{"id":246177,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-08-07T02:36:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-06T21:06:49","slug":"murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
1 .\n\niliil\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 16\" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE M'I-{JUSTICE JAWAD RAH1':i\\:\/I   \nCRIMINAL REVISION pET1'r1<__)mNo.6\/2'o1o\u00abii.  '\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri Murali.\n\nSon of Gopalareddy,\nAged about 23 years.\nResiding at No.25}, V H \nOpposite to Pranav Bakery} ;\nBegur Road, Hngasandra, "\nBanga10re--56O O68.\n\nSon of Piiiaredd.y;'_,i\nAged aboi_:..tV2L'3' .ye\u00a3ii*113._, _   ,\nResiding at behinvd Aiswadigza Bar,\n\n3"? Cross, Begui'V'l%GaAd,i _   ' '\nHongasandra, V '   "\nBangal.0re--"~5_60 O68. 4' ; =\n\nSri.Kantharaj*u""@    \n\nSri.1.\\\/1\u00a7a'ri_ju.nath2i'. ~  V'\n\n Son Roi' C;_e.pai.areddy}' " **** ii "\n\nAged 2;.boL1i. years.\n\n LResiding-aid N'o.,25.i,\n\n"Op"p.Qsit'e 1ft;..,P1'a:frii:\u00a2;iv Bakeiy,\nBegin' R0fa.d',~ Ongasandra.\nBan}ga10:f'e ---E360 O68.\n\nV."Sri.G0pal\u00e91 Reddy,\n_ \u00a7_".'3Q1'1 'Of Abbaiah Reddy,\n' . Agediabout 52 years.\n\ni  Residing atN0.251,\n  ...Opposi'{e to Pranav Bakery,\n Begin' Road, Hongasandra.\n\nBangalore -- 560 068.\n\nSri.J anardhana.\nSon of Bhomi Raddy.\nAged about 24 years.\n\nQQVCV\n\n\n\nResiding at N0248,\n\n3" Cross,\n\nBegur Road. Hongasandra.\nBangalore ~\u00ab 560 068.\n\n6. S1'i.L0kesh Reddy @ Loki,\n\nSon of Eate Purushothama Reddy.\nAged about 30 years.\n\nResiding at N0253. I F1001'.\nOpposite to Pranav Bakery.\nBegur Road. I~{or1gasandra,\nBangallore W 560 068.\n\n . . I;ij:":1:1i1QN\u00a3s\u00a7Rs\n\n(By Sri.N.J.Rame's'h;.: Ag_1v.)' '\n\nAND:\nState offiarnataka,  'V\nRepresented by Lhe\u00e9\u00e9  " V  _ ._ _\nlnspftctor of Poiice.     " \n\nMadiwala P01iee";3_t\u00e9I't7:dVn,V  \n\nBar1ga10re_,___   "\n " ....RESPONDENT\n\n . {By sri;Raj\u00a7~ .sub_\u00a74ah;'n.~1e1nya Bhat, HCGP]\n\nThis" e.1-1.R.p"; 'Ai.sV:i;i1ed:U\/S.397 1"\/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying\n\n  F\u00a70n'bA\u00a3e Coufimixiay be pieased to set aside the order\n\n1T'i,._:f?;O09:Vp\u00a7;1ssed in S.C.N0.1178\/2008 passed by the\n\nP1'es'id\u00a711g O'VfI"i'e.'e,j1r,VA'}rF"V\u00e91'st T1'ack C0urt~\\\/, Bangakore.\n\n V'  the fbil0w'i11g:\n\nThis C;'1.R.P. coming on for admission this day, the Court.\n\n \n\n\n\n-3-\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Petitioners who are arraigned  accused in
\nS.C.No.1178\/2008 on the file of the learned Judge. Fast_.7I_’1’ack
\nCourt, Bangalore, are in 1’evision under Section <\/p>\n
questioning’ the order of framing the charge against…t:hen1A. ~  <\/p>\n
2. The matter is listed for atdinissiciiiaftei’ _.not’ic_e to–:ltheg<\/p>\n
State.\n<\/p>\n
3. Contextual facts  _Vreferer_1\ufb02ce’l are: one
\nRamachandra lodged 1’eport”at the _jtiriSdi.cti’i.Qnal police station
\nalleging that, the petitioners  to 8) were<\/p>\n
near Garvebhavi ;’Plall’ya’ in”._Hcnn’gasa:nd1*a’V Main Road, carrying<\/p>\n
metal pipeV;.V_Ae.t\/zussedvNollie in possession of the metal pipe. It<\/p>\n
was carried *-in* a” manner and touched the<\/p>\n
complainant… When he and his companion asked the accused to<\/p>\n
 m:e.tal_l:p’ipe in orderly inanner t.o avoid injury to others,<\/p>\n
enraged With.”t1hl_atvAl.av!l”accused armed themselves with objects iike<\/p>\n
V long {s’wo1’d_)’,’ chopper and at.t.acked the complainant. causing<\/p>\n
H”:’:v’.,’.li4;l’t.1I:Y,–.”7ill1~~\u00a2 deliberate intention to kill him. When the<\/p>\n
lcoriipiainant tried to escape the assault, accused Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
“chased him in ptirsuit. to kiii hini 2–md they were alreaciy armed<\/p>\n
“~–with sword and knife. The otller accused joined with these<\/p>\n
persons to ensure that the complainant and his companion shall<\/p>\n
not escape. On the basis (Ji  report, FIR came to be<\/p>\n
-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
registered for offeiiees punishable under Seet’ions 143. 147. 307
\nr\/w 149 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
4. The petitioners were arrested and during the cyottrse of<\/p>\n
investigation, were admitted to bail. On filing of t.he_:fi’i”i’a.l<\/p>\n
the jurisdictional Magistrate took eognizarice ar1d…eoni\ufb011.i:tte_d its  <\/p>\n
Case to the Court of Sessions.  thei;(:haifge’–Vf(:r ot’i’e1_1(:er.L_inAderA’<\/p>\n
Section 307 of the IPC was excipusive}y”–\u00a5ria~ble lit’ isl’noWl.F<\/p>\n
registered in S.C.No.i178\/2008l”and the” ..p’rease11\u00e9t:  the
\npetitioners has been seeui’e’d.~.__ V l l\n<\/p>\n
5. When the matter was  ftoregarding charge,<\/p>\n
the petitioners assei*tit?ely iasotgght to  in t.he tirst<\/p>\n
instance and -in theV.altie1*ria’ti};’eiy ‘pointed out to the Trial Court”<\/p>\n
that the aiiegatioirt in’  e–ofir.plai11t make no case for raising a<\/p>\n
_eha1’geppf.or” otferices ..g;\ufb01c’1<ar :53ect:ions 143, 147 or 307 of the IPC.<\/p>\n
l'.'h\u20acI order. the learned trial Judge rejected the<\/p>\n
coriter'it;iOn"a\ufb01C1p_hasframed the charge against the petitioners for<\/p>\n
V the offences_"indit:ated above. Assailing the order, they are in this<\/p>\n
i   tpetitliopn rai':'-zing following grounds:<\/p>\n
it  That the report Stlbl'11it.t\u20acd in the first instailce and
\nregistered as F IR did not elaborately reveal with the
\novert acts of the petitioners thereby making it clear<\/p>\n
that, there presence was doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
-5″\n<\/p>\n
(ii) There was no allegation oi’ intention in the mind of
\nthe petitioners to make any attempt. on the life of<\/p>\n
CW1–comp1ainant or his companion.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) There was no allegation to attract. the  _<\/p>\n
Sections 143 or 147 of the EPC.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel elabora”t:ed7._o’n the”points”‘\u00absovl–.<\/p>\n
canvassed and assertively contend.s:=i:hat,
\nthe trial Court. was required to VA consideration the
\nmaterial collected during V  trial Court has
\nignored the said material and   police officers
\nhad indicated in   the provisions of<\/p>\n
Sections 1431  been repeated in the
\ncharge.\n<\/p>\n
7. Secondly ._glhev..co1i’%.ends that, even if he accepts the<\/p>\n
:,’:’al1egatit;–na in:t:he..compla’i’nt,v as true. it shows that. the incident.<\/p>\n
was a_.relsul’t._of spa; of action with no pre~mediation or pre<\/p>\n
 Vplanning. He .sul;1n:1its that, in order to sustain a charge under<\/p>\n
-i.l.l’_j’:..4S_ection l43_,A’torn1ation of unlawful assembly must. precede with<\/p>\n
  intention to commit the crime. Such allegations being<\/p>\n
 –._agt:iserit in the complaint. he submits that. the charge cannot be<\/p>\n
  __raised. He relies on the decision ofthe Apex Court. in the case of<\/p>\n
STATE OF’ KARNATAKA Vs. MUNISWAMY AND OTHERS
\nreported in (1977) 2 SCC 699.\n<\/p>\n
-6-<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
8. Per contra Sri Subrahmanya Bhat, learned Government
\nPleader has opposed the petition and supports the impugned<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
9. The petition undoubtedly is questioning the:  <\/p>\n
charge. It is not yet fully decided whetl-1yer.; <\/p>\n
framing of charge is purely i11terloeutory.__na_t_u.1″e or-.is”a.meV11;abl:e\u00ae_<\/p>\n
to revision. 1 therefore, leave that queestioii open. \u00bbHcw\u00e9:;ef,”‘o’n its V<\/p>\n
merits it is to be I10tiC\u20acdvi”l7l\u00a7.}[. eoriipeleainl\u00e9izit in his. first report
\nreferred to attack by the aceuesed   they were in
\nthe company of aoggused   *axsVse1*tiVe statement.
\nin the complaint were eight in
\nnumber  and his Companion,
\nbecause.  eornrylainlainyi’had::::’qt1est,ioned accused No.1 about<\/p>\n
the manner in\u00b0’whic.h’V–_he=._was carrying iron rod risking life of<\/p>\n
    …..\n<\/p>\n
A  V .’_rhe  whether the persons in the group were the<\/p>\n
 members of~”~u_nlawful assembly” or not?\n<\/p>\n
 _ _lO. ‘Fhot1gl1 learned counsel contends that. in order to<\/p>\n
“‘1TE1lSV\u20acr’C.-h.’-il1’g\u20ac under Section 143 of the IPC, there must be Clear<\/p>\n
‘:’31’:a.t.e1’ial to show that, the assembly of persons was {or<\/p>\n
commission of crime. It is to be noi.i<.:e.d that. no doubt mere<\/p>\n
assembly of persons may not constitute unlawful assembly. but<\/p>\n
},{?z\/<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
when the object of assembly becomes unlawful, is a decisive<\/p>\n
factor. It is now well settled that, assembly of persons maynot<\/p>\n
be unlawful in the inception, but when they share aincljiiidnlge<\/p>\n
in overt acts with the object to commit a crime. th\u20ac’.4’lassen’1bly’ : S’<\/p>\n
termed as unlawfule assembly. It has to  inferred on’lyg\u00a7’ron:_i_’Vthe._V it<\/p>\n
attending circumstances and the overt”‘:acts_’loi’ the a’c.c’used”‘*anlc{.:<\/p>\n
no straight jacket formula can bel__v’p’~;:escrib’ed.  ‘i_t”‘d.epends v S’<\/p>\n
on the evidence of the pr0:secuiio1_1_,:liai,_t’h.ye  ijraniing of
\ncharge, it will wholly be 11\ufb01’p.’r}3pa{ to examine
\nthe material to findctit of the assembly
\nhad shared  V S <\/p>\n
1.1.  iritention in the minds of the
\naccused  assembly would only be<\/p>\n
noticed, when the Vevidence relating to the incident is before the<\/p>\n
canrtot; be l”p1’ej–adged. Neither it can be said with an<\/p>\n
af\u20acilrmatio_r1′-that’; there is no material nor it can be said there is<\/p>\n
S   n1ate1*iali’l’establishing the fact. Since the element of inference is<\/p>\n
V7–.__always available in law, it cannot be said that, raising a charge<\/p>\n
 offence under Section 143 against the petitioners at this<\/p>\n
 __ junctu re is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
12. The second aspect is about charge for offe.11ce under
\nSection 147 of the EPC. Since at this juncttlre su.1″ficient. material<\/p>\n
to show that petitioners were armed with objects like sword and<\/p>\n
ytev<\/p>\n
 _’i5r>cA.’;\n<\/p>\n
igi<\/p>\n
knife and being of an unlawful assembly. it attracts charge for<\/p>\n
offence under Sect.ion 147 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
13. The last. and the i1′}1]C)OI’l,.&l’lf aspect is. about the.<\/p>\n
raised for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC-.’:._TlSie .
\nunder t.his provision totally depends on the nature” ‘o:f_’vo\\}e.1’t” acts
\nof the accused and their intention. It is._r1ot’Apecess_a’r3t’t:tilaftftheije<\/p>\n
must be an injury t.o the life to a’?’t.1’a.ct the’~ing1’edierits ‘:tf_Se..\u00a3’tion <\/p>\n
307 of the IPC. Therefore. the cor1t,ei’tt.ion of counsel
\nthat the charge could be oI_1zl:j’ _undei* .Sec_’t:i.on 326 or 324. does
\nnot appeal to me as,_a te11a3;il..e._groi.i.ndg  the allegations<\/p>\n
made against t11e3._pet:\u00a7itioVrievrs  Section 307 of the<\/p>\n
IPC. The trial. [Judge li\u00e9isSconsideredallegations in the coniplaint
\nt.o frame the Charge.  detailed reasoning is necessary.<\/p>\n
I am sat.isfied there i.S_SvittfI’i_Cif\u20ac’Ii1Vt allegations. which are enough to<\/p>\n
  chai’geffto’r—-an offence under Section 307 of the EPC.<\/p>\n
   on record makes out a prima facie case
\n  for against the petitioner. I do not. find any
\n .4u1′.i'”l,1:il’111l’t’4$\/..]Sgf1}.f’t)l’ otherwise in the inipugned order in raising<\/p>\n
  an offence under Sections 143. 147 and 307 of the<\/p>\n
14. It is also needs to be observed that. the petitioners are
\nnot seeking total. discharge. The contention is ‘that. the charge<\/p>\n
tor offences under Section 143 and 307 is not proper. Their<\/p>\n
\u00e9kfiiv<\/p>\n
-9″\n<\/p>\n
contention is, the charge Could be less than the said offence.
\nThis itself shows that, the accused will not be prejudiced i.n___any<\/p>\n
manner if they are put to trial, because the \ufb01nding of <\/p>\n
depend on the nature of evidence. The Sessions’   ‘<\/p>\n
bestowed with sufficient power to scale: down the chaur;jeVV’i3;’_1’:sed._V it<\/p>\n
on the evidence when he decides “=the,_iifia1.ti’re'”Qt” <\/p>\n
committed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Being of this View, 1\u00bb  ‘-:’i1.1yv”Vi’II1\u00aberit i\ufb01”th’\u00a2 petition<\/p>\n
and hence the same is rejected ‘at theibstagelivcifadfnissinon itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim 1 . iliil IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16″ DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE M’I-{JUSTICE JAWAD RAH1′:i\\:\/I CRIMINAL REVISION pET1’r1<__)mNo.6\/2'o1o\u00abii. ' BETWEEN: Sri Murali. Son of Gopalareddy, Aged about 23 […]<\/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-246177","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-06T21:06:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murali S\\\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T21:06:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1522,\"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\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Murali S\\\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T21:06:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murali S\\\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-06T21:06:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T21:06:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2"},"wordCount":1522,"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\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2","name":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T21:06:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murali-so-gopalareddy-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murali S\/O Gopalareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246177","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=246177"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246177\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246177"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246177"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246177"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}