{"id":216841,"date":"2009-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-02T08:59:07","modified_gmt":"2018-12-02T03:29:07","slug":"f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Arali Nagaraj<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATM{A AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 9TH DAY or NOVEMBER 2009\nBEFORE T T\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTECE ARALI NAG;\"%RAtI'y:'\".   ' i-\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No.o.\u00bb1.5?6\/266?' C  \"\nBETWEEN: ' V\"\nF.Nataraja\nS\/0 Eshwarappa\nAged about 22 years\nAdi Karnataka by Caste . \n\nTeacher Om Sri.Swamy\nVivekananda Vidya Peetha\n\nHarishchandra Ghatt  _  \nHiriyur--572 1z_L3\u00ab.-._  Z.  *~..'_jAi>PI:;LLANT\n\n(By      '\nAND:  **** .  V d d\n\nThe Stateby \" \nBy its Statefublie Proseou t{_)r\" \"\nHigh Court Building \n\nBangaioreg 1.  'V\n\n. . RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
   HCGP)<\/p>\n
   Appeal is \ufb01ied under Section 374(2) of<\/p>\n
cr’.P.C; ‘againust the judgment dt.21\/24.9.2007 in
\nS.C.N.o.75v\/2006 on the file of the Prl.S.J., Chitradurga.<\/p>\n
 \ufb02convictirigthe appe1lant\/ accused for the offence p\/1,1\/s.376{1} of<\/p>\n
–\u00ab  IPC, and sentencing him to undergo R1. for five years and to pay<\/p>\n
 A \ufb01ne ‘i0f.’Rs.1,000\/– for the offence p\/u\/s.3’76{1} EPC in default to
\n y  \ufb01ne, he shall undergo SI. for three months.<\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on for Dictating Judgment this day,<\/p>\n
“the Court made the following:\n<\/p>\n
w <\/p>\n
2-\n<\/p>\n
JUBGMENT<\/p>\n
The accused in Sessions Case No.75\/2006 on the file of<\/p>\n
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chitradurga [hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short] has challenged in this<\/p>\n
appeal the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction<\/p>\n
case convicting him for the offence under Section: is g <\/p>\n
thereby sentencing him to undergo  forsa\ufb02pleriodl of ‘\ufb01V’eoA__yeaars<\/p>\n
and also to pay fine of Rs.1,OOVO’\/.~_ default sentence bf<\/p>\n
for a further period of three months… _<\/p>\n
2. Stated in brief, thezfcase: ofi–the” prosecution as alleged in<\/p>\n
Ex.P1 eorr1’p’lain.t’idatlei:i “15′;’1gI;100l3″filed by PW1 prosecutrix is as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
(8)<\/span><\/p>\n
‘l”he vpros_ect1t’rix,~~’l’ via, Ku.m.Renuka, daughter of<\/p>\n
i if  Lakslhmana, aged about 14 years has been studying<\/p>\n
  in’ x8″? standard in Swamy Vivekananda School at<\/p>\n
” .V__Al3accused while studying in said school.<\/p>\n
(bl<\/p>\n
 Town, District Chitradurga. The accused
\nV ‘ ‘r\\\u00a7ataraj has been a teacher in the said school. The<\/p>\n
” proseeutrix had been in friendly terms with the<\/p>\n
This was<\/p>\n
opposed by her mother (PW 3 Smtliramma).\n<\/p>\n
The prosecutrix fell in love with the accused<\/p>\n
teacher. She expressed the same before him. To<\/p>\n
that, he told her that she, being still minor, should<\/p>\n
 mWw#w<\/p>\n
concentrate on her studies. Then the prosecutrix
\nthreatened the accused teacher that. if he did not
\nconsent to marry her, she would die. in Viewof this<\/p>\n
threat, he consented to marry her.\n<\/p>\n
The affairs between the prosecutrix arid’ <\/p>\n
continued for a period of three rneJr1ths–:Eprior”to the <\/p>\n
said complaint]. The prolsecutrizg h._eard’–her3pare,nt1s<\/p>\n
talking about her rnarriagehiirith <\/p>\n
Therefore, she pre\u00bbssi3rizedA”‘the V that he’<\/p>\n
should marry her. Shefuirrher threatened him that
\nif he were r1ot’ilto__agrele to irninediately she<\/p>\n
would die. ‘Iherefo1*.e,l\u00a5”thejaccused agreed to flee<\/p>\n
from Hiriyur  i\u00e9tlotigwith’.the”.’prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
  ‘prosectztrix and the accused<\/p>\n
 tlifat. they’–.shoii’Edtt–1eave the town on the early<\/p>\n
Hiorniizgie-o’l’t2l6:_lT0;20(33. Accordingly they together<\/p>\n
 leftyHiriyur.’toyifn__lat”about 3 am. on 26.10.2003 and<\/p>\n
relachedyl\ufb01angalore. After they reached Bangalore,<\/p>\n
“the a’ccuVs_e_d. took her to Nallur village near<\/p>\n
\ufb02ywlhitefield and they stayed there in a house. The<\/p>\n
 –  brought one ready made Mangalya [thaali]<\/p>\n
it We}<\/p>\n
lanfciltied it to the prosecutrix at about 3 p.m. on
\n that date in the said house and thus they married<\/p>\n
he ‘  “with each other.\n<\/p>\n
From next day onwards the accused used to visit
\nthe factories situate around the said Village in<\/p>\n
search of another job for him. On 15.11.2003 at<\/p>\n
<:,,,,,______\u00a7"'~v"-…\u00bb–\u00bb-\n<\/p>\n
about 12.15 13.111. the Police of Hiriyur P.S. came to
\nthe said house and brought the accused and aiso
\nthe prosecutfix together to Hiriyur Poiice Station by<\/p>\n
about 5.30 pm. on the same day.  the<\/p>\n
period from 25.10.2003 to 15..’1’i.2003..” .t_he”.<\/p>\n
prosecutrix and the accused together  In”a.ri’taI life ” . <\/p>\n
as married couple. g.Dur_iAn’ggV <\/p>\n
intercourse also took 13i:a(a:e1.*–_\ufb01 They_–. did 2 aii1″~+.1E:ar_<\/p>\n
without any other’s”as”sistane’e. V’ .\n<\/p>\n
3. Before the proseeutrix  said EX.Pl
\non 15.11.2003, her father'<–..\\..\/*ii'z,.   had filed Ex.P2
\ncomplaint on 26.l0..2003:,-Evdiiehdate  mentioned<\/p>\n
in I:x.P2 as 25. i..'0.2::0013;.,\u00a7*:ating th4a.t–.V0d0:u1ring the night between<\/p>\n
25 and  daughte1* (prosecutrix) went out
\nof his housde.  return till 11.45 am. on<\/p>\n
26.10.2003 aandu"th.ereforeV,"""she should be traced out. On<\/p>\n
'"'1.1A.1  PW2 Lakshrxian gave his another complaint before<\/p>\n
 13.8. stating that his daughter was found<\/p>\n
 si1_i\u00a2\u00e9.i':_;:.\u00a7L1-iy morning of 26.10.2003 and he couid not<\/p>\n
 'find her despite his efforts and therefore. he suspected that the<\/p>\n
 I a\u00a2:*.used.' Nataraj. who was working as a teacher in Swamy<\/p>\n
 __ 'dfiveiiananda Schooi where the proseeutrix was studying. might<\/p>\n
it "  kidnapped her.\n<\/p>\n
(______\u00a7””n—~.._……\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 14, the
\ndocuments at Exs.P1 to P16, M.Os.l and 2 and Ex.D1, a portion<\/p>\n
of statement of PW3, the Trial Court, by its impugned_;.Ju’dg1nent<\/p>\n
and Order, found the accused guilty of the <\/p>\n
Section 376 IPC and convicted and sentenced him .a:cco’rdingly;.l’ <\/p>\n
5. I have heard the arguments o’fe_.lS.’S’17ivapras:ad.<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for the  appelllantlll 5  <\/p>\n
Sri.\\\/ijayakumar Majage, lea1’nedi\u00ab1i~iigh to Government
\nPleader and perused   and Order of
\nconviction and sentence   found in
\nthe original  <\/p>\n
 ‘th”el..i_ea._rr_1ed Counsel for the appellant \u00bb-
\naccused, strongly the Trial Court committed<\/p>\n
seriouserror in recording its finding that the prosecution proved<\/p>\n
 ttitsocase  the accused for the offence under Section 376<\/p>\n
‘EPCV ._i.r1a’cr_nuci1lV ‘a..Sl._}~ the evidence of PW} prosecutrix as to the<\/p>\n
accused committing sexual intercourse on her could not have<\/p>\n
 ~  ‘been relied? upon in View of the medical evidence that the hymen<\/p>\n
   1:he4’_prosecutriX was found intact and there was no further<\/p>\n
 ,.__lVt:lmaterial to Show that she was subjected to sexual intercourse<\/p>\n
uifby the accused. He further contended that the very factum of<\/p>\n
C_.”..\u00a7M\\V”—–~—-\u00bb-s.–~<\/p>\n
coming into existence of EXP} complaint as narrated by PW}
\nprosecutrix has not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch<\/p>\n
as the Woman Police Constable, who is said to have..re_corded<\/p>\n
the said complaint — statement, has not been exiam’i*n@:jol_<\/p>\n
witness for the prosecution and the PWI prosec’u\u00bbtrix.,herself’ has.. <\/p>\n
stated in her evidence that she does__11ofr…klnou\\’\u00ab”s,r\u00bb <\/p>\n
the said complaint ~ statement.as_ the s:\u00ab_1m’e were read overs.<\/p>\n
and explained to her. While subl_rniitti11gVso,V llthelliievariied Counsel
\nfor the appellant — accused  the very
\nfacturn of the accused  from Hiriyur
\ntown to Banga1org*..L4f;’1d   lNa11ur during the
\nperiod from     “has not been proved by<\/p>\n
the prosecutio1i7’o–eyoi’id reasonab_”;e doubt and therefore, there
\ncould be no ‘occasion. i*or”-the accused to commit any sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse on the girl.\n<\/p>\n
 ” .   contra. the\ufb02learned High Court Government Pleader<\/p>\n
st–rongly’ conteiided’ that the evidence of prosecutrix as to the<\/p>\n
 accused conimttting sexual intercourse on her with her consent<\/p>\n
 been-clearly spoken to by the prosecutrix and admittedly<\/p>\n
it  ytlie’vp_ro.-secutrix was below 16 years and therefore, the Trial<\/p>\n
  ,, did not commit any error in convicting the accused for the<\/p>\n
 ~ , loffence under Section 376 KPC. He further contended that, in all<\/p>\n
tr-\u00bb—-\u00ab-‘7″”””””-“*””‘-‘……..,…_.<\/p>\n
cases of sexual intercourse, the hymen of the victim need not be
\ntorn and therefore, simply because the hymen of PW1 girl was
\nfound intact, it could not be said that there was no intercourse<\/p>\n
committed by the accused on the prosecutrix as statvedibgr the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix in her evidence. He contended furtl*1er’_\u00a2’Vth_atI’ _,_t}1\u00bb.\u00a2<\/p>\n
impugned Judgment and Order of conviction  d’oes_ <\/p>\n
not call for any interference in this apzhlpealig ‘ 3 <\/p>\n
8. As could be seen f1’01’I1\u00bb’th_{3 aveiments in<\/p>\n
EXP} said to have been filed byvlvl\u00e9the’ yroselcutrixi itjis her say
\nthat she herself fell ll1:Jl0V\u20ac  t_he:”‘accused,” when she
\ncommunicated the same to    she was still a<\/p>\n
minor andl’tl:–erefore’,:f:l;she’–should”‘conceritrate her mind on her
\nstudies. but; since “threatened him that if he were not<\/p>\n
agreed to  her’, iN’Q.iild die”, he agreed to marry her and<\/p>\n
 r.therefore,:  sugge’sted__by herself, he took her to Bangalore and<\/p>\n
 t0gel–tVher”s_taay_ed in a house at Nallur village near Whitefield<\/p>\n
 period. they married and led marital life as<\/p>\n
— married couple.\n<\/p>\n
 9; However, the evidence in examination–in–chief of the<\/p>\n
  viprosecutrix as PW} is inconsistent with the above averments in<\/p>\n
 .. ifthe complaint Ex.Pl. She has stated in her evidence that on the<\/p>\n
….i.c*”*–~’<\/p>\n
early morning of 26.10.2003 when she came out of her house to
\nease herself, the accused met her and forcibly took her to
\nBangalore saying that he was loving her and he would look after
\nher properly by marrying her and made her to stay in tliehouse<\/p>\n
of his aunt viz., Kaveramnia for about 20 days andlduring the<\/p>\n
said period, they led marital life as married <\/p>\n
thereafter the Police of Hiriyur Police’ “Station..Aca;m:e”‘to said<\/p>\n
house and brought them together  <\/p>\n
deposed in her examination–in\u00a7chief._ythat she  any’<\/p>\n
complaint before the Police an.d”‘she– does not”ls:noi>v what is
\nwritten in EXP} complaint as’tl1eVfsame’=.i_rere” not read over and<\/p>\n
explained to her.\n<\/p>\n
i{)f:_’I’i*iis ‘pros’e’eutri)\u00a7=..h’as been cross–exarnined by the<\/p>\n
learned Publlic_pbbProsle-cutorvaiter getting her treated hostile. in<\/p>\n
.—.her c’r’oss–_fe2iamina’tion,_Hshe has admitted that next day, after<\/p>\n
‘~\u00a3:ame”1;.o<.._Bangalore, the accused brought a ready made<\/p>\n
  and tied it to her neck and thus they got<\/p>\n
gmarried. themselves and the intercourse took place between<\/p>\n
ll lllpplaerselfp and the accused. But she has categorically denied the<\/p>\n
._fsuggestion that the averments made in Ex.P1 complaint are true<\/p>\n
 correct and EXP} complaint came to be written at her<\/p>\n
instance.\n<\/p>\n
.:..__\u00a3'”””””‘”-W”\n<\/p>\n
Lakshman. the father of the prosecutrix. has not stated in his
\nevidence that, after the prosecutrix was brought from thehouse<\/p>\n
of Smt.Kaveramma along with the accused, she 1ia1’1’atedf”-before<\/p>\n
him as to she marrying the accused and staying \u00a5.yi’th <\/p>\n
married wife. during the said period in~t_h._e Sa’id”hoL\u00a5Tse at ‘ _ 2<\/p>\n
Viliage. Though he has stated in e2Zarn:i’_natVion=~in’4ehiet’:ti?.atVhe<\/p>\n
filed his conipiaint as per Ex.F’}3_.”‘he has t_.}?1at he’<\/p>\n
does not know its contents.\n<\/p>\n
13. PW3 S1nt.Erani1na.”thtetiv the prosecutrix
\nhas simply stat.ec’-Lyiyn.  that, when she
\nenquired   V”5:”if].eV:”.(:\ufb01iS.;,;1OS\u20ac\u00a7 that the accused
\nkidnapped”and:’:4;ooi;:fher  from Hiriyur to Bangalore
\nand there,’ he  and then committed rape<\/p>\n
on her.  dc:-lea:  the evidence of PWS 2 and 3, the<\/p>\n
 \u00a2_pare_n’ts of’ the pro’se.e__1_;trix besides being inconsistent. does not<\/p>\n
V”__:in;Va’ny way”est\u00aba_’oiish that the proseeutrix was subiected to<\/p>\n
se’2:tiati’inte’rf(,::31i::=;se at any time during the said period by the<\/p>\n
‘V aeeused.V”‘v.aF1irth.er, the oral evidence of PW5. the Lady Medieai<\/p>\n
‘:'{)t’fiee4r and the contents of 1324.97, the certificate issued by her<\/p>\n
.yty’_.a:I’so\u00bb’does not establish that there was intercourse with the<\/p>\n
” it prtoseeutrix in the recent past.\n<\/p>\n
*””-“‘””””‘”\\_…..i….\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. in support of his contention that the hymen being
\nintact need not necessarily lead to an inference that there was<\/p>\n
no sexual intercourse committed by the accused.”‘ong..V’the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, the learned Government Pleade:-fr’<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision of the Hon’.ble Stiprernell’Conrtin. the’<\/p>\n
case of MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD ;”%–~\u00a2vsi:’_A_A lN}&Vi4I._:\u00b0 <\/p>\n
ANOTHER reported in (1992) 3 scc–..2o4. “in the svaidccase “before ‘<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court,  about 8
\nyears and she was allegedto.haye{.gbVeenfvra})e,d by the accused,
\nthe medical evidence  hymen of the girl
\nwas found    j}i’d’i\u00a3:ia1 confession made
\nby the accused._a’s.u   facts, it was observed
\nthat,  agreed with the High Court
\nthat the  made by the respondent —\n<\/p>\n
E1CCllS\u20ac(Tj~,, which .,was5 not shown to have been obtained by<\/p>\n
 ‘c’oerc’iori’, i..proI’n;ise of V\ufb02fayour or false hope etc., and the said<\/p>\n
co_n’fess1on”\u00abwaslh’made by the accused In the presence of a body<\/p>\n
of persons _oni’two occasions and therefore, the said confession<\/p>\n
 ‘was aniplyicorroborated by the evidence of the Victim, whose<\/p>\n
 _ testin1o’ny in turn was corroborated by as many as five<\/p>\n
 ___”pros;ecution witnesses and also the medical evidence. Therefore,<\/p>\n
it”! am of the considered View that the facts in the said case before<\/p>\n
g_..,\u00a77′””-“‘-“‘”””\n<\/p>\n
the Horfble Supreme Court cannot be equated with the facts in
\nthe instant. Case and hence the observations of Hoifble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court. in the said case cannot be applied to the instant .;:age..<\/p>\n
15. Learned High Court Government. Pleaderi <\/p>\n
placed reliance on the decision of the \u00a3}on1bay.’H1gh: ‘_Court”in the’ . <\/p>\n
case of THE STATE or MA1=L1RAs.\u00a7ITp_.A j?–usu_.’sAVA1;3t-e…__s2:Gi<\/p>\n
KOKARE AND ANOTHER reported iii’V..;\u00e9.a7  7:}’86Vl <\/p>\n
support of his contention that evenii the   fotgznd intact,
\nthere could be sexual intercpourtsxe.  Wasdfound by the Bombay
\nHigh Court in the said ivvstatement of the<\/p>\n
prosecu’trix as to t’r;-1\u00a2.<-.i- coni–miss'io11"of_ forcible intercourse on her<\/p>\n
by the acc'1i'sed:'was "\u00a2:;)'i*roboVi"a'ted"by' the circumstances that the
\ntorn blouse: and_ b'l'ood~stai11ed underwear were seized and<\/p>\n
abrasions were found oi;_the~7back of the prosecutrix. Therefore,<\/p>\n
— the   C2’o1.1_fLhe1d that. though the hymen was intact,<\/p>\n
V’:there’~couldihe..p’enetration of the private part of the accused into<\/p>\n
thatpiihof’ the.”.”ppro.s’ecutrix at least to some extent since the<\/p>\n
–cornplete “”se>”<'tta1 intercourse is not the requirement of the<\/p>\n
4'ie.ffe:1cee under' Section 376 of WC. In the instant case. it is the<\/p>\n
._jca's.e"ot': the prosecution that the prosecutrix and the accused<\/p>\n
flhad sexual intercourse on several occasions during the said<\/p>\n
i it period. but it is not the case of a stray incident. of forcible sexual<\/p>\n
,…..:;"""'"'"\u00b0-\u00bb\u00ab..__'_,,<\/p>\n
intercourse on the girl, which could be an incomplete one.
\nFurther. as could be seen from the evidence of PW5, the Lady<\/p>\n
Medical Officer. who examined the prosecutrix with aWhist'0.ry of<\/p>\n
rape on her, it is not elicited as to what was thenatuti~e._:oif;the<\/p>\n
hymen that was found intact in the person  <\/p>\n
Though it may be true that rupture of hyrnen 'not.<\/p>\n
all the cases of sexual intercourse, the'*–prosecution.has to elicitg<\/p>\n
from the Medical Officer exarnining the" p'rose'cL1.tr:i2( with a
\nhistory of rape that the ha\ufb01hen i_:Vas_ of jsuclia natiire\ufb01as, it could
\nremain intact despite there with the girl on<\/p>\n
several occasionswtthin  period of days.\n<\/p>\n
l6.~”i;earns:fd jfor”t’he”V:appellant W accused has
\nrelied up’o_n”a   High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
VISHNU S\/o’P4i1LMEsHtafAR..:_’i’AnAV AND OTHERS –~vs– STATE OF<\/p>\n
._1imHA\u00a3:g1sHTRA r.e’p–ortj_ee1_:n 1997 CRI.L.J. 1724. The prosecutrix<\/p>\n
 the saidcase was aged about 11 years and there was no<\/p>\n
ei}tden(:e”onl_”_v~record to corroborate the say of the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
.Furth.”er, “{he”hynie1i of the prosecutrix was found intact. On<\/p>\n
i,hes.e_fae’i’s, the Bombay High Court held the medical evidence<\/p>\n
 that the hymen was found intact and there were no signs of<\/p>\n
tpexternal injuries on any part of the body of the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
c________\u00a7”””‘-“x…-…\n<\/p>\n
suggest that, there could be no sexual intercourse with the
\nprosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
17. Though it is settled principle that therej”co_’uld~VVbe<\/p>\n
conviction of the accused for the offence under  <\/p>\n
solely on the basis of the uncorroborated   the <\/p>\n
prosecutrix. her testimony should not suffer with’~ari3r <\/p>\n
and it should conclusively sugg-\u00e9stthe se:-zual inte_rcou.r_se on her V ‘<\/p>\n
by the accused with or without hlenconsent;  regard to
\nthe age of the prosecutrix.-..’..}’idni_itted.iy”thezprosecutrix herein is
\nless than 14 years of age. _.’Iherei’ore,:._her’.conse’nt could be of no<\/p>\n
relevance if there  be seirualf iIf1terc’o’urse with her by the<\/p>\n
accused. w’On-.ca:xjeiul*fi.;readi.ng of t’heaverrnents in Ex.Pl, which
\nis said to”‘.haife lbyhthe Woman Police Constable,<\/p>\n
as nar1*atedfbyVh theft pro’secu{\u00a7rix herself, it could be seen that<\/p>\n
–v..thougl1~i,she'{p1’osec”ut.r’i:y:).is said to have stated that herself and<\/p>\n
VK_tVhe_ac.cused.ied” marital life as married couple and there was<\/p>\n
 \u00a5;Xfi’!vhA’T:hVer by him, she has not stated as to when she<\/p>\n
was subjected to such intercourse for the first time and on how<\/p>\n
 “inai;ye..occa’sions she was subjected to same. As could be seen<\/p>\n
.’_\u00abfurther;A’ from the averrnents in EXP}, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
 prosecutrix herself fell in love with the accused and she went to<\/p>\n
f if \u00abthe extent of threatening him that if he were not to love and<\/p>\n
\u20ac* <\/p>\n
marry her, she would die. ‘I’herei”ore. it is clear that she Wanted
\nto rnarr_V him at any cost, even without. the consent\ufb01of her<\/p>\n
parents. It could be seen further from the averrnentsi’1i\ufb02’Eii:P1<\/p>\n
that since her parents were thinking of giving her–‘.tiri <\/p>\n
some other person. she cornmunicatedthe \u00absame to” accused V<\/p>\n
and compelled him to take her front-\u00a2her_’ house _:ar3.d <\/p>\n
her. Therefore, having regard to.t’}”Iis conductiof:the’:._ijrose’cutriX” V<\/p>\n
and ail other circumstances of tVhe:’cas’e.._VL’thel p’ossibility of she
\nstating falseiy that therg  intercourse between
\nherself and the accused  agree to give
\nher in marriage  iberuled out. She has
\nalso admitted in  on behalf of the
\naccused  when the accused had come to
\nthe Trial Cl3lo:.V1_i’t  parents had requested the
\naccused to   A ll<\/p>\n
 t’     from the averments in the said<\/p>\n
 lja..Esl.o the evidence of PW] prosecutrix, her<\/p>\n
2  evidence is ~ tettallly inconsistent with the said averments.<\/p>\n
~ V\u00ab3.:’:v’-%Th\u20acI’\u20acf0I”\u20ac; tan} of the opinion that the evidence of prosecutrix<\/p>\n
 ‘–.coili_idl_bnlo.t have been relied upon by the Trial Court as to the<\/p>\n
 –..occui’renee of sexual intercourse with her by the accused. In<\/p>\n
\u20ac*~0a\u00a7’ <\/p>\n
~\u00a5(1-\n<\/p>\n
this View of the matter, the accused deserves to be acquitted of<\/p>\n
the oiience under Section 376 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
19. Learned High Court Government Pleader _i’1a_<\/p>\n
the alternative, that if this Court holds that.t’ri4e=.pVro:secution.t5..<\/p>\n
failed to prove that there was sexual iz1terc_ou_1’seA’3;3e4tw’een,tp\ufb01e<\/p>\n
accused and the prosecutrix, the iacts’—that arepeproved a;ggaii1st”‘e.<\/p>\n
the accused, constitute an ofter1ce”ioi””kidnappinghy the accused
\ninasmuch as. the girl was’:  Lia\/,;i.used \\W’,1\u00a7i~’0ut of the
\nlawful guardianship of her    he deserves to
\nbe convicted tor. joffeiieiceg  i363 IPC. In this
\nrespect. he fh:.”thei’~– charge is not framed
\nagainst the  Section 363 IPC, since
\nthe said oi’fen’ce   “minor offence” as compared<\/p>\n
to the oiferlcsj J\u00a2i_nd.erV’Sec’tion$76 IPC, the accused shall have to<\/p>\n
be convicted for 1:hG.._5..\u00a7id offence invoking the provisions of<\/p>\n
‘V’SaeC\u20ac:ViVQ._nu 2222 ‘en tie <\/p>\n
A  Se-et:io,ntV222{2} C1-.P.C. provides that, when a person is<\/p>\n
 .;charged with an oiience and facts proved, reduce it to a minor<\/p>\n
 \u00ab._o”fifee.c_e’;””he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he<\/p>\n
  not charged with it. As to the expression “minor offence”, it<\/p>\n
 be relevant to refer to the decision of the Horfbie<\/p>\n
w <\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of SHAMNSAHEB M.MULTTANI \u00abvs-
\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2001 SC 921 Head Note-
\nF and para Nos. 16 & I 7. Head Note?’ reads as under:  <\/p>\n
{F} Criminal Procedure Code, 19723 M s e\u00b0.2(2)_’ 41: ” <\/p>\n
“Minor offence” — Meaning — Where main ing:redients–i  *<\/p>\n
of two cognate offences are common, one _ptinis’h_able
\nwith lesser sentence can be said torbe n1ino’r’Q,{i”ent’eV’4..
\nIngredients of S.304~B IPC being difr’erent_frorn those’<\/p>\n
of 8.302 PC. theformer cannot”-be regarded  miitbrg 1;’
\noffence — Words and Phrases 7–__ “Minor ojt”ence” ‘+5
\nmt\u20acVP7’e1at?i0T1 Qf Statutes ~’4IJ1t_ernal’~ai(:i3;  A  :<\/p>\n
Furth.er, paras 16 and 17 read as_u’nder;_\u00bb<\/p>\n
 Para 1 6:  isitmeant by  rninofr offence ” for the
\npurpose of_Seeiion..2’22’ of the Code?”Although the said
\nexpression_’=–is””‘nQtb defined”g_in\u00bb.r the Code it can be
\ndiscerned jnim the. context that the test of minor
\noffence -is “not rrt~;:relg–.that the ‘prescribed punishment is
\nless thtan\ufb02fzerg major tgffence. The two illustrations
\npro’v_ided in thrbegsectiotn would bring the above point
\nhome .__well. =._Onl’y the two offences are cognate
\noffences… wherein*.rth’e,5main ingredients are common,
\nthe one punishableamong them with a lesser sentence
\n“can be regardedwas minor ojjence vis–a-vis the other<\/p>\n
V  Par_a;.._1 *7: ‘ifhle composition of the offence under Section\n<\/p>\n
-A ‘–.3’O4-B.7_”t.P;gC. is vastly different from the formation of\n<\/p>\n
-the Gfteriee of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. and<\/p>\n
T hence the former cannot be regarded as minor offence<\/p>\n
. vis-.a_-vis latter. However. the position. would be
\nu ” <\u00bb.di[ferent: when the charge also contains the offence
\n under Section 498-A, I.P.C. [Husband or relative of<\/p>\n
' husband ofa women subjecting her to cruelty). As the
\nword "cruelty" is explained as including inter alia
\n"harassment of the woman where such harassment is
\nwith a view to coercing her or any person related to<\/p>\n
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or<\/p>\n
( <\/p>\n
valuable security or is on account offatmre by her or
\nany person related to her to meet such demand."<\/p>\n
2.}. Following the above observations of the V.l<I_on'ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Cotirt in the said case, l am of the considered opiflion<\/p>\n
that the offence under Section 363 IPC and  <\/p>\n
Section 376 IPC cannot be held to__l:3efcogxiatei"cft'e1li\u00a3:esf_andu'<\/p>\n
therefore, the accused herein cannot be convicted f'o1f'the~voffeilce<\/p>\n
under Section 363 IPC in the ahsence oi'-chargeh9atnc–d..agains't.it<\/p>\n
him for the said offence. V__Besides___tlhis_, no   placed on
\nrecord by the prosecution'tlchlfough  of any of the
\nwitnesses exarnined   kidnapped the
\nprosecutrix    who filed the
\ncomplaint  he suspected that the accused
\nmight haxte  has turned hostile and<\/p>\n
has sta\u00e9;ed_iii hlisi-evidencle that he does not know the contents of<\/p>\n
 S\u00a71;;;_1?3"coni'plaint. Thetelore, the accused cannot be alternatively<\/p>\n
 the.o.t~i"ence under Section 363 IPC as submitted by<\/p>\n
the learned Go};-'ern1nent Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
22.v.V__’l’he learned High Court Government Pleader also<\/p>\n
  lcontencled that even if the offence under Section 3’76 IPC is held<\/p>\n
 –..lVl:not51nade out against the accused, he can be Convicted for the<\/p>\n
 . Doffence under Section 354 IPC. Suffice it to say that this<\/p>\n
,.,..m..:;””””‘*’-~*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009 Author: Arali Nagaraj IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATM{A AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY or NOVEMBER 2009 BEFORE T T THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE ARALI NAG;”%RAtI’y:'”. ‘ i- CRIMINAL APPEAL No.o.\u00bb1.5?6\/266?’ C ” BETWEEN: ‘ V” F.Nataraja S\/0 Eshwarappa […]<\/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-216841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nF Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 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\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-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=\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-02T03:29:07+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\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T03:29:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3827,\"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\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\",\"name\":\"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T03:29:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 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":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 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\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-02T03:29:07+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\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T03:29:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009"},"wordCount":3827,"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\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009","name":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T03:29:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-nataraja-vs-the-state-by-hiriyur-police-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"F Nataraja vs The State By Hiriyur Police on 9 November, 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\/216841","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=216841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}