{"id":202893,"date":"2006-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2"},"modified":"2017-10-07T22:17:26","modified_gmt":"2017-10-07T16:47:26","slug":"siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  959 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nSiddarama and Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1939 of 2006)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment
\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
\nholding appellant no.1 guilty of the offence punishable under
\nSection 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
\n1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Each of the accused appellants was
\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and
\nto pay a fine of Rs.500\/-. The appellants and 9 others  faced
\ntrial for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341,
\n307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Trial Court convicted
\naccused numbers 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 and sentenced each to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of
\noffences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 341 read
\nwith Section 149 IPC, and in respect of offence punishable
\nunder Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, each was
\nsentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to
\npay a fine of Rs.500\/- with default stipulation. It had been
\nreported to the Trial Court that accused no.7 died during the
\npendency of the trial.  The judgment was assailed before the
\nHigh Court both by the accused persons and State. While
\naccused persons questioned conviction and sentence, State on
\nthe other hand prayed for enhancement of sentence. The
\nappeals were disposed of as aforenoted.\n<\/p>\n
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
T. Kumar (the injured\/P.W.7) is a resident of
\nAnnechakanahally. As his female child had been left by his
\nwife in his father-in-law’s place in Aramballi village of K.R.
\nNagar Taluk, he went to his father-in-law’s place on 7.5.1990
\nto bring the child. On 8.5.1990 he stayed back there and on
\n9.5.1990 he was returning to his village Annechakanahally
\nalong with his child. His brother-in-law – Puttaswamy (P.W.4)
\naccompanied him. When they came near Hosa Agrahara
\nRailway Station, Puttaswamy proceeded further to purchase
\nthe tickets. By the time Kumara came near the signal cabin in
\nHosa Agrahara Railway Station, he saw all the accused
\nstanding near the signal cabin. They were armed with
\nchoppers. When they saw Kumara with the child, they
\nsuddenly came and surrounded him and before he boarded
\nthe train, the accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a blow on the right
\nhand of Kumara by means of a chopper on account of which,
\nKumara sustained an injury and lost one of his fingers. He left
\nhis child, who was snatched by the accused No.11
\nRamakrishna. Then all the accused together caught hold of
\nKumara and dragged him to a little distance and near the
\nhedges at a distance of about 50 to 60 feet from the railway
\ncabin, they began to assault him. His left leg was severely
\ncrushed by the assault and Kumara sustained injuries due to
\nthe assault on his right leg and other parts of the body a1so.
\nIn the meantime, Puttaswamy (P.W.4), who had returned to
\nthe place after purchasing tickets and Niruvanigouda (P.W.3)
\nand Jayabharathi (P.W.1), who had come in the said train,
\nwhich had arrived by that time at the railway station, saw the
\nincident. When Nirvanegouda (P.W.3) and Puttaswamy (P.W.4)
\nattempted to go near the accused to rescue Kumara, they were
\nthreatened by the accused. In the meantime, the train had left
\nthe railway station and the accused left the place and ran
\naway. Kumara was grievously injured. Leaving others to look
\nafter Kumara, Puttaswamy took the child and went to his
\nvillage to inform Kumara’s father-in-law – Rajegowda (P.W.5).
\nKarthikeyan, Railway Station Master (P.W.17), who had by
\nthen come to know of the assault, came to the spot. When
\nRajegowda and Annegouda assured him that they would shift
\nthe injured to the hospital and also inform the police, he
\nreturned to the office. In a tempo, the injured was shifted to
\nBherya Clinic. Since there was no sufficient facility to treat the
\ninjured, he was shifted to K.R. Nagar hospital. There, they
\nwere advised to take the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and,
\ntherefore, the injured was taken there. Dr. B. Suhasini,
\nAssistant Surgeon in K.R. Hospital (P.W.18) examined Kumara
\nat about 12 noon and gave treatment. In the meantime,
\nKuchela Shetty who was the S.H.O. (P.W.13) of Saligrama
\nPolice Station had come to the hospital. He could not take the
\nstatement of Kumara, since Kumara was undergoing
\nemergency treatment. Immediately after the treatment, at
\nabout 4.00 p.m. P.W.13 recorded the statement of Kumara. On
\nthe basis of the same, D.V. Suresh (P.W.16), who was P.S.I. of
\nSaligrama Police Station (P.W.16) registered a case in Crime
\nNo.14\/1990 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional
\nMagistrate. He went to the spot and conducted spot mahazar
\nas per Ex.P5. He also took steps to apprehend the accused
\nwho were found absconding. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were
\narrested on 19.7.1990 and on the voluntary information
\nfurnished by them, choppers allegedly used by the accused for
\nassault were recovered. The accused Nos.5 and 6 were
\narrested on 28.7.1990 and accused No.7 was arrested on
\n27.3.1991. Other accused were found absconding. Despite
\ntreatment, Kumara’s left leg could not be saved and it had to
\nbe amputated in view of the grangrene that had set in by that
\ntime.  After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
\nfiled against all the accused showing the accused No.11
\nabsconding. Later accused No.11 Ramakrishna was arrested
\nand a separate case registered against him was also tried
\nalong with S.C.No. 109\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
Accused persons pleaded not guilty.  In order to establish
\nthe accusations, 20 witnesses were examined by the
\nprosecution.  PWs 1 and 3 are the eye witnesses and PW7 was
\nthe injured.  PWs 2, 5, 9 and 17 went to the place of incidence
\nimmediately after the occurrence.  PW5 was examined to prove
\nthe motive.  PW 18 was the doctor who examined the injured.
\nThe accused persons pleaded innocence and in their
\nexamination in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.PC’), false accusations were
\npleaded. Accused no.11 examined himself as DW1 to establish
\nthe plea of alibi.\n<\/p>\n
On considering the evidence of the witnesses and the
\ninjured, the trial Court found accused persons version credible
\nso far as accused numbers 1, 2, 6 and 9 are concerned but
\nfound the evidence insufficient to fasten guilt of the rest of the
\naccused persons.  The conviction and sentence as noted above
\nwere accordingly recorded.\n<\/p>\n
The convicted accused persons filed an appeal (Criminal
\nAppeal No.888\/2000) while the State of Karnataka filed
\nCriminal Appeal No.12\/2001 for enhancement of sentence and
\nto set aside the acquittal.  By the impugned judgment the High
\nCourt allowed both the appeals in part. While maintaining the
\nconviction and sentence imposed in respect of the offence
\nrelatable to Section 143, 147 and 341 read with Section 149
\nIPC and the consequential sentence the conviction in terms of
\nSection 307 read with Section 149 IPC was altered to Section
\n326 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of 8 years
\nrigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500\/- was thought to
\nbe appropriate.  But the High Court did not interfere with the
\nacquittal of the accused persons as done by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
The present appeal is filed by accused persons 1, 2, 6
\nand 9.  Though various points were urged in support of the
\nappeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
\nsentence is highly disproportionate to the nature of the offence
\ncommitted. The prosecution version itself is to the effect that
\nthe allegations had foundation on political differences.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
\nhand supported the judgment of the High Court and
\nsubmitted that this is a case to which Section 307 IPC read
\nwith Section 149 IPC is clearly applicable. More than 5
\naccused persons were involved and in fact one of the major
\nplayers in the whole incident i.e. A-7 had died.  The sentence
\naccording to him is liberal.\n<\/p>\n
Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
\nclaims and demands.  Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural
\nconflict where living law must find answer to the new
\nchallenges and the courts are required to mould the
\nsentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of
\nlawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins.
\nFriedman in his “Law in Changing Society” stated that, “State
\nof criminal law continues to be  as it should be  a decisive
\nreflection of social consciousness of society”.  Therefore, in
\noperating the sentencing system, law should adopt the
\ncorrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual
\nmatrix.  By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where
\nit should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to
\nbe. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the
\nnature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
\ncommitted, the motive for commission of the crime, the
\nconduct of the accused, and all other attending circumstances
\nare relevant facts which would enter into the area of
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
\ndo more harm to the justice system to undermine the public
\nconfidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long
\nendure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of
\nevery court to award proper sentence having regard to the
\nnature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed
\nor committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by
\nthis Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR
\n1991 SC 1463).\n<\/p>\n
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
\nproportionality in prescribing liability according to the
\nculpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily
\nallows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a
\nsentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that
\nreflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised
\nby the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that
\npunishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice
\nsentences are determined largely by other considerations.
\nSometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that
\nare offered to justify a sentence.  Sometimes the desirability of
\nkeeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic
\nresults of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a
\ndeparture from just desert as the basis of punishment and
\ncreate cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
\nwidespread.\n<\/p>\n
\tProportion between crime and punishment is a goal
\nrespected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it
\nremains a strong influence in the determination of sentences.
\nThe practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal
\nseverity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a
\nradical departure from the principle of proportionality has
\ndisappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a
\nsingle grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
\nAnything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any
\nserious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration
\nthat is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from
\nthose considerations that make punishment unjustifiable
\nwhen it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly
\ndisproportionate punishment has some very undesirable
\npractical consequences.\n<\/p>\n
After giving due consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate
\nsentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and
\nmitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has
\nbeen committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of
\nreally relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the
\nCourt.  Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.  It has
\nbeen very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha v.
\nState of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no
\nformula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a
\nreasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate
\npunishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may
\naffect the gravity of the crime.  In the absence of any foolproof
\nformula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to
\ncorrectly assess various circumstances germane to the
\nconsideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in
\nthe facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment
\nmay be equitably distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
The object should be to protect the society and to deter
\nthe criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing
\nappropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would
\noperate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
\nwhich reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing
\nprocess has to be stern where it should be.\n<\/p>\n
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on
\nthe social order in many cases may be in reality a futile
\nexercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to
\noffences relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
\nwhich have great impact not only on the health fabric but also
\non the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of
\nand per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude
\nby imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view
\nmerely on account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences
\nin respect of such offences will be result-wise counter
\nproductive in the long run and against societal interest which
\nneeds to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence
\ninbuilt in the sentencing system.\n<\/p>\n
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B.<\/a> (1994 (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
220), this Court has observed that shockingly large number of
\ncriminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging
\nthe criminals and in the ultimate making justice suffer by
\nweakening the system’s creditability. The imposition of
\nappropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court
\nresponds to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal.
\nJustice demands that Courts should impose punishment
\nbefitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
\nof the crime.  The Court must not only keep in view the rights
\nof the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime
\nand the society at large while considering the imposition of
\nappropriate punishment. (See Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh<\/a>
\n(2004 (2) SCC 590), Abu Ram v. Mukna and Ors.<\/a> (2005 (10)
\nSCC 597) and Shailesh Jaswantbhai v. State of Gujarat and
\nOrs. (2006 (2) SCC 359).\n<\/p>\n
The offence committed is certainly gruesome but the
\nState has not questioned alteration of conviction from Section
\n307 read with Section 149 IPC to Section 326 read with
\nSection 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the background facts it would be appropriate
\nto reduce the custodial sentence to five years but enhance the
\nfine in respect of each appellant to Rs.20,000\/-.  In case the
\nfine amount is not deposited within two months, the default
\ncustodial sentence would be two years.  In case the amount is
\ndeposited, 3\/4th of the amount deposited shall be paid to the
\nvictim PW-7 within one month of the deposit.\n<\/p>\n
With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 959 of 2006 PETITIONER: Siddarama and Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-202893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSiddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - 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\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-07T16:47:26+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\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T16:47:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":2468,\"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\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\",\"name\":\"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T16:47:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - 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\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-07T16:47:26+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\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T16:47:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2"},"wordCount":2468,"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\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2","name":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T16:47:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddarama-and-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-15-september-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Siddarama And Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2006"}]},{"@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\/202893","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=202893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}