<br \/>\nout of the house to clean utencils but did not return, and since it was<br \/>\nraining, the search did not yield any result. In the morning they found her<br \/>\ndead body near a river. On the basis of the report lodged by A-1, the police<br \/>\nought to have swung into action, but it appears from the judgments of the<br \/>\nCourts below that the police did not act with promptitude as a result of<br \/>\nwhich much of the evidence was lost. However the autopsy on the dead<br \/>\nbody of the deceased revealed the following injuries :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;1.\tFive irregular contusion injuries present on the left<br \/>\nshoulder, each measuring 1-1\/2 cm x 2 cm.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tContusion injury measuring 3&#8243; x 2&#8243; on the right<br \/>\nhypothdrine region.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tHeamotoma measuring 1&#8243; x 2&#8243; on the right frontal area<br \/>\npresent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tSub durral heamotoma measuring 2&#8243; x 1&#8243; on the right<br \/>\nfrontal area of brain.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tIntra corebral heamorrage on the right frontal lobe.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tHaemoragic area found on the lower part of anterior<br \/>\npart of liver.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs noticed earlier, A-1 the son,   A-2 appellant and A-3 the wife<br \/>\nof the appellant were put up for trial before the Sessions Court. By its<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 14th February, 1995 the Trial Court found A-1<br \/>\nguilty of the offence under Section 498A,  I.P.C. but acquitted him of all<br \/>\nother charges. The appellant and A-3 were acquitted of all the charges<br \/>\nlevelled against them. The State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo.868 of 1995 against the acquittal of the three accused persons of the<br \/>\ncharges under Sections 302, 201 etc. while A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo.125 of 1995 against his conviction for the offence under Section 498A<br \/>\nIPC. Both the appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a<br \/>\ncommon judgment Only the appellant (A-2) has impugned the judgment of<br \/>\nthe High Court convicting him for offences punishable under Section 498A<br \/>\nIPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tWe may notice that the High Court allowed the State&#8217;s appeal so<br \/>\nfar the appellant is concerned to the extent that it found him guilty of the<br \/>\noffences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry<br \/>\nProhibition Act. The State&#8217;s appeal as against A-3 was dismissed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court, and the appeal against acquittal of A-1 on other charges was<br \/>\nalso dismissed.  Both A-1 and A-2 preferred a special leave petition before<br \/>\nthis Court, but the special leave petition in so far as it related to A-1 was<br \/>\ndismissed at the admission stage itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<br \/>\nthere was no justification for the High Court to set aside the order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed in favour of the appellant. He submitted that so far as the<br \/>\noffence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, there is no material on<br \/>\nrecord to support the aforesaid charge.  The evidence only disclosed that<br \/>\nA-1 husband of the deceased entertained a suspicion about her chastity and<br \/>\nthat was the reason why she was harassed by him. There is no evidence<br \/>\nwhatsoever to connect the appellant with the offence under Section 498A<br \/>\nIPC. He also submitted that so far as the offences under Sections 3,4 and 6<br \/>\nof the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the High Court was not<br \/>\njustified in setting <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-5-<\/span><br \/>\naside the finding of fact recorded by the trial court in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant. We have, therefore, considered the evidence on record placed<br \/>\nbefore us by counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo far as charge under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we are<br \/>\ninclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is<br \/>\nreally no material to connect the appellant with that offence. In fact the<br \/>\nHigh Court has not even noticed any such evidence which may justify the<br \/>\nconviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC. We are, therefore, of<br \/>\nthe view that the appellant is entitled to acquittal so far the charge under<br \/>\nSection 498A IPC is concerned. This takes us to a consideration of the<br \/>\nevidence with regard to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.<br \/>\nFour witnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution. Pws 1, 2, 4 and<br \/>\n7 are the four witnesses whose evidence was considered by the Trial Court<br \/>\nas also by the High Court. The High Court has come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe evidence of these witnesses conclusively proves the offences under the<br \/>\nDowry Prohibition Act, and the Trial Court really gave no cogent reason<br \/>\nfor disbelieving these witnesses and acquitting  the appellant.<br \/>\n\tThe Trial Court has considered the evidence on this aspect of the<br \/>\nmatter in paragraph 18 of its judgment. It has<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-6-<\/span><br \/>\nnoticed the evidence of PW-1, the step father of the deceased that there was a<br \/>\ndemand of Rs.20,000\/- and some ornaments from the appellant at the time of<br \/>\nmarriage negotiations. He expressed his inability to pay such a big sum and<br \/>\ntherefore, the amount was reduced from Rs.20,000\/- to Rs.10,000\/-. As regards<br \/>\nthe ornaments, it was decided that only a kapali ring will be given to A-1 and a<br \/>\nmangalsutra shall be given to the bride. In view of the agreement, PW-1 sent<br \/>\nthe amount to the appellant through his wife PW-2 and his nephew&#8217;s wife<br \/>\nYashoda PW-7. They paid the amount to the appellant. PW-2, the wife of PW-<br \/>\n1 corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and stated that three days after the<br \/>\nnegotiations she had gone to pay Rs.10,000\/- to the appellant along with PW-7<br \/>\nand paid the amount to the appellant. PW-4 has substantially corroborated the<br \/>\ntestimony of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 is the husband of PW-7. He has however,<br \/>\nnot stated that his wife PW-7 went with PW-2 to pay the sum of Rs.10,000\/- to<br \/>\nthe appellant. PW-7 Yashoda however, deposed the fact that the demand of<br \/>\nRs.20,000\/- by way of dowry was reduced to Rs.10,000\/- but she has also not<br \/>\nstated anything about her going with PW-2 to pay the amount to the appellant.<br \/>\nOn the basis of such evidence on record the Trial Court concluded that except<br \/>\nthe oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 there was no other evidence on record to<br \/>\nshow that three days <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-7-<\/span><br \/>\nafter the marriage negotiations PW-1 had sent Rs.10,000\/- through his wife and<br \/>\nPW-7 to be paid to the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the Trial<br \/>\nCourt came to the conclusion that neither there was any demand for dowry nor<br \/>\nwas any amount paid to the appellant by way of dowry. Thus the prosecution<br \/>\nhad failed to establish that PW-1 paid to the appellant a sum of Rs.10,000\/- by<br \/>\nway of dowry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was<br \/>\nunsustainable. We have also considered the evidence on record and we find<br \/>\nthat four witnesses have consistently deposed about the manner in which the<br \/>\nnegotiations were held and how the demand of Rs.20,000\/- was reduced to<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- and the further fact that the said amount of Rs.10,000\/- was paid to<br \/>\nthe appellant through PW-2 and PW-7. The only deficiency in the evidence<br \/>\nwhich the Trial Court found was that PW-7 did not state in her deposition that<br \/>\nshe had gone with PW-2 to hand over the amount to the appellant. In view of<br \/>\nthe other evidence on record this fact by itself did not justify the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The evidence on record is quite<br \/>\nconsistent and PW-2, in fact, stated that she had gone with PW-7 to pay the<br \/>\namount. It is not the case of the defence that PW-7 denied having gone to the<br \/>\nappellant. Much was sought to be made of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-8-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the omission  on her part to mention that she had gone with PW-7 to pay the<br \/>\namount to the appellant. The finding recorded by the Trial Court in our view<br \/>\ncompletely ignores the cogent and reliable evidence on record which proves the<br \/>\ncase of the prosecution that dowry was demanded and paid.  Such a finding<br \/>\nignoring relevant evidence can not be sustained even in an appeal against<br \/>\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe, therefore, find that the conviction of the appellant under the<br \/>\nDowry Prohibition Act is fully justified. We, therefore, set aside the conviction<br \/>\nof the appellant under Section 498A IPC but affirm his conviction and sentence<br \/>\nunder Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed, setting aside the<br \/>\nconviction under Section 498A IPC, but upholding the conviction and sentence<br \/>\nunder Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.  He shall<br \/>\nforthwith surrender to his sentence <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t-9-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>failing which the State shall take necessary steps to apprehend him to serve out<br \/>\nthe remainder of his sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 Bench: B.P.Singh, S.B.Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1285 of 1999 PETITIONER: K.R.SOORACHARI RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2005 BENCH: B.P.SINGH &amp; S.B.SINHA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T This appeal by special leave has been preferred by [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-15T00:05:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T00:05:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1707,\"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\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\",\"name\":\"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T00:05:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-15T00:05:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T00:05:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005"},"wordCount":1707,"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\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005","name":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T00:05:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-soorachari-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-13-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.R.Soorachari vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/157441","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=157441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}