{"id":198441,"date":"2008-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-22T12:52:40","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T07:22:40","slug":"chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  609 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nChandrappa & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nNON-REPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.609\/2006<\/p>\n
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe facts leading to the filing of this appeal by way of
\nspecial leave are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.\tPW-1 Bhagyavathi, wife of Thimmappa deceased of village
\nArebilachi, is the complainant in the case.  Thimmappa was
\nthe son of  Navilapa.  Navilapa had, in addition, five other sons
\nDevendrappa, Manjappa, Chandrappa, Nagarajappa and
\nGadigeshappa and two daughters including Ratnamma PW-2.
\nNavilapa had about 12 acres of ancestral land and he had
\ndivided the said land equally between himself and his sons
\nand all were in possession of their respective shares thereafter.
\nThimmappa, Devendrappa and Manjappa were residing
\nseparately whereas the other two, Chandrappa and
\nGadigeshappa,  were residing in their old family home whereas
\nNagarajappa was residing with his father  Navilapa and his
\nsister Ratnamma.  Thimmappa,  however, acquired about 10
\nacres of land on his own but his brothers Chandrappa and
\nGadigeshappa were demanding a share out of this land as well
\nand on account of this development, the relationship between
\nthe brothers had become strained.  Chandrappa and
\nGadigeshappa also filed a suit seeking a share in the 10 acres
\nacquired by Thimmappa with the result that the relation
\nbetween the brothers was further strained.  At about 4 p.m. on
\n1.8.1993, Thimmappa told his wife Bhagyavathi that he had
\nlearnt that Chandrappa and Gadigeshappa had gone to the
\nfield to pluck coconuts and that he was going to prevent them
\nfrom doing so.  Thimmappa and his brother Devendrappa PW3
\nthen left for the fields on a scooter.  A few minutes later
\nRathnamma PW2, sister-in-law of Bhagyavathi PW-1 came to
\nher house and informed her that she had seen Chandrappa
\nand Gadigeshappa accompanied by their brother-in-law
\nHanumanthappa, Shiva and Siddeshappa along with
\nBhoomesha and Manja proceeding towards the field armed
\nwith Choppers and sickles and she apprehended some danger.
\nBhagyavathi and Rathnamma then left for the field and as
\nthey reached the outer fencing at about 4.30 p.m., they saw all
\nthe accused as well as Bhoomesha and Manja assaulting
\nThimmappa with sickles and choppers.  PW3 Devendrappa
\nwent to the rescue of his brother but he too was assaulted and
\nhaving sustained an injury he ran away towards the village.
\nPWs1 and 2 thereafter entered the garden and saw that
\nThimmappa was lying grievously injured near the Samadhi
\nadjoining the land.  The accused Siddeshappa and
\nHanumanthappa also abused and assaulted the two women.
\nPW4 Prashanth Kumar, who was attracted to the place,
\nrushed in with some water which he attempted to put into
\nThimmappa’s mouth but he succumbed to his injuries at the
\nspot.  PW3 Devendrappa was also taken to the Bhadravathi
\nhospital by PW11 Rudrappa whereas PWs.1,2 and 4 stood
\nnear the dead body.  It was also noticed that the accused while
\nrunning away had left behind a sickle and a club near the
\ndead body.  An FIR was got registered by PW1 Bhagyavathi at
\nabout 11.45 p.m. at the Police Station.  The investigation was
\ntaken over by Inspector M.I. Jameel PW20 who visited the
\nscene of occurrence on 2nd August 1993  at about 6.30 a.m.
\nand prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements
\nof the witnesses and picked up the sickle and club in the
\npresence of witnesses.  His efforts to trace out the accused
\nwere, however, not successful till the 3rd August 1993 when he
\narrested four of them. Accused No.2 was arrested on
\n10.9.1993. He also visited the Government Hospital
\nBhadravathi on the same day and seized the blood stained
\nclothes of injured PW3 Devendrappa.  Several weapons of
\noffence were also recovered on the interrogation of the
\naccused.    On the completion of the investigation, the accused
\nwere charged for offences punishable under sections 143,
\n147,148,302 and 324 read with 149 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe prosecution in support of its case relied primarily on
\nthe statements of the four eye witnesses PW1 Bhagyavathi,
\nwife of the deceased, her sister-in-law PW2 Rathnamma, PW3
\nDevendrappa an injured witness and brother of the deceased
\nand of two of the accused, and PW4 Prashanth Kumar son of
\nPW3, a boy aged 13 years.  Reliance was also placed on certain
\npieces of circumstantial evidence.  The prosecution case was
\nthen put to the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and
\nin the written statements filed by way of their defence  they
\ndenied the allegations in toto and on the contrary put up a
\ncounter version that Hanumanthappa and Siddeshappa had
\nnot been present at the time of incident and that the other
\nthree accused had been assaulted by Thimmappa deceased,
\nPW3 Devendrappa and one Manju Nath and that they had
\ncaused injuries to Thimmappa in their self defence.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe trial court held that it was clear from the record that
\na dispute existed between Thimmappa and his brothers with
\nregard to the 10 acres of land and that Thimmappa had in fact
\nfiled three suits seeking an injunction but the said suits had
\nbeen dismissed on 3rd April, 1993  itself and as such there was
\nno injunction in favour of Thimmappa on the day of incident.
\nThe court also observed that a Partition Suit which too had
\nbeen filed, had been compromised after the murder on 5th
\nNovember 1993 and that no partition had taken place before
\nthe aforesaid date and the field in which the incident
\nhappened stood in the name of Navilappa and that they had
\nstarted a plantation on the said land which was being
\nmanaged by them.  The court also noted that it appeared that
\nin the early hours of 1st August 1993 Navilappa had filed a
\ncomplaint before the police alleging that his sons Thimmappa
\ndeceased and PW3 Devendrappa were obstructing him from
\nentering his land and it therefore appeared that the accused
\nChandrappa and Gadigeshappa and son Nagarajappa had
\njoined hands to defend their possession when the deceased
\nThimmappa and Devendrappa PW3 were creating an
\nobstruction.  The court then examined the statements of the
\nwitnesses and observed that the FIR did not show the
\npresence of PW4 Prashanth Kumar or the nature of the
\nweapons in the hands of the accused and the story that the
\naccused had snatched a Mangalya with a golden chain from
\nPW1 Bhagyavathi was also an exaggeration.  The court further
\nobserved that the police itself appeared to have discarded the
\npresence of  Bhoomesha and Manja and had not filed a
\ncharge-sheet against them which supported the view that an
\nattempt had been made to rope in innocent people.  The court
\nalso observed that the fact that the witnesses who were
\nallegedly 30 meters away from the field of the spot had stood
\nstill watching “just like a film shooting” or like “Dumb statues”
\nand this was also circumstance against the prosecution.  The
\ncourt further observed that there was a delay in the lodging of
\nthe FIR which had not been adequately explained away.   The
\ncourt then went into the medical evidence and opined that
\nPW15 Dr. Nanda Koti, who had treated the accused and PW3
\nDevendrappa for their injuries had not informed the police as
\nto what had transpired and that PW3 had mentioned only two
\nof the accused i.e. Chandrappa and Gadigeshappa as having
\nbeen present.  The court finally concluded that it was the
\ndeceased and injured witnesses who were the aggressors, the
\nmoreso as the prosecution had not been able to explain the
\ninjuries on the accused.  For arriving at this conclusion, the
\ntrial court relied on the evidence of PW15 Dr. Nanda Koti who
\nhad examined  three of the accused i.e. Chandrappa, Shiva
\nand Gadigeshappa for their injuries at the Bhadravathi
\nGovernment Hospital at 5.20 p.m. on 1st August 1993 with a
\nhistory of assault caused on deceased Thimmappa, PW3
\nDevendrappa and one Manjappa and had detected one incised
\ninjury each on the person of Gadigeshappa  and Shiva, both
\ninjuries which could have been caused with a sickle or a
\nchopper.  PW15 also examined PW3 at 6.30 p.m. the same day
\nwho had appeared with a history of assault by Chandrappa
\nand Gadigeshappa.  The court nevertheless relying on several
\njudgments held that though the non-explanation of minor
\ninjuries on the person of the accused could not be said to be
\nfatal to the prosecution story but such an omission did create
\na doubt as to its veracity.  The court finally hinted that it
\nappeared that the defence version was more probable and
\nprefaced  its conclusion by observing:
\n“In view of the discussions made by me in
\nthe above said paras, I find there is an
\ninordinate delay in lodging the complaint.
\nThat delay is not satisfactorily explained.
\nThe witnesses chosen by the prosecution
\nare only the interested inimical witnesses.
\nIn view of the material discrepancies in
\nbetween the evidence of PW’s 1 to 4 their
\npresence at the time of the alleged mutual
\nfight or galata is itself rather doubtful.  In
\nall probability, PWs.1,2, and 4 must have
\ncome to the spot only after coming to know
\nof the assault not prior to that and the
\nperson involved in the fight PW3 somehow
\nescaped from the spot.  The whole of the
\nevidence of PWs 1 to 4 appears to be bit
\nunnatural and unbelievable one in the
\nordinary course of time.  It is an over
\nexaggerated evidence given by them.\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly, there is a property dispute.  As
\non the date of this alleged incident, the land
\n“Pavadi Hondada Thota” was standing in the
\nname of Navilappa, the father of deceased
\nThimmappa as well as accused Nos. 1 and\n<\/p>\n
4.  It is accused Nos. 1 and 4 who are
\nmanaging the said property.  It has also
\ncome in the evidence that the suit filed by
\ndeceased seeking injunction pertaining to
\nthe said land was dismissed very well prior
\nto this alleged incident.  So, as on the date
\nof incident, there was no injunction nor
\ndeceased was in possession of the said
\nproperty including PW3.  But still they went
\nthere to assert their right. There are two
\nversions.  According to PW3 it is he and his
\nbrother deceased Thimmappa, who first
\nwent to the said land.  Thereafter 10
\nminutes, accused came to the said land.
\nBut on the other hand, the investigation
\nreveals through PWs 1 and 2’s evidence that
\nit is the accused, who first went to the said
\nland.  When they intended to pluck the
\ncoconuts, these PW3 and deceased went to
\nthe spot there arose galata.”\n<\/p>\n
and finally concluded as under:\n<\/p>\n
“I have closely scrutinized the
\nevidence of these PWs 1 to 4.  But I find
\ntheir evidence is not trustworthy.  The
\nother part of the evidence of other
\nwitnesses is very much formal and
\nprocedural one.  The two other eye
\nwitnesses PWs 6 and 7 have turned
\nhostile.  So, viewing from any angel, I find
\nthe evidence now before me is not just
\nand sufficient to connect the accused
\nwith the alleged offence punishable under
\nsection 143,147,148,324,302 and 149 of
\nthe IPC.  I find the prosecution has failed
\nto prove that the accused being the
\nmembers of unlawful assembly being
\narmed with deadly weapons in
\nprosecution of their common object
\ncaused rioting on that day and assaulted
\nThimmappa as well as PW3 with the said
\nweapons, which has resulted in the death
\nof Thimmappa and injuries to PW3.  It
\nmay amount to repetition if I say that the
\nevidence now before is not just and
\nsufficient to connect the accused with the
\nsaid charge.  PW2 has categorically stated
\nthat when herself and PW1 came to the
\nsaid spot on that day, they saw PW3
\nalready left the place.  He had gone to his
\nhouse.  That means to say these PWs 1, 2
\nand 4 have not actually seen the accused
\nassaulting either Thimmappa or PW3.\n<\/p>\n
This evidence of PW2 cuts at the root of
\nthe prosecution case.  As there arises a
\nreasonable doubt in the case of
\nprosecution, the accused are entitled to
\nhave the benefit of the same.  Prosecution
\nhas failed to establish that these accused
\nare the real aggressors or they are
\ndirectly responsible causing the said
\nincident.  On the other hand, defence of
\nthe accused is substantiated on the facts
\nand material now placed before the court
\nthat in all probability the deceased and
\nPW3 must have taken the law into their
\nown hands at the inception and in that
\nmutual fight both sides sustained
\ninjuries.  Unfortunately, Thimmappa
\nsuccumbed to the injuries.  But who is
\nresponsible for his death, who is
\nresponsible for causing injury to PW3 is
\nnot specifically established by the
\nprosecution.  Hence, with these reasons, I
\nanswer point Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative
\nand proceed to pass the following:”\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe trial court accordingly acquitted the accused.
\nThe matter was taken to the High Court by way of an appeal
\nat the instance of the State of Karnataka.  The High Court
\nin the course of its judgment upset the order of the trial
\nJudge  by observing that the fact that Thimmappa deceased
\nhad met a homicidal death had been proved from the
\nmedical evidence and then went to the question as who was
\nresponsible thereof.  The court examined the evidence of the
\neye witnesses and found that they corroborated each other
\nin material particulars, the  moreso as the presence of PW3
\nDevendrappa had also been admitted by the defence.  The
\ncourt also held that the eye witness testimony had a ring of
\ntruth around it and the injuries Ex.P27 to P29 confirmed
\nthe presence of the accused in the incident and also the fact
\nthat only one of the accused had sustained a simple injury,
\nno obligation rested on the prosecution to explain it.  The
\ncourt also observed (in the facts of the case) that the delay
\nin lodging of the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution story
\nas  the complaint had been lodged by PW1 between 10 and
\n11 p.m. and the formal FIR had been registered at about
\n11.45 p.m.   The plea of the accused that the case would fall
\nunder section 304 IPC was also repelled as the manner of
\nthe assault did not justify such a conclusion.  The court
\naccordingly held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“To sum up, we hold that the trial court’s
\njudgment and order of acquittal cannot be
\nsustained as it is contrary to the evidence
\non record and unreasonable as well as
\nperverse and bring opposed to well
\nestablished principles of law with regard to
\nappreciation of evidence and as such, the
\nsame is liable to be interfered with.  We,
\ntherefore, convict the accused persons for
\nthe offences punishable under Sections
\n143,147,148,302 read with 149 and 324
\nread with 149 of the IPC.”\n<\/p>\n
      and in doing so sentenced them to imprisonment for life
\nunder section302\/149 IPC with no separate sentence for
\nthe other offences.  It is in this circumstance that the
\npresent appeal by way of special leave has come up before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tMr. Basava Prabhu S.Patil, the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants has pointed out that certain facts had been
\nadmitted by both parties and that the matter would have
\nto be examined in this background.  He has pointed out
\nthat both the complainant and the accused party were
\nvery closely related to each other, the five accused being
\nthe brothers of the deceased and the eye witnesses being
\nthe wife and nephew of the deceased and of the accused.
\nIt has also been pointed out that the fact that a dispute
\nwith regard to the land had also found its way to the civil
\nand criminal Courts was clear from the record.  It has also
\nbeen pleaded that the accused had spelt out a counter
\nversion and had pointed out in their statement under
\nsection 313 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as three of them i.e.
\nHanumanthappa, Siddeshappa had not been present
\nwhereas the other three have in their statements admitted
\ntheir  presence and stated that the land in which the
\nincident had happened was the ancestral property of the
\nfamily with the Revenue documents in the name of
\nNavilapa their father and that a complaint had also been
\nfiled by Navilapa against Thimmappa as to his attempts to
\nencroach upon this property.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tIn this background, Mr. Patil has argued that it
\nappeared that deceased and his companions were indeed
\nthe aggressors and that the incident had happened when
\nthe accused were exercising their right of self defence to
\nprotect their person and property.  It has further been
\npleaded that the witnesses were discrepant as to the
\nactual manner of the assault and as such no credence
\ncould be attached to their testimony.  It has finally been
\npleaded that there was an inordinate delay in the
\nregistration of the FIR and that this delay had been
\nutilized to create four eye witnesses and a false story
\ninculpating the accused.  The State counsel has however
\nsupported the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tIt is true that prima facie there appears to be some
\ndelay in the lodging of the FIR at 10.45 p.m. in the light of
\nthe fact that incident had happened at 4.30 p.m. on 1st
\nAugust 1993.  However, as three of the accused have put
\nup a counter version,  the effect of the delay in the FIR is
\nsomewhat reduced.   We are also of the opinion that the
\ndelay in the lodging of the FIR has been substantially
\nexplained as the incident had happened in a remote village
\nsome distance from the Police Station and as PW3 had
\nalso sustained a serious injury, the first anxiety of the
\nfamily would have been to look after him the more so as all
\nthe brothers of the deceased and PW3 were themselves the
\nassailants and there was nobody else in the family to have
\ntaken the injured PW3 to the hospital.  It is also significant
\nthat the FIR could not have been recorded earlier as the
\nentire family was involved either on one side or the other
\nand it had ultimately been left to a hapless widow,
\ncompletely isolated from the rest of the family,  to lodge
\nthe FIR.  It is in this background we find that a delay of a
\ncouple of hours cannot be said to be unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tIt has been contended by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that the discrepancies between the
\nstatements of the eye witnesses inter-se would go to show
\nthat they had not seen the incident and no reliance could
\nthus be placed on their testimony.  It has been pointed out
\nthat their statements were discrepant as to the actual
\nmanner of assault and as to the injuries caused by each of
\nthe accused to the deceased and to PW3 the injured eye
\nwitness.  We are of the opinion that in such matters it
\nwould be unreasonable to expect a witness to give a
\npicture perfect report of the injuries caused by each
\nwitness to the deceased or the injured more particularly
\nwhere it has been proved on record that the injuries had
\nbeen caused by several accused armed with different kinds
\nof weapons.  We also find that with the passage of time the
\nmemory of an eye witness tends to dim and it is perhaps
\ndifficult for a witness to recall events with precision.  We
\nhave gone through the record and find that the evidence
\nhad been recorded more than 5 years after the incident
\nand if the memory had partly failed the eye witnesses and
\nif they had not been able to given an exact description of
\nthe injuries, it would not detract from the substratum of
\ntheir evidence.  It is however very significant that PW2 is
\nthe sister of the 5 appellants, the deceased and PW3
\nDevendrappa and in the dispute between the brothers she
\nhad continued to reside with her father Navilappa who was
\nresiding with the appellants, but  she has nevertheless still
\nsupported the prosecution.    We are of the opinion that in
\nnormal circumstances she would not have given evidence
\nagainst the appellants but she has come forth as an eye
\nwitness and supported the prosecution in all material
\nparticulars.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tMuch emphasis has been however laid by Mr. Patil,
\non the defence version that Thimmappa, Devendrappa and
\none Manjappa had first made an attack on three of the
\nappellants and that the appellants had thereafter caused
\ninjuries in their self defence leading to the death of
\nThimmappa and some injuries to Devendrappa.  We find
\nthat this matter had been discussed in extenso by the
\nHigh Court in its judgment and the version of the
\nappellants had been rightly rejected.  Some emphasis has
\nalso been laid by the learned counsel on the fact that as
\nper injury certificates Ex.P-27 to P-29 that three accused
\nhad suffered injuries in the incident.  It is however clear
\nfrom a perusal of these documents that out of the three,
\nonly one of the accused had sustained a simple injury on
\nthe hand and the other two had no discernible injury
\nexcept a complaint of a backache in the case of Shiva.   On
\nthe other hand, we have the evidence of PW15 Dr. Nanda
\nKoti who had examined Devendrappa on the evening of the
\nday of incident with a history of attack with a sickle and
\nclub and she had found the following 5 injuries on his
\nperson:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tlacerated would over occipital region
\n3 cms X 1 cm bleeding.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tStab injury over right arm, lower
\nand posterior aspect 1 cm X = cm
\ncovered with fresh blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tIncised wound over web space
\nbetween right thumb and index
\nfinger 3 cm X 1cm X = covered with
\nfresh blood clots.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tContusion over middle of a shin of
\nleft leg 6 cm X 4 cm red.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tContusion with club impression over
\nleft side of the chest 6 cms X 2 cms
\nred.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tIt is also well settled that the prosecution is not
\ncalled upon to explain each and every injury on the person
\nof an accused and in this view of the matter the non-
\nexplanation of an insignificant injury on the person of only
\none does not dislodge the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.\tIt has also been contended that no case under
\nsection 302 of the IPC had been made out and if at all the
\naccused were liable to be convicted under section 304
\nPart-II of the IPC.  We find no merit in this plea.  It is clear
\nfrom the record that the accused had come to the place of
\nincident fully armed with the object to sort things out with
\nthe deceased as he was creating problems for them and
\ntheir father over the land in question and to remove him
\nfrom the scene once and for all.  Furthermore, in the light
\nof the serious injuries caused to the deceased  and to PW3
\nDevendrappa the matter does not fall within the ambit of
\nsection 304 Part II of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tIt has finally been pleaded by Mr. Patil that
\nSiddeshappa, accused No.5 was a juvenile on the date of
\nincident and ought to have been dealt with under that
\nprocedure.  We, however, find no evidence to suggest that
\nthe aforesaid accused was indeed a juvenile and the
\ncounsel’s mere ipse-dixit at this belated stage cannot be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tWe thus find no merit in the appeal.  Dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 Author: H S Bedi Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 609 of 2006 PETITIONER: Chandrappa & Ors RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - 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\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T07:22:40+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T07:22:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3849,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T07:22:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - 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\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T07:22:40+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T07:22:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008"},"wordCount":3849,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008","name":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T07:22:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrappa-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/198441","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=198441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}