{"id":197765,"date":"2009-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009"},"modified":"2014-04-15T17:02:53","modified_gmt":"2014-04-15T11:32:53","slug":"sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nAT BANGALORE\n\nDated this the 3\"-' day OfJu1y, 2009\nBEFORE\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD A'  A' \nCrI'mI'.nai Appeal No I299 of 2003  .\nBETWEEN: A M\n\nSHESHAPPA\n\nS \/ O MUNIYAPPA _\n\nAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS\n\nAUTO DRIVER\n\nR\/O SOLUR vII,LAG-E\n\nANEKAI. TALUK ._  _ ._ .   _\n\nBANGALORE RURAL E_IIS'1'=. 9      APPELLANT\n\n_ {\ufb02y 'M\/s;_'IiI   3: C5,, Adv]\n\nAND:\n\nSTATE BY AN'EjIm$;I';,rCE\nBANGALORE RU jDISI'RI CT ... RESPONDENT\n\n{By Ra_\u00a7I-I SL1brahmanya Bhat, HCGP}\n\n'I:H?1S_G'CRIMENAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 3'?4{2} OF\n\n ' CODE  _\"CR'IIvIINAI, PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT\n DAI'ED-3':S\u00bb2<)0S\u00ab,** PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL DISTRICT <31 SESSIONS\n\nJUDGE, BAI'f,TGA1.ORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SC NO 318\nOF'--~..__ \u00a39S9,_ _CONV1C'}?ING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE\nOEFENC.ES'PIINISRABI.E U \/8 S07 IPC.\n\nTHIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY. THE\n\n COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\n 51.\/'\nI\n\n\n\n2\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Convicted accused is in appeal against the ‘j:.tj’dgment<\/p>\n
dated 3-6-2003 passed in sc No 318 of 1999;”onl’VV~t’h_’e’wl’filerof<\/p>\n
the 2″” Additional District and Sessions Judge._,e.u_:E’san*g:aiorell r’urVaI””.,_<\/p>\n
district, convicting him for theI__offe\u00e9ncell’–_p’tj.nish’a.b.i.3\u00e9’V.Vi;\ufb01;jer’~.._ V<\/p>\n
Section 307 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2. Heard Sri H P Leeladhar,.-.–ie:a’rna’ti_.counsel._fo;f,:the appellant
\nand Sri Raja Subrahma’nyta-.l3’hcat},V iea’i’V:i:e.d’lGovernment Pleader,
\nappearing on b\u00e9ghalf ofthe’ <\/p>\n
3. The 5gvenj\u00a7\u00a7S~i’s”of .ti\ufb01i’\u00e9.’j;api3eial””gsthe incident of assault on
\nPW2  tzliifi’ :92′-{\u00e93_’-19\u00e9\u00e9’t”a’t 7.30 pm in Solur village,
\nAnei<al'taluE<i 'A_re.lpor't-~.:rleg.'a"rding the assault was lodged with<\/p>\n
the g.compIa"i'na:Vnttioliceon 22-5-1999 by the father of victim —<\/p>\n
–  Narayagnapoiaf “”  was registered in Crime No 63 of 1999<\/p>\n
 ‘a.n.dVf:.i:rt.heruViianyestigation was taken up. In the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
the’injti.re:di’..–l9iVanjunath was sent to hospital for treatment. On<\/p>\n
 Aquestioning the victim Manjunath, he revealed that on 21-S-<\/p>\n
 ‘1.99f9 at 2.30 pm, when he was going along with Seenappa<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
[PW4] and Yallappa [PW5] near the farm of Muniramareddy
\n[PW7], the accused Sheshappa restrained him and.pi\u00abcked up<\/p>\n
a quarrel as to why he [Manjunath] had disclogseh.Vt:iie”Vi.tact of<\/p>\n
Sheshappa [accused] writing letters to <\/p>\n
expressing his love towards her. fliilhe’accused.Alis\u00bb\u00abs_a.ivd”:t’o llhaveh AV<\/p>\n
turned the altercation into violence-.A\u00bba’nd trie,dA.gto
\nbut Muniramareddy, near  sincident
\noccurred, pacified bo.t’h~..VQf trielmyjlj4.’;%oi.Never.”th\u00e9V:accused left
\nthe place threatening   take care of him<\/p>\n
later.\n<\/p>\n
4. _I.t.._is_f’u..rvti1e.:#;:_@Fle.gec{“i\ufb01 complaint that on 22-5-1999
\nat  is-rn,.Vw’he’-nilit-‘i,anju’i’:ath” along with one Srinivas [PW3},
\nwas in “me _m’achine,:\u00b0r_;iouse belonging said Srinivas, the<\/p>\n
accigisled kho’ci<.e:d_ a}: the door of the machine house.<\/p>\n
__Manjunath opened the door, but found the<\/p>\n
H  with a matchu [chopper]. Immediately, the<\/p>\n
accuseydg drJagged'Manjunath outside the machine house and<\/p>\n
 xwhlnle abusing him in vulgar Eanguage attacked him with the<\/p>\n
thchohpper. To ward off the blow, Manjiinath raised his ieft hand<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
and therefore the blow directiy hit at the left palm,
\nconsequent of which the ieft palm was chopped off and fell
\ndown. Hearing the screaming of Manjunath, otherscame to<\/p>\n
the spot and Manjunath was shifted to hosQ.lt_\u00e9*!p”w’h.i.l’e\u00ab”his<\/p>\n
father lodged the report with the police, narraitirigi the” <\/p>\n
and also seeking poiice action.\n<\/p>\n
5. The investigating officer_’quels’tiAo”n.ed
\nby PW1 compiainant as also  .a_n”d place
\nof occurrence. He pf”%.5ared”fspotiirnafiiazarinithel presence of
\nwitnesses and seized Since the<\/p>\n
medical repo_rt”ag!gso co_nfi:rm’ed”ithat*uthe\u00e9victim had sustained<\/p>\n
grievous -.irijur’y=’fv..i:rtugai’l3Z”amputating his left paim and the
\nmanner ofi__4aissaVu!t.”C.n i’h:i”i_n,4 the accused was charged for the<\/p>\n
offe.\u00a7ncei’punisha~-Eiie_ under Section 307 EPC.<\/p>\n
…g*TfVhe:’\u00abaccused pleaded not guilty, necessitating trial,<\/p>\n
‘during Vwlhfichigyithe prosecution in ali examined 16 witnesses<\/p>\n
 and producled 11 documents and 7 material objects.<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
7. The learned trial judge, accepted the prosecution case
\nand convicted the accused for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to <\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of seven years””.a’ndjV’rfiVnei  Rs<\/p>\n
20,000\/–. Against such order, thv’elAAacc’i:se:d_  <\/p>\n
8. Sri H P Leeiadhar, le’a_rn.ed counsel’
\naccused would contend  i.n_cid’e.nts_:Vai|eVrjed to have
\noccurred on 21\/22  attributabie to the
\naccused. l-ie  between the
\nvictim  a woman cailed
\nSarasw.ath’;’;~~.,Vf:’\\\u00ab\\fi.:;i::l.e_”aulieded that when the accused
\nquestlipned  he had disclosed the letters
\nacfdressed._’_’by_  to said Saraswathi the incident<\/p>\n
occu.r’re’d, the”iaccused says that it is the victim who had<\/p>\n
\u00bb :cre_ated=.a-,_fa.lse rumour in the village. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
 justify his unnecessary harassment of the<\/p>\n
acl\u00e9usea, the father of the victim had foisted a false case<\/p>\n
2  xa’g–aninst the accused.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
9. With regard to the injury suffered by the victim,
\nsubmission of Sri Leeladhar is that it only shows”‘_that the<\/p>\n
victim had suffered an injury, but does not prove’<\/p>\n
as a consequence of the overt acts of the  <\/p>\n
he submits that even if it is presiurned’ that ~:the_”toV”.the\u00a7’_ <\/p>\n
palm of Manjunath was caused by:4thAe”-azccuse,d, the ch:a’rgVe’–for
\nthe offence punishable  Secti’o_riV is not
\nmaintainable and at VaVfCc_usedf’cou’lVd be charged
\nfor the offence under?’  Therefore, he
\nsubmits that  erred in accepting
\nthe sole     establishing the charge,<\/p>\n
whileifthev ‘other eyqidejnce whi_ch”is full of inconsistencies has<\/p>\n
been ignored. ‘ ,Thi_errefo.r:e,\u00ab.h’e seeks acquittal of the accused.<\/p>\n
10;\u00a7_Per contr.’a,_ Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned<\/p>\n
\u00bb ;Gover.nrne.n:t’~-Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-<\/p>\n
H ‘–Stat’e,V”ha’s:._su;;pported the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n
AA11. “v7iflhis is a statutory appeal against conviction and<\/p>\n
A’  ‘therefore reappraisal of the evidence is necessary. Keeping in<\/p>\n
,’-\\-.\n<\/p>\n
ii\u00bb<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
mind what is urged, K have perused the records and<\/p>\n
reexamined the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
12. PW1 Narayanappa is not an eyewitnesstothe.j’j*n_c\u00a7\u00a2d._ent.<\/p>\n
He had lodged the report narrating…th_e circLrrn’st’anVcernV whi”Ch:”–<\/p>\n
the incident occurred on 22-5-1999. i.’_”t*lowe*.(e’r,::’PW3″Srin_ivasti”<\/p>\n
is an important witness of th_e”-proseic-i.ition,
\nsequence of events   shows that
\nafter having food, wh\u00e9winewais’;ii.n”‘t.lje:machine house along
\nwith Manjunathnand   knocked at the
\ndoor and   .o’D\ufb01\u00a7{i\u00e9.d”‘t’ne”‘door, he was assaulted
\nby  consistent on the point
\nthat the  Manjunath as to why he
\n[Manjuna’t.h4]  to the villagers about the love<\/p>\n
Eet.ters written  [accused]. Similar is the evidence of<\/p>\n
i rjws CVA_Murzi:Vrej_u.\n<\/p>\n
 T.he:ii4i:,?uiVestion now is whether the evidence of these<\/p>\n
 Awgitnesses supports the version of PW2 -~ Manjunath, the<\/p>\n
 victim. The evidence of PW2 is also similar to the other key<\/p>\n
3:\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses and he is more specific. According to<\/p>\n
him, the incident on 22-5-1999 was a sequel to the”–i,ncident<\/p>\n
occurred on 21-5-1999, since on <\/p>\n
Muniramareddy had prevented the accused” <\/p>\n
harm to him, though the accuse-duihiad  with-‘,__ <\/p>\n
dire consequences and with th’at:”-.12tedet&:frh~’inati=on~rvand
\nprepianning, the accused    in the
\nmachine house. 9′ 9’ it it<\/p>\n
14. The facts_:i’e,adin,g””to.-t’he.”E-n::c_i_d’er’itozicsvuihd in the evidence
\nof PW2   the evidence of
\nPW3  the time of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
The,-e:f.Qre_,* “this witness, apart from the
\nevidenceuoifhothe’i’_’or.ose’c_ution witnesses, proves the fact that<\/p>\n
thergiccused had. the machine house and had gone into<\/p>\n
i   wish of Manjunath. It is aiso seen that soon<\/p>\n
H aiter’ the”.”.a.it’errcation, the accused has tendered a biow upon<\/p>\n
thevicitirnh’resuiting in auto-amputation of the ieft pafm. This<\/p>\n
2  nfac-t,isVi’urther estabiished from the evidence of doctors — Pws<\/p>\n
 and 13. Therefore, there is no doubt that Manjunath had<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
suffered a very severe injury resulting in amputation of his
\nleft palrn. Undoubtedly, he would be the main witness to
\nspeak as to how he suffered the injury? He has categorically<\/p>\n
indicated the appellant-accused as the persoVn.__’wVh’o4c:”eaused<\/p>\n
such injiiry and nothing has been salvaged cr_4os’s<_.<\/p>\n
examination of this witness orJany"'other.;l;ey'\u00ab_pro'secu'tion'. if<\/p>\n
witness to create any doubt, _ Beas'ildAe's,zwe  igino-~re"thye
\nfact that a person having
\nnot normaily shield,':'the a'ct'uail.:'jAoffe._nder\u00abto 'irnplicate an
\ninnocent person falsely!   evidence of PW2<\/p>\n
Marijtinath iS" t':':i;E'e aiitea\ufb01ted.'~.xA""Tfh6…_\u00a7ilal court was right in<\/p>\n
acceptvilnlgv  evidence in proof of the overt acts<\/p>\n
of thevvlacgcusedi.\n<\/p>\n
1S…\u00ab\u00a7g ‘In the vnre-svultanit position, the finding recorded by the<\/p>\n
\u00bb trial the accused had caused the injury resulted in<\/p>\n
 ‘ari~..p’utatVi*on  left palm of the victim Manjunath finds full<\/p>\n
supportafrom the evidence and requires no interference. I<\/p>\n
  “tfiiei_refo”re confirm the said finding.<\/p>\n
ii
\nR\/7\u00bbL<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
palm, left the place, is indicative of his intention to cause only
\nbodily harm to Manjunath and it falls short of proof~–.t,hat he<\/p>\n
had intention to commit murder of Manju_n_ath,’,’ti.V”~The<\/p>\n
explanation given by Manjunath that the wj_asVl’<\/p>\n
tendered at his head, but to wardoff,’he?r_aise.d_”hisyyleft  if<\/p>\n
and consequently the blow fell on   pallfl7l’_,.,|fT3’a’y
\nbut the other circumstance”\u00ab:th\u00bbat Vno’t.h_ing.”‘.=  the
\naccused from tenderirlg..,_a  sequence
\nwhich was possible for  object of killing
\nMannunath,    done so. In this
\nfact   victim’s evidence is
\naccep:tlab–lle’,i’    of assault by the accused,
\nbut dovlesxinot  and beyond reasonable doubt<\/p>\n
that -the att’eif_ripvt..n1aicl.eVib.y the accused was to kill Manjunath.<\/p>\n
‘ ”  sinee a”t’.siri~gie injiurylfhas been inflicted on the victim, that too<\/p>\n
  no other injury has been caused thereafter<\/p>\n
biy-..,thev_acc;u’.sed, the offence may not fall within the mischief of<\/p>\n
 ,sectibia__A’3o7 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
fl.\n<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
17. However, as the accused has used a sharp and
\ndangerous object like chopper to cause the injury and the
\ninjury itseif is severe and grievous in nature, resulting in<\/p>\n
amputation of ieft palm of the victim, the offencejfaE’ijs_c-!,eariy<\/p>\n
within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. There4’f’ore4.,’tli\u00e9”ifigndifrliig<\/p>\n
recorded by the learned trial judge,Ath.a.t”lVVt’rrerpraise-cu.ti’or.,.<\/p>\n
established the charge against the :accused   <\/p>\n
punishable under Section  ne’ed_s onlyto
\nthat extent. Accordingly tAhe—-xf:’o~nviction’  accused is
\nconverted from for anll\u00e9toiffenlcg-Vf’:’p:liirii:sVh_a’bleunder Section 307
\ninto one of puvnis’ii\u00aba_ble::’u’nde:r, <\/p>\n
18. Vi\\_iovii we”have’to”~co’n.si’der the nature of punishment to
\nbe impos’e._d;l _ p’un,tis4hment prescribes for the offence<\/p>\n
underlvsectionl ‘3.2,6_ isalso imprisonment for a term that may<\/p>\n
\u00bbe’><-terid: life and fine. But, as the offence has been<\/p>\n
H t:o"riv'ei9teVd'_'j–fro;mV. 307 to 326 IPC, the period of imprisonment<\/p>\n
shaii ggdepend on the felonious propensity of the accused and<\/p>\n
2 "thejtiawnner of attack. As noticed above, since the accused<\/p>\n
telndlered only one biow, which unfortunateiy severed the<\/p>\n
U<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
palm of the victim, yet he did not indulge in any<\/p>\n
indiscriminate assault on the victim.\n<\/p>\n
19. It is also brought to my notice that <\/p>\n
the consequence of his act, _the__ acr.’used:’\u00a7”himself<\/p>\n
volunteered to compensate the vyictirrn ‘money ‘v:a’l–u\u00e9i:of a.’<\/p>\n
sum of Rs 2.00 lakh. BothV__vt*he accused
\nsaid to be permanent resid\u00a2.Fll\u00a3S”:al1V.d\u00bb n’ativ:e:V.\u00a7ofV_:\u00a7’;ane village.
\nLearned counsel for that now the
\nanimosity has ptransformerd and both are living
\namicably? court directed the
\npresence.Vof”accu1:;;ed_u  victim before the court and<\/p>\n
accordingly bo’tt.a’j’o:f”thlemare present in court today.<\/p>\n
20._._1n fa’ct__:’Iear’~ned. counsei for the appellant sought the<\/p>\n
 in’t1..u\u20aclgetnce..\u00abof ‘th’i’s'”court to reduce the offence as one<\/p>\n
“p.unisb:a\u00bb-ble\u00e9yt’funder Section 325 IPC, so as to. permit<\/p>\n
cAo.;;”Vqpo_Lsn’dl’i:\u00a7n_CjV. of the offence. But, considering the facts and<\/p>\n
 circurnstances of the case, the offence cannot be scaled down<\/p>\n
further. Hence, it has been retained for the offence<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
punishable under Section 326 EPC and as the said offence is
\nnot cornpoundable under Section 320 CrPC, by Eg\u00e9eyping in<\/p>\n
mind the facts and circumstance of the caseAV..I..__JwiVi:ltihpalvfe. to<\/p>\n
decide the nature of punishment. With <\/p>\n
have examined the other facts.\n<\/p>\n
21. The accused has beenVingudicifa-i’custody gsrreriodiiof
\n9’\/2 months during the trial a_n_d:’t:her_eafte’r\u00ab. undergone
\npost–conviction detenVtl’o.nfor.\u00a7 months. As the
\naccused himsel_f’h__as   to compensate
\nthe victim. it\ufb01v_’_~’.i”‘l::li”iof\ufb01them to dissolve the
\ndispute. I am inclined to
\nreduce.’ the period of sentence already
\nundergori’e_’_4.by  however, subject to enhanced<\/p>\n
 if The trial”cou_rt_has imposed a fine of Rs 20,000\/~, which<\/p>\n
i shalpl  ‘lzteienhanced to Rs 2.00 lakh.\n<\/p>\n
 I_n~th4}eAfresult, this appeat is ailowed in part, confirming<\/p>\n
 the fln__d’ing recorded by the iearned trial judge that the<\/p>\n
  ac_ctised is guilty of the offence of causing injury to the person<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
of Manjunath. However, the finding of guiit under Section
\n307 IPC is converted into one of offence under Section 326<\/p>\n
IPC. The order regarding sentence passed by they’tVr:i’ai’~Vcoti.rt,<\/p>\n
sentencing the accused for simpie imprisonm.entjV’t~f.oir dseyen<\/p>\n
years is set aside. The sentence co’nfi.n’e.d to,t:he_ pei”‘it’od”‘for 1’. it<\/p>\n
which the accused had airead.y_ undergidone  ‘t!~:et.riai:vanVd
\nafter his conviction by the tri’a\u00bb!.:Vv:.’c\u00bb0urt. Mamountiis
\nenhanced to Rs 2.00   diireicted to deposit<\/p>\n
the enhanced fine amouVn_ti’yyi’th’_i’n  today.<\/p>\n
23. At ttiis ‘stya\u00a7_e,’;iigseams-a.tcotu.i.ssi rtitiiithe appeliant submits
\nthat in–stteaid’~~i,vof:’*1d_epo\u00bbs’it~in’gi”t\u00abh.e_amount in court and then
\npermiittingitheiii\ufb02ctiiinV”to.:_.”witii’draw the amount, theaccused<\/p>\n
may be V\u00a2piern1,itted4Vtio the amount directly to the victim<\/p>\n
  an**d~\u00a7’.:.produ’ce pro~of___ofy.payment before this court.<\/p>\n
the appe|iant–accused and the victim are<\/p>\n
pr”esen_t’inA.T~court, the request is accepted. The appellant is<\/p>\n
 ..direc:teiti’ to pay the fine of Rs 2.00 iakh to the victim<\/p>\n
it ‘~iV_VEVia–ri’junath and on receipt of it, Mannunath is directed to file<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
an affidavit in the Registry of this court, acknowiedging<\/p>\n
receipt of the amount, which shali be part of record.; “-.t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 Author: Jawad Rahim 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 3″-‘ day OfJu1y, 2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD A’ A’ CrI’mI’.nai Appeal No I299 of 2003 . BETWEEN: A M SHESHAPPA S \/ O MUNIYAPPA […]<\/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-197765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-15T11:32:53+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T11:32:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2354,\"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\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T11:32:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-15T11:32:53+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T11:32:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009"},"wordCount":2354,"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\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009","name":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T11:32:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheshappa-vs-state-by-anekal-police-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheshappa vs State By Anekal Police on 3 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197765","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=197765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}