{"id":176133,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-29T11:31:25","modified_gmt":"2014-12-29T06:01:25","slug":"jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 9TH DAY or JULY 20j1\u00e9:'_j ._\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE   V. \n\nCRIMINAL APPEALS Nog\u00e9gszzbasi \"   ' _ j\nBETWEEN: A A A A I A\n\nS\/O. MOHAMMED HUssA1N,____'\nAGED ABOUT 24  . \"\nWORKER IN FRUIT N1ANDY;._ \nRESIDENT OF OPPOSITE;   \n\n:$EM\u00a7L$; A\nARIE\u00a7\u00bb_IKER_E',\u00a5[_--,  ' _  \nKARNATAKA S\"i'A\u00bb'\u00a7E.~.v  \n\nPRESENTLY ,1NV'CtiST0}'\u00a7f{\nAT_HASSAN.._   ' ....APPELLANT\n\n \"  . '(EASY :3R1.'vI--VENKA*1\"ESH C. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\nA STA':If.\ufb01};OF' KARNATAKA.\n\nBY ITS RURAL POLICE STATION.\nARSIIEERE. ....RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
” , (33? SR1 B. RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, HCGP}<\/p>\n
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION<\/p>\n
 374 CR.F’.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
\n” APPELLANT\/ ACCUSED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED<\/p>\n
8\/ 2\/ 2005 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
\nJUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER. FAST TRACK COURT-<\/p>\n
F
\n\/&_*,-“‘\/)<\/p>\n
II, HASSAN, IN S.C.NO. 1%)\/2003, CONVICTING THE
\nAPPELLANT\/ ACCUSED FOR THE VQFFENCES
\nPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324 & 304 PART”I4e:’O’F. IPC
\nAND SENTENCING HEM TO UNDERGO RI <\/p>\n
AND TO PAY FENE OF Rs.1,000\/~, 1.D. OE “PA\u00a51.viE’I\\iT_jlo\u00a3-“_
\nFINE, TO UNDERGO s.I., FOR 3 MoNtr’1:’lS “-FOR THE
\nOFFENCE PUNISHAELE UNDER’ ‘:3EcTIQN_i’32A  *IPCT A
\nAND FURTHER SENTENCING HIM  fUNDERoo  leg.-FOR <\/p>\n
5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE op Rs.2,o0o,(-,-~   PAY
\nFINE, UNDERGO s.1. FOR.\u00bbi’6._MONTIflS FoR”IfHE_ OEFENCE
\nPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304 .PAR_T”-,1 oifipc. ALL
\nTHE SUBSTARTIVE SENTENCES .ARE’i\u00bb5EREEy? ORDERED
\n“DO RUN coNcURRE.NzTLY.’..lN’~’– -.    <\/p>\n
THIS CRIMINAL\u00bbAPi~5EAi}le?Il_~r\u00a7oM1NG ON FOR<\/p>\n
DICTATING JUDGMENT   THE COURT
\nDELIVERED T:’j’IEiE_FQ_LL()Vy{ING:.}_–,__ ~  A<\/p>\n
  De M E N T
\n Vappellant’\/’~.aj\u00e9e.11’sed took his trial before the<\/p>\n
learned  Jad\u00e9e, Fast Track Court–Il, Hassan, in<\/p>\n
   for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
  302 of IPC on the allegation that on<\/p>\n
 at about 11.00 a.m, he intentionally<\/p>\n
 U eornmitted murder of deceased Hussain by stabbing him<\/p>\n
it  a knife on his chest in the land owned by PW.7<\/p>\n
–[situated near Kendadagudi, Arsikere Town.<\/p>\n
,2) The appellant pleaded not the<\/p>\n
charges levelled against him and  <\/p>\n
After the prosecution led evideiricegiby tot; u<\/p>\n
19 and producing documentary”eii”idence.’v”as.
\nto 13.22 and Mos. 1 to 6, thei’a_i_:)peVllant\/ denied all
\n9 the incriminating him
\nin the evidence of   when he
\nwas    Though the
\naccused’   evidence, his defence
\nWas:?_that,A when he went to the land of
\n brother of the deceased<\/p>\n
Hiijgslsain, he asked by the said Ameer Sab to<\/p>\n
\u00bb V1”s-1,1bscribe:hi_s signature to a blank paper for which he<\/p>\n
i. ‘- AvrefusetljQtherefore, he was assaulted by the said Ammeer<\/p>\n
Slab.’ ‘others, and when the deceased Hussain held<\/p>\n
it   him from behind, Ameersab tried to assault him with a<\/p>\n
 knife and since he relieved himself from the clutches of<\/p>\n
the deceased Hussain and sat on the ground, the blow<\/p>\n
fell on the chest of the deceased, as a result, Hussain<\/p>\n
died. Thus, according to the accused, <\/p>\n
responsible for the death of the deceasedlpp  .  0 “‘ 0 <\/p>\n
3) The learned Sessions”: “~afterVfi<1.ea;x'_ing <\/p>\n
both sides and on assessrnvent oforal.  l'd;oci1.rrienta–_rty
\nevidence, by the appealnheld that the
\ndeath of Hussain 'that the appellant
\nwas responsihle_  "death of Hussain.
\nHowever;   and circumstances
\n  djece'ase'd'~w{-fussain received the stab
\nwound on  "learned Sessions Judge held<\/p>\n
that the lldeathppof lthsedeceased Hussain do not constitute<\/p>\n
  p Inurder punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the act<\/p>\n
  the accused would amount to culpable<\/p>\n
 not amounting to murder punishable under<\/p>\n
 AA Section 304 part I of IPC. Consequently, the learned<\/p>\n
"–.;\u00b03je'ssions Judge acquitted the appellant for the charge<\/p>\n
 levelled against him under Section 302 of IPC.,<\/p>\n
nevertheless convicted him for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 304 part I of iPC., in addition to offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 324 of IPC with<\/p>\n
assault on PW.'7~Ameer Sab. After hearingmthe:;;1jpel_Ian_\u00a7$<\/p>\n
regarding sentence, the learned :,  <\/p>\n
sentenced the appe1lantVto_under_g'o R.I.V.'for..
\nto pay fine of Rs. 1,000\/~  offence  under
\nSection 324 of IPC   for'S irears and to
\npay \ufb01ne of Rs,2,00Q.,!~..:.fcr under
\nSection     the substantive
\nsentence  :':\u00a7\\tVr'e1*e ordered to run
\n by the said judgment of
\n the appellant\/ accused
\n  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
  __ have heard Sri. Venkatesh C. Sharma,<\/p>\n
S’ ‘-  appearing for the appellant and Sri. B.<\/p>\n
Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned High Court Government<\/p>\n
2 V.  Pleader appearing for the Respondent \/ State.<\/p>\n
5) Learned counsel for the appellant contended<\/p>\n
that the judgment under appeal is perverse, illegal.<\/p>\n
inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to<\/p>\n
This according to the learned counsel <\/p>\n
amount of doubt about the case of the  it  <\/p>\n
also contended that the learned Sessizons not <\/p>\n
properly appreciated varion-s_.V
\non record, which would defence theory.
\nwhich is sufficient accused. Therefore,
\nhe submittedthat the appeal is liable to
\nbe set   to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
  Government Pleader
\nsought ‘to ‘judgment under appeal and he
\nfurther”contended.Lthat:having regard to the defence put-<\/p>\n
  the accused, place of incident. nature of weapon,<\/p>\n
‘ ..t’he_  of the material witnesses and the fact that<\/p>\n
‘l the  sustained injury are all admitted and the<\/p>\n
exiiclence of PWs. 7, 15 and 16 would clearly establish the<\/p>\n
 .V:o’V~ert-act by the accused, as such, the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
 Judge is justified in holding that the accused was<\/p>\n
responsible for the death of the deceased. He also
\ncontended that appreciation of the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, the points that .arise.’_.fo’r”i:1y
\nconsideration in this appeal are.-\n<\/p>\n
i) Whether the learned Se.ssi_ons”tJ”udge’i_
\njustified in holding ” t’i:at–_ _
\nappellant \/ accused is guilty of the offence ”<\/p>\n
punishable under ‘S-cectio1ic__ 304 “I?art\u00a5i  of<\/p>\n
1pc ?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether “i-the ‘jucigrnerlt “minder appeal
\nsuffers from~i.any–vpe’rv_e_1’sity U; illegality ‘?
\nIf so, whetiierifitlcallsl for interference by<\/p>\n
8)  _i   deceased Hussain died on
\naccotintv     received by knife on
\nO6.07;iZQOS atVi_ab;oi1it arn., while he was in his land<\/p>\n
is iiotiiseriettsly\u00bb dislpnted. Thus, the fact that the death of<\/p>\n
  clefcejasied Hiissain was homicidal. is well–established<\/p>\n
  ,”.c’-said aspect is not disputed by the<\/p>\n
appei’lar~-t7 accused, as even according to the defence of<\/p>\n
it A. the accused, the deceased received a stab wound on his<\/p>\n
dytlchest by a knife held by PW.7–Ameer Sab. The<\/p>\n
T appellant\/ accused during his examination under Section<\/p>\n
313 of Cr.P.C. has stated thus, when he was asked as to<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
whether he has anything else to state, at
\nNo.124:–  Q.\n<\/p>\n
“K9 cxmz\u00e9 mic fig.\u00a3\u00a7\u00a7s;e.i:”‘rt\u20aci\u00e9?\u00a5\u00a7  <\/p>\n
55′:’sa\u20aca\u00b0t’5i’a~ Qg\u00e9eam \u20ac19v8~>\u20ac..t\ufb01m\u20acD.__
\nm we mom s\ufb01w-r$5i>’—-.; am ?'”<5,\u00ae'\u00a7'*.}A , ,,
\n\ufb01fgosmeaa @353'; a\u20act;39z$*'.e\u00bb._""c2cn'u\u00a7';=\u00a7_{"'A:?3u<3" –  g–:*:_\u00bb,.,a::s:;_i?   531% \u00a3*"3"'v"\u00b0'"\n<\/p>\n
mower?    .5aE\u00a3U\n \u00abseem\n\n<\/pre>\n
 :1: ;: ;g.g;t\u00b0{\ufb01 (’33..  V  o\/’$5 g\u00e9gg\ufb01\ufb01
\n U95? 1 A’ ‘$66  \u00bb5z;’f\u00e9’3~’\u00b0;’-\u20ac”~’&\u00b0”‘- ‘”<\/p>\n
 “9}  dnring the cr0ss–exa1ninat10n of PW.7,<\/p>\n
\u00bb V:vsuggestiton:s~-have been put to him to the above effect.<\/p>\n
H  defence of the accused, the following<\/p>\n
facts :;u:e’:?1ot in cl1spute:–\n<\/p>\n
 Presence of PW.7, deceased, accused
\nand few others at the scene of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
11) The incident took place in the land of
\nAmeer Sab [PW.7).\n<\/p>\n
111) The deceased Hussaln received stab
\nwound by a knife on his chest.\n<\/p>\n
I1<\/p>\n
10) As could be seen from the aforesaidjdefence of<\/p>\n
the accused, what was disputed by him was <\/p>\n
not stab the deceased, on the o-th’er-  .7 ‘was’ 5 <\/p>\n
trying to assault him {Accused}
\nthe blow, the blow fell oiidrthe  iof”,the””‘d’eceased.i
\nTherefore, what was~..V_requi1*’edV._:’to”‘b_e considered by the<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judgediwasidiasfwhether the accused<\/p>\n
stabbed the   the injury to the<\/p>\n
deceased. Iiuring his..’\ufb01’.e:{a:n,ination under Section 313 of<\/p>\n
  state anything as to how
\nPWI?  According to PW. 7-the brother of<\/p>\n
 deceased’,’-ygrghen. he started questioning the accused,<\/p>\n
‘ Vlthe accused tried to assault him with a knife and in the<\/p>\n
” r)rocess–,’.”,jhe;=hsustained injury. The presence of the injury<\/p>\n
on PW…  is admitted by the accused. If the defence of<\/p>\n
*   accused is to be accepted, there is no way for PW.7 to<\/p>\n
 sustain injury. Therefore, the presence of injury on the<\/p>\n
person of PW.7 would be a strong circumstance to believe
\nthe testimony of PWKF as to the manner in which the<\/p>\n
incident occurred. According to the evidence of PWTF,<\/p>\n
“E2<\/p>\n
there was some previous dispute with regard to the land
\nin the backyard of his house and on 05.07.2003, the
\naccused came near the backyard of his (PW_fZ’s)4:l’:’l1ouse<\/p>\n
and put-up new fence claiming that it belongs’ <\/p>\n
that connection, the deceased __adV_ised_-‘the’-‘accused,  <\/p>\n
the accused, did not yield to his   <\/p>\n
say of PW.”\/’ that on  .d.eceased
\nHussain informed him aboutllthe “a.ccuse’d– .putting–up new<\/p>\n
fence in the backyard of th.efhvouse\u00a7_,e.however, he paci\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
the  things could be sorted out
\non the”*,__’nte:g;tVV”  ”  ‘informing the matter to the<\/p>\n
n.cighbours  \u00a7t is the further evidence of PW.7<\/p>\n
‘ gthat a\u00a2n.oef.’07.20o3 at about 1 I  he went to the Form<\/p>\n
‘* H’olus\u00e9’gi1;\u00a2ngV’\u00a7vrth PW.12 \u00abRajanna, PW.-l5~Kik1{erigowda<\/p>\n
@4u PW.l6–K.R. Basavanna @ Basavaraju and<\/p>\n
 ivdeceased in an Autorickshaw to hold panchayath in<\/p>\n
connection with the accused putting–up new fence in the<\/p>\n
backyard. After reaching their land, the accused was
\nsecured by sending words and accordingly, when the<\/p>\n
accused came there, the panchayathdars started asking<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
him about his acts done in puttingdlp <\/p>\n
backyard and thereafter, the accused <\/p>\n
and threatened even the   <\/p>\n
stab all of them with a knife_ hepitried to
\nhim {PW.’7), he sustainiedi’  the
\ndeceased tried to  phisvbrovther (PW.7),
\nthe accused stabbed…  a knife on the
\nchest, aspay   grievous injuries
\nand  andthereafter, he was taken
\nto the  Arsikere from where he
\nwas   Hospital, Hassan, where he<\/p>\n
s:i;ccumbed”to,Vthe’injuries. According to PW.7, thereafter<\/p>\n
\u00bb   complaint to the police as per Ex..P6, based<\/p>\n
H \ufb02xon’  police registered the case and took–up<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
11) I have carefully examined the cross-<\/p>\n
} examination of PW.7. No doubt, he is the elder brotherof<\/p>\n
the deceased However, on that ground, his testimony<\/p>\n
cannot be disbelieved or rejected. As noticed above, the<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
presence of PWI7 at the scene of occurrence isdnot in<\/p>\n
dispute. The presence of injury on his persori\u00ab~~w.o’u1’\u00a7i”.j’ helie<\/p>\n
the defence theory. Therefore, there ar.e_,no.vretaso11s”for <\/p>\n
discarding the testimony of j.that4A_’t–he-..’acciised ‘*<\/p>\n
stabbed the deceased. Tiiere is..v;s’uf\ufb01cic1*itL.
\nindicate that there was sorr1x’e..V”v1arid  hvetween the
\naccused and his  one hand and
\nthe deceased and_his.wfs._  the other hand.
\nThe f3ViC1<3.1T1.C\u00a7'~':i;'4' to be another eye-
\n :\u20accor:*odb'ora.te "the evidence of PW}? on
\niriaterial to the evidence PW.15,<\/p>\n
after the accu:sed reached scene of occurrence, he started<\/p>\n
  PW.7 and the deceased and at that time,<\/p>\n
 ~Eiccused"_~_.vvats'"holding a knife and all of them started<\/p>\n
q1iarrei1irig'"d with each other. According to PW. 15 he saw<\/p>\n
 "t1ie_ deceased I-Iussain falling down on the ground and<\/p>\n
2'-thereafter, he snatched knife from the hands of the<\/p>\n
it "accused . Of course, PW.15 did not support the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution to the effect that he saw the accused<\/p>\n
stabbing the deceased. Nevertheless, the evidence of<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
PW.15 indicates that the accused was holding-V:.a.Vj:knife<\/p>\n
when he was quarrelling with the deceasedandr 4_<\/p>\n
the knife continued to be in the “hands off Vac’cu’sed’j A’<\/p>\n
when he (PW. 15) snatched the  is in
\nthe cross–examination to”‘–vs.cdi-scredi’t-   of the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW. 15. .\n<\/p>\n
12) It _ri-sh now””v.\u00a5\u00a211\u00a7se.tt1ed’_  by catena of
\ndecisions.   offva hostile witness can be
\nrelied”toxtjtlied”e};te1:t”V”thVey support the case, of
\nprosecution. *  the court below has not<\/p>\n
coijrimitted any..e*rror in piacing reliance on the testimony<\/p>\n
  oi\u00b0~.CPVV;1t3..A Eitidence of PW.16 fully corroborates the<\/p>\n
   with regard to the accused stabbing the<\/p>\n
d’e__Ceased’..i’.V’There is nothing in the cross-examination of<\/p>\n
 it i?W.z1’6: to discredit his testimony. His presence at the<\/p>\n
dvdscene of occurrence is not seriously challenged in the<\/p>\n
 cross–examination, therefore, he is a competent witness.<\/p>\n
It is necessary to note that the accused is also reiated to<\/p>\n
the deceased and PWJ7. The material witnesses namely,<\/p>\n
:7-\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
PWs. 7 , 15 and 16 had no axe to gI’iT1C1’V.’.f\u20ac’i.'”g:V:8i’i1i’_iS1:;’V’the<\/p>\n
accused and there was no reason for theymv  falsely’ <\/p>\n
depose against the accused. Under’ these ~circ’ui_nsta’nc’es. 7.<\/p>\n
in my opinion, the 1earned4″Sessions
\naccepted the evidence of  ‘to the
\nconclusion that     defence
\ntheory and that OiA”~th%efsig’.V–~u7itneSSeS would
\nclearly gniiicted stab wound on
\nthe   as such, the accused
\n the deceased Hussain. I
\n\ufb01nd    recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
 Judge\u00bb. The investigative lacuna pointed by the<\/p>\n
\u00bb ;”leai’ned -counsel being post~incident factors and even if<\/p>\n
‘gthVere ‘ a1fe”y;some lacunas, in my opinion, they cannot<\/p>\n
c\u00e9featey  doubt as to the case of the prosecution. The<\/p>\n
  ‘iifact that’ the knife was not sent to the Forensic<\/p>\n
 examination has not in any Way discredited the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution. Recovery of veil during inquest, in my
\nopinion, has no signi\ufb01cance in the case on hand. I do<\/p>\n
not see any discrepancy in the evidence of PWs. 7, 15 &<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
16. which would discredit their testimony.  I<\/p>\n
do not see any error in the judgment of  <\/p>\n
holding that the accused title it.\n<\/p>\n
homicidal death of the deceased l4iiissain._K7.  V’ 1<\/p>\n
13) Having regard to”the:*fact.that the accused was
\nsummoned by PWS. land of PW.’7 for
\ndiscussion,    ‘fdudge was of the
\nopinion   no intention to commit
\nmurgierloftlthge  -\\f\ufb01’e”ieV\u00a7arned Sessions Judge has
\nalso Vtalstlen  that after the accused reached<\/p>\n
the. scene occuriencle, the quarrel ensued between the<\/p>\n
l  ‘Vaccu5s”ed'”and  and in that quarrel, the deceased<\/p>\n
     by the knife held by the accused when he<\/p>\n
Ain_ter\u00a7zeneTdAlto rescue his brother PW.”\/. Under these<\/p>\n
 n Vcircumstances. the learned Sessions Judge has held that<\/p>\n
it   act committed by the accused would not fall under<\/p>\n
 offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and it<\/p>\n
amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 304 Part–I of IPC.<\/p>\n
‘s<\/p>\n
E8<\/p>\n
14) Having regard to the facts and <\/p>\n
of the ease, I see considerable force in.’the”eoVnten_tion_of 1 <\/p>\n
the iearned Government Piea.der7..’_Ath:at<\/p>\n
reached by the learned VSegssions”‘Judge on the –<\/p>\n
ienient side having regardto nt15r_i’e’over–\\’Afhei-rnirtg evidence
\non record. For the  to the State, no
\nappeai has     acquittal of the
\naccused   punishable under
\nSectf.’on–V8G.\ufb01V5,Qf   circumstances, I \ufb01nd no<\/p>\n
groundto  judgment of the Court beiow<\/p>\n
convictin\u00e9g’ _:the.I- Aapn”ei1ant\/ accused for the offence –<\/p>\n
‘  Apunishab}.e unde’r”Section 304 Part–I of IPC . Having<\/p>\n
 r.egar.d”~.itoVV”the evidence on record, the Court beiow is<\/p>\n
Aju_sti\ufb01__ved:viA.i’in holding the appeliant guiity of the said<\/p>\n
 ..  The judgment under appeai do not suffer from<\/p>\n
d   perversity or iliegaiity.\n<\/p>\n
15) Having regard to the gravity of the offence
\ncommitted by the appellant. the manner _ in which he<\/p>\n
committed the said act as also the punishment provided<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
for the offence for which he was found<\/p>\n
sentence ordered by the learned Sessions  <\/p>\n
and proper and it does not call;   this 91′<\/p>\n
Court. Therefore, in the light of the’above..’discussi.ons;’IL<\/p>\n
find no merit in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
16) Accordingly?’ dismissed. The
\njudgment of,  passed by
\nthe learned  Fast Track Court-\n<\/p>\n
II,  is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
The   the appellant\/ accused are<\/p>\n
hereby orderedto be cancelled. The appellant\/accused is<\/p>\n
 ‘direct’-ed to surrender himself before the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
  one month from today and upon such<\/p>\n
fappearenicell, the learned Sessions Judge shall commit<\/p>\n
 up  to; the prison to serve the balance period of sentence<\/p>\n
if  ordered. If the appellant\/ accused failed to appear before<\/p>\n
 the learned Sessions Judge within the aforesaid period,<\/p>\n
the learned Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to<\/p>\n
secure his presence and to commit him to prison.<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
R\ufb01stry is directed to transmit <\/p>\n
portion of the order forthwith to the…CQurt’b’\u00e9ic\u00a7X_zfv.,   _  .4  ‘V<\/p>\n
KGR*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 2010 Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY or JULY 20j1\u00e9:’_j ._ BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. CRIMINAL APPEALS Nog\u00e9gszzbasi ” ‘ _ j BETWEEN: A A […]<\/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-176133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 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\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-29T06:01:25+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jameel S\\\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-29T06:01:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2662,\"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\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Jameel S\\\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-29T06:01:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jameel S\\\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 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":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 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\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-29T06:01:25+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-29T06:01:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":2662,"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\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010","name":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-29T06:01:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jameel-so-mohammed-hussain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-rural-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jameel S\/O Mohammed Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Rural … on 9 July, 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\/176133","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=176133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}