{"id":169030,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-22T04:46:44","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T23:16:44","slug":"state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS TI-IE 291R DAY OF' NOVEMBER. \nPRESENT: ..:gigg,',\nTHE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR' \"   \nTHE HONTBLE MR. JUSTECE :0 1'\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10975 \"OF 20oSrr_\u00a7A1v '~ 00  0'\n\nBETWEEN:\nState by Kyathasandra\"Po}iee.    A \n\n[By Sri.  \n\nAND:\n\nB.G.Ru'd1*aiah., ' 0 _\n\nS\/0 Late Gan;gaoon_n;'ao, = _ 0'  .\n\nAged about 4I.~5_years;  pg 0' \nOccupation:rAgri_cu1t;1riat;' V\n\nResiding at\u00ab..Baddihai-1i,'>.-\"\n\nTun;}.kur.Taluk..V_  I  Respondent<\/pre>\n
V   .0 ri’;BhagWan, Advocate]<\/p>\n
  against ‘the Judgment dated 9.12.2004 passed by the<\/p>\n
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court–I, Tumkur, in<\/p>\n
“‘_S._C.E.*Jo.23\/ 1996 — acquitting the respondent–accused<\/p>\n
  Afor “the offences Punishable Under Sections 302, 307
\nd   and 506 ofIPC.\n<\/p>\n
._ ”  ” 0   ac 9!: >1: :4: =1:\n<\/p>\n
‘  This f;}1’imina1 Appeal is filed Under Section 378 (1)
\nand” (3)! of ‘Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal<\/p>\n
This appeal Coming for hearing on this day,<\/p>\n
Keshavanarayana, J., delivered the fo1loWing:–
\n.4″;\n<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N T p<\/p>\n
This appeal by the State is directed agaiiistt-.f_the
\njudgment and order dated 9.12.2004
\nPresiding Officer, Fast Track Cilour-t–.IpV iifsj
\nS.C.No.23\/96, acquitting the
\nthe charges levelled  u.f0r._ltvhei\ufb02foffelncesl”
\npunishable under Sevottons   of <\/p>\n
2. Brie\ufb02y stated’ is as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
PW.E\u00a7–Gai1ganimaCff-._1s..,:_–the  wife of deceased<\/p>\n
ParaIri.eshwaera:a’h’:’son’~.of~Puttaiah. Accused is the son
\nof one G’-aniigaiah, 4V*Put’taiah and Grangaiah are cousin<\/p>\n
brothers.  a partition in the family of the<\/p>\n
~d’e-ceased ‘an’d___the accused long back and the family<\/p>\n
H lbeen partitioned among the sharers. The<\/p>\n
 accluseldl vvas enjoying the properties which fell to the<\/p>\n
if * share of his father in the partition and subsequently he<\/p>\n
sold half of the properties in favour of one Nanjappa and<\/p>\n
other half of the property was settled in favour of his<\/p>\n
first wife. Nevertheless, the accused instituted a civil<\/p>\n
 -14<\/p>\n
accused ran away from the place. PW.5__._”and<\/p>\n
Parameshwaraiah were shifted to the District <\/p>\n
Tumkur while PW.6 was taken to Shridet\ufb02ri’  V’<\/p>\n
Tumkur for treatment. In the ‘”hospital, <\/p>\n
Parameshwaratah breathed his  aeoount. <\/p>\n
injuries while PW.5 was trea’te:dV–as inpatient; Thereafter <\/p>\n
PW.4 lodged the  which “base was
\nregistered and  up. During
\ninvestigation;  dead body and
\nlater the   to post mortem
\n   conducted the post
\nmorterh –~l,.;_:opi’ned that the death was<\/p>\n
dueto gheriiorrhage  shock as a result of injury to<\/p>\n
{ii\/ifgil olrgans llilievleft lung and liver. It appears the<\/p>\n
aecuse.d”‘V..a}so’-h~ad sustained some injuries and he was<\/p>\n
also  the hospital and was treated by PW.17~<\/p>\n
  Drg.Mru-thyunjaya. After completing the investigation<\/p>\n
it  sheet Came to be laid.\n<\/p>\n
3. The accused pleaded not guilty for the<\/p>\n
charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
The prosecution in order to bring home the gu_i__1t of<\/p>\n
the accused examined PWs.1 to 23, got” <\/p>\n
Ex.P.1 to 13.19 and M.Os.1 to 12. The  ‘<\/p>\n
accused was that on that da.y~~’th.e  in<\/p>\n
with PWs.4. 5 and othershtresfjassed  <\/p>\n
at about 9.00 p.m., assauited hirng  his is<\/p>\n
house and also hoti’sehc\u00bb’id’V_  thereafter<\/p>\n
assaulted his__Wife  and in the<\/p>\n
scuf\ufb02e the    PWs.4 and 5<\/p>\n
sustained.mjhnriiesi   ‘wielding weapons held by
\nthemselves  of the group. It was<\/p>\n
also his d’efence’V\u00ab.th–.a\u00bb’t”in respect of this incident, his<\/p>\n
 fiieedya corripiaint based on which the police<\/p>\n
case. Thus according to the defence<\/p>\n
oi” “-\u00ab4the__v’acc1ised, the deceased and others caused<\/p>\n
  injnries’. to him and that the deceased as also others<\/p>\n
“‘sii’stained injuries on account of their own acts.<\/p>\n
4. After hearing both sides and on assessment<\/p>\n
of oral and documentary evidence, the learned<\/p>\n
.. ..  _ ap.p&1I;._c _  <\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, by the judgment under appeal,<\/p>\n
acquitted the accused of the charges levelled”<\/p>\n
him holding that the prosecution has    <\/p>\n
the charges levelled against  <\/p>\n
doubt. Being aggrieved thejsaid <\/p>\n
acquittal, the State is in\n<\/p>\n
5. We have iieafggi –‘_:\u00a7r\u00a7.vl\\l.’C’:s.,Sainpangi Ramaiah,
\nlearned High .V.Court-~ Vp:”l?Il’eader for the<\/p>\n
appellant  learned counsel<\/p>\n
appeairing  \ufb02relsponldent–accused. We have
\nperused the  examined the oral and<\/p>\n
documenta’r3rV_:tevidencelland read the judgment under<\/p>\n
Q:SriliVN..S~.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned High Court<\/p>\n
0?\n<\/p>\n
Governirient Pleader submitted as under:<\/p>\n
“That the judgment under appeal suffers from<\/p>\n
l’-‘perversity or illegality as the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
 -has disbelieved the evidence of the material eye<\/p>\n
Witnesses on irrelevant grounds, as such the judgment<\/p>\n
\/’\\<\/p>\n
under appeal is erroneous; that the reasonings adopted<\/p>\n
by the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the <\/p>\n
of PWs.5 and 6 who are injured eye   ”\n<\/p>\n
perverse and cannot be a;c’ce’ptedf_4 _th”a~t VIn.ino’r.<\/p>\n
discrepancies in the evidence “of t–rn’ateria.1 <\/p>\n
could not have been mader”\u00bb–basis  their”<\/p>\n
testimony; that the ..__iearn”ed: ‘”‘Ju’dge has
\ncommitted error in hoiding  has not
\nproperly    the person of
\nthe   ‘it is submitted that
\nthough”  indicates that the
\naccused   injuries, it is not shown by<\/p>\n
the ,accuse”(1._:Vthat’ he sustained those injuries in the<\/p>\n
incidents as stated’ by the prosecution Witnesses,<\/p>\n
 there’fore..,v”rion\ufb01explanation of the injuries on the person<\/p>\n
of “\u00bb._the__v’ ‘accused could not have been a material<\/p>\n
 oircurnstance to discard their testimony; that the<\/p>\n
‘~1_earned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in<\/p>\n
  -V-‘holding that the injuries found on the deceased as well<\/p>\n
as the injured eye-Witnesses PWs.5 and 6 could not<\/p>\n
have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1, therefore<\/p>\n
 gros;i.r1d_li’isV made___out to interfere with the judgment<\/p>\n
 undier-._’app,eal_;_ that the evidence of the material<\/p>\n
 they arelali inimical witnesses, therefore their testimony<\/p>\n
A Cf hasloeen rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge;<\/p>\n
the \ufb01nding recorded by the learned Sessions Judgecalls
\nfor interference by this Court. 9<\/p>\n
7. On the other hand,   ‘
\njustify the judgment under as
\nunder: V V l l V V<\/p>\n
That the learned J.u.dge_’_, <\/p>\n
appreciation of the oralV_andt’doccumen_ta1*yl evidelnce, has<\/p>\n
recorded a finding   of material
\nwitnesses       and having
\n of evidence, the
\n\ufb01nding’   Sessions Judge cannot<\/p>\n
be termed’ as either” perverse or illegal, therefore no
\nvvitiiiesseslljSuffers from discrepancy, inconsistency and<\/p>\n
that the evidence on record having proved the presence<\/p>\n
of injuries on the person of the accused, it was duty of<\/p>\n
the prosecution to have explained the injuries found on<\/p>\n
the body of the accused and since the prosecution has<\/p>\n
failed to do so, the case of the prosecution <\/p>\n
rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions-;\u00a7l’ud.gei.:lth,atiA V’<\/p>\n
since the material witnesses have not <\/p>\n
as to how the accused sustained injuries.<\/p>\n
reasonable to hold that they’ not full<\/p>\n
truth and they have~..lied’.VAlon*da;  of the
\nincident, as such  been rightly
\ndiscarded by  that in the
\nlight of    that the injuries
\nfoundjonl  as on the persons of
\n V6′  caused by a weapon like<\/p>\n
 the”   of the prosecution has been<\/p>\n
. rigfitlyi’glisbelievedlllby the learned Sessions Judge and<\/p>\n
 tlk1.erefo:re.vvthe-jildgment under appeal does not call for<\/p>\n
int’erference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 A.  8: “In the light of the above, the points that arise<\/p>\n
for our consideration are,<\/p>\n
(1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
\njustified in acquitting the accused of the<\/p>\n
charges levelled against him’? and<\/p>\n
\/1<\/p>\n
sarnc  .vo1\u00b0\u00ab.._evidence, the Appellate Court should not<\/p>\n
 View to the View formed by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
it which ‘favours the accused should be adopted. Keeping<\/p>\n
 well-settled principles in mind, we shall consider<\/p>\n
 “lithe case on h nd.  ”\n<\/p>\n
a ‘ <\/p>\n
IO<\/p>\n
(2) Whether the judgment under appeal__.__
\nsuffers from any perversity or i1legality”..’_’li~.V_
\ncalling for interference by this Court_?””’- \u00ab’   \u00bb it<\/p>\n
9. We are conscious of the fact thaththisi appeal  K  <\/p>\n
the State is against the judgmentllof’<\/p>\n
as to the scope of interferenieielby mCourt
\nwith the judgment ‘well  The
\nAppellate Court  judgment of
\nacquittal  i.sv;3–.g1ioi2.{2;11p’:_tli\ufb01at.’tl\ufb01fjudgment suffers
\nfrom   account of improper
\nconsideration.’v.*vof_u_fthe ‘   or non–consideration of
\nthe material  It is also well settled<\/p>\n
thatglmereiyl be\u00a7a’use’ another View is possible, on the<\/p>\n
If two  are possible, it is well settled that the View<\/p>\n
 a urvedadpon like l\\\/1.0.1, therefore, user of<\/p>\n
“n_ot,:.i~~established as such, the case of the<\/p>\n
 agccused was that he sustained injuries on account of<\/p>\n
d  assaulted by the deceased and the injured Witnesses<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
10. Perusal of the judgment under appeal
\nindicates that the learned Sessions Judge has
\nthree reasons for acquittirig the accused-j:naniely,”u
\nevidences of PWS.-4. S and 6 are
\ndiscrepant and they being
\ndeceased are highly interested\u00bb as.” su.ch,d’highly’V’
\nunsafe to place relianxce   (ii) the
\nmaterial witnesses it  the injuries
\nfound on   have lied on
\nmaterial   therefore, their evidence
\ncanncgtdhe  ettiddence of the Doctor would
\nclearly’ind’icate.:th’at.tthe injuries found on the deceased<\/p>\n
as Well as tuon_:vthe7′ persons of PWs.5 and 6 could not be<\/p>\n
pro\u00ab\u00absecu’tion’  highly suspicious and doubtful.
\n.113 As already stated supra, the defence of the<\/p>\n
after they trespassed into his house. No doubt, during<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
PW.l7. Thus, the accused has not probablised’ the
\ntheory that he sustained injuries at the
\ndeceased, PWs.4 and 6 in the incident
\npresent case. Therefore, though’
\nestablishes that the accused:\u00bbA:’\u00abhaA.-dd’
\nirljuries in the night  not
\ncircumstance to indicate  “sustained
\nthose injuries in the  deceased as
\nwell as   Under these
\ncircumsta5’ices’;’_pi the learned Sessions
\nJudgeluislv  disbleilieving the evidence of
\nPWs.4lv”toV’–6 on \u00abthat they have not explained
\nthe injuries” on  person of the accused.<\/p>\n
  ‘It islldvvell settled law that testimony of<\/p>\n
  be discarded only on the ground that<\/p>\n
he’,’,she.~is_via’ close relative of the victim or the deceased.<\/p>\n
 However”, evidence of such witnesses will have to be<\/p>\n
it vclo-sedly scrutinized before accepting the same to rule out<\/p>\n
  -\u00abthe possibility of false implication. In the case on hand,<\/p>\n
there is no dispute that a civil suit filed by the accused<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
the evidence clearly establishes that on 22.11.1995 at
\nabout 9.00 p.m. deceased Parameshwarajah,
\nPW.5 and PW.6 sustained injuries in an  1′
\nin Baddihalli village and imrnediaiK\u20ac1p_Y’1:.1A.1
\nParameshwaraiah and his
\nDistrict Hospital at Tumkur:.rj1d:i:i\u00a9’hileA.”P\\?\\Z..’\u20ac;…wzasitaken to”
\nShridevi Hospital,    it the  injured
\nParameshwaraiah   in the
\nhospital. As deceased had
\nsustained5’as1:iii_anv’— and according
\nto Doctor,   dueutov hemorrhage and shock
\nas a result– of  Vital organs like left lung and<\/p>\n
liver, H Thus  the deceased was homicidal.<\/p>\n
 evidence 1oi”11l?3W.1’7–Dr.Murthunjaya and the<\/p>\n
  certi\ufb01cate EX.P.9 would clearly<\/p>\n
establish PW.5 was examined in the District<\/p>\n
Hopspitai’ at about 9.45 p.m. on 22.11.1995 when she<\/p>\n
  was-dbrought to the hospital with history of assault by<\/p>\n
 -~-Rudraiah (accused) and she was found having<\/p>\n
sustained four incised wounds on Vital parts. According<\/p>\n
to the Doctor, injury No.3 namely incised wound over<\/p>\n
  Police. llilhlerefore, we do not find any delay in<\/p>\n
 r._.1od.gir;g:”theeonaplainant. The complaint is spontaneous<\/p>\n
ll'”‘–__l”circun’1s.tance to bring out that PW.4 had any\n<\/p>\n
  -deliberations and consultations with any other persons
\n  by utilizing some time he falsely implicated the<\/p>\n
V accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is consistent<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
hospital for treatment. PW.4 has spoken about the
\ncomplaint lodged by him. As per the
\nEXP. 1 1–FIR. the compiaint was lodged at\n<\/p>\n
22. 1 1. 1995. The incident oeciirred. at  it it
\nin Baddihalli village which is atl’a_’
\nkms from the Police Statiori-it”*~After’ the  Was’
\nthe immediate concernzxof g the ‘brother of the
\ndeceased and husband.e_’oi”l the injured
\npersons to   medical
\nattention –the Police Station to
\nlodge   shifting the injured
\npersons to   after coming to know that<\/p>\n
his brother ‘has’ died’; he proceeded to lodge a complaint<\/p>\n
one, ‘I_’he_3aVccused has not been able to bring out any<\/p>\n
with the contents of the compiaint lodged by him. No<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
surrender himself before the court below forthwith.<\/p>\n
Upon such surrender, the learned Sessions Judge shall<\/p>\n
commit the accused to prison for serving the sentence.  ”<\/p>\n
‘_\ufb01JLH)q;Egsh*h<\/p>\n
RS\/* V<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS TI-IE 291R DAY OF’ NOVEMBER. PRESENT: ..:gigg,’, THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR’ ” THE HONTBLE MR. JUSTECE :0 1′ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10975 “OF 20oSrr_\u00a7A1v […]<\/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-169030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T23:16:44+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=\"10 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-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T23:16:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1925,\"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-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T23:16:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T23:16:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T23:16:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1925,"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-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010","name":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T23:16:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-kyathasandra-police-vs-b-g-rudraiah-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By Kyathasandra Police vs B G Rudraiah on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169030","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=169030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}