{"id":250830,"date":"1993-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993"},"modified":"2018-12-09T14:20:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-09T08:50:00","slug":"panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","title":{"rendered":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR  963, 1994 SCC  Supl.  (2) 235<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nPANCHAIAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/11\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nRAY, G.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR  963\t\t  1994 SCC  Supl.  (2) 235\n 1993 SCALE  (4)477\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.   This appeal has been filed by three original  convicted<br \/>\naccused\t 1, 3 and 6 namely, Panchaiah, Shankariah  and\tKhan<br \/>\nSab.   During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal,\tthe   second<br \/>\nappellant  (original  accused 3) died.\t Therefore,  we\t are<br \/>\nconcerned with the case of the remaining appellants.   These<br \/>\nappellants  along with three others were tried for  offences<br \/>\npunishable  under  Section  324 and Section  304  read\twith<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 34<\/a> IPC for causing injuries to PW 5 and for  causing<br \/>\nthe  death  of Devendrappa.  The case mainly rested  on\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of PW 5 and PW 8 out of whom PW 5 is\tthe  injured<br \/>\nwitness.   The\ttrial court however acquitted all  the\tsix.<br \/>\nThe State preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court while acquitting the three other accused A-2, A-4<br \/>\nand  A-5 convicted the appellants under <a href=\"\/doc\/1560742\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections 302<\/a>\/<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_2\">34<\/a>\t IPC<br \/>\nand  324  read\twith <a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 34<\/a> IPC for\t causing  death\t and<br \/>\ninjuries to PW 5 and sentenced each of them to undergo\tlife<br \/>\nimprisonment   and  simple  imprisonment  for\tsix   months<br \/>\nrespectively.\t The   sentences   are\t directed   to\t run<br \/>\nconcurrently.\tHence the present appeal under\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1524736\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section\t 379<\/a><br \/>\nCrPC  read with <a href=\"\/doc\/927005\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 2<\/a> of the Supreme Court\t(Enlargement<br \/>\nof Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.   The  prosecution case is as follows.  The accused,\t the<br \/>\nmaterial  witnesses  and the deceased  belonged\t to  Village<br \/>\nMylar  in  Bellary  District, Karnataka.   A-1\tto  A-3\t are<br \/>\nbrothers.   They were living jointly.  They were  running  a<br \/>\nhotel at the bus stand.\t A-4 to A-6 are brothers.  They\t had<br \/>\na sister by name Peeravva.  The deceased was the husband  of<br \/>\nPW  11.\t PW  10\t is  the  cousin  brother  of  the  deceased<br \/>\nDevendrappa.   The father of the deceased made\ta  complaint<br \/>\ntwo  years  prior  to the  present  occurrence\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and seven others for having outraged the modesty of<br \/>\nPeeravva, sister of A-4 to A-6.\t The charge-sheet was  filed<br \/>\nagainst\t the accused but they were acquitted.  As  a  result<br \/>\nthere\twas  a\tbitter\tenmity\tbetween\t the   two   groups.<br \/>\nProceedings  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/291822\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 110<\/a> CrPC  were  also  registered<br \/>\nagainst\t the deceased and the brothers of A-1 to A-3 made  a<br \/>\ncomplaint  alleging  theft  of\tsome  articles\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and in respect of&#8217; tile same, charge-sheet was also<br \/>\nfiled.\tWhile on May 4, 1979 namely, the date of  occurrence<br \/>\nGurunanjaiah  the  brother of A-1 to A-3  made\ta  complaint<br \/>\nagainst\t the deceased and six others under <a href=\"\/doc\/295920\/\" id=\"a_7\">Sections 147<\/a>\t and\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">436.   At about 8.00 a.m. on May 4, 1979 the deceased  along<br \/>\nwith PW 5 and PW 8 went to his land two miles away from\t the<br \/>\nvillage\t to plough the land with a tractor.   They  ploughed<br \/>\nthe  land  till about 11.00 a.m. Thereafter they went  to  a<br \/>\nNeem  tree  and\t sat in the shade.  They  took\ttheir  food.<br \/>\nAfter the rest at about 12.30 or 1.00 p.m. PW 5 and PW 8 got<br \/>\nup on hearing some noise.  They saw A-1 to A-6 coming there.<br \/>\nA-1  was armed with cycle chain and A-2 to A-6\twere  having<br \/>\nclubs in their hands.  Accused abused the deceased in vulgar<br \/>\nlanguage  and  thereupon A-1 assaulted the deceased  on\t his<br \/>\nhead  with  cycle chain.  The deceased got up and sat  in  a<br \/>\nfrightened  mood.   Thereafter\tPW 5 and PW  8\trescued\t the<br \/>\ndeceased.   Accused threatened PW 8. Thereafter A-1  to\t A-6<br \/>\nassaulted the deceased with clubs and A-1 with a cycle chain<br \/>\non various parts of the body.  The accused after  inflicting<br \/>\nthese injuries left the scene of occurrence.  PW 5 and PW  8<br \/>\nfound the deceased lying injured and unconscious, lifted him<br \/>\nto  the village.  The mother of the deceased and PW 10\twere<br \/>\ninformed  about the occurrence by PW 5. Thereafter PWs 5,  8<br \/>\nand 10 carried the deceased to the hospital in the  tractor.<br \/>\nPW  7,\ta Compounder at the Primary  Health  Centre,  Holalu<br \/>\ninformed  PW  5\t and  others that the  doctor  had  gone  to<br \/>\nBellary.  Thereafter PW 5 and others searched for a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">\t\t\t    237<\/span><br \/>\nprivate doctor at Holalu and they could not find him.  PW  5<br \/>\nand  others then proceeded to Hirehadagali.  On the way\t the<br \/>\ndeceased succumbed to the injuries.  PW 5 and others carried<br \/>\nthe   body  of\tthe  deceased  to  the\tpolice\tstation\t  at<br \/>\nHirehadagali   and  informed  PW  19,\tthe   Sub-Inspector.<br \/>\nThereupon  PW  19 asked PW 5 to give  a\t written  complaint.<br \/>\nAccordingly PW 5 got a report of the occurrence written\t and<br \/>\npresented the same to the Sub-Inspector, who registered\t the<br \/>\ncase.\t The  next  morning  PW\t 5  was\t sent  for   medical<br \/>\nexamination  and  inquest was held over the  dead  body\t and<br \/>\npostmortem was conducted by doctor, PW 6. He opined that the<br \/>\ninjuries  to the head which caused internal  damage,  caused<br \/>\ndeath as a result of shock due to haemorrhage.\tOn PW 5\t the<br \/>\ndoctor found simple injuries.  The accused were arrested and<br \/>\nafter completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid.<br \/>\nThe prosecution examined 20 witnesses.\tThe accused  pleaded<br \/>\nnot  guilty  and stated that they were\tfalsely\t implicated.<br \/>\nThe  trial court examined the evidence of PW 5 and PW 8\t and<br \/>\npointed out that they have given an exaggerated version\t and<br \/>\nthat  the  medical evidence show that the  occurrence  could<br \/>\nhave taken place at a different time and it was not safe  to<br \/>\nrely  on the evidence of Gurunanjaiah.\tIn that view of\t the<br \/>\nmatter all the accused were acquitted.\tThe High Court\tonce<br \/>\nagain  examined\t the evidence of these two  eyewitnesses  in<br \/>\ngreat detail and was prepared to accept their evidence.\t  So<br \/>\nfar  as A-1, A-3 and A-6 are concerned since specific  overt<br \/>\nacts were attributed to them the High Court confirmed  their<br \/>\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">3.  Mr.\t Javali,  the learned Senior  Counsel  submits\tthat<br \/>\nevidence  of  these  two witnesses  had\t been  discarded  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  three accused.  It would  therefore  be  highly<br \/>\nunsafe\tto convict the appellant on the same evidence.\t His<br \/>\nfurther\t submission is that the fact that PW 5 was  examined<br \/>\nby  the\t doctor\t at  a\tbelated\t stage\tmakes  his  evidence<br \/>\nsuspicious.   He also invited our attention to some  of\t the<br \/>\nadmissions  made by PW 5, the injured witness in his  cross-<br \/>\nexamination  where he has stated that all the  accused\tbeat<br \/>\nthe  deceased indiscriminately and according to the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel if that version is to be believed, there would\thave<br \/>\nbeen  number  of  injuries but the  doctor  found  only\t six<br \/>\ninjuries  on  the deceased and out of them there  were\tfive<br \/>\nabrasions.  Therefore the evidence of PW 5   is contrary  to<br \/>\nthe medical evidence.  The learned counsel also pointed\t out<br \/>\nthat the  occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m.  but\t the<br \/>\nreport was given at 7.00 p.m.\t  and\t  therefore\t the<br \/>\nconsultations and the resultant false implication cannot  be<br \/>\nruled  out  in\tthe case.  In any event,  according  to\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel the view taken by the trial court is  quite<br \/>\nreasonable  and\t the High Court erred in interfering  in  an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">4.   As\t mentioned  above PW 5 is an injured  witness.\t The<br \/>\ndoctor who examined him found as many as six injuries.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  injury was on the back at the level of 9th  and\t10th<br \/>\nvertebrae measuring 22 cms x 5 cms.  The second injury again<br \/>\nwas on the left scapula measuring 24 cms x 5 cms.  The third<br \/>\ninjury was also at the same place measuring 15 cms x 5\tcms.<br \/>\nThe other three injuries were on the right clavicle shoulder<br \/>\nand  knee.  The doctor opined that these injuries  could  be<br \/>\ncaused\tby  a  cycle chain and the  other  with\t the  clubs.<br \/>\nTherefore  the medical evidence corroborates the version  of<br \/>\nPW  5 when he stated that he was beaten by the\tcycle  chain<br \/>\nand clubs.  Therefore he having received injuries during the<br \/>\nsame  transaction cannot be doubted and his presence at\t the<br \/>\nscene of occurrence is established.  No doubt in the  cross-<br \/>\nexamination  he\t stated\t that all  the\taccused\t beaten\t him<br \/>\nindiscriminately.  It may be exaggeration but specific<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">238<\/span><br \/>\novert acts are attributed to A-1, A-3 and A-6.\tThe presence<br \/>\nof  injuries on a witness confirms his presence\t during\t the<br \/>\noccurrence.   That  being  so, his  evidence  assumes  great<br \/>\nimportance.  Even if there are some exaggerations, the Court<br \/>\nhas to examine the same and scrutinise the evidence.  Having<br \/>\ngone  through  the evidence and the reasoning of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  we  are of the view that it erred in  discarding\t the<br \/>\nevidence of PW 5 in toto.  Without being present and without<br \/>\nhaving\twitnessed the occurrence, PW 5 could not have  given<br \/>\nthe  same  version in the earliest report  because  of\tmere<br \/>\nmotive\tor out of consultation.\t The so-called\texaggeration<br \/>\nor  discrepancies pointed out in their evidence both by\t the<br \/>\ncounsel\t as well as by the trial court in our view  are\t not<br \/>\nmaterial and would not affect the veracity of the witness.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">5.   However, having regard to the background, the  existing<br \/>\nenmity his evidence has to be carefully scrutinized.  Having<br \/>\ngone through his evidence, we are in agreement with the High<br \/>\nCourt that A-1, A-3 and A-6 to whom specific overt acts were<br \/>\nattributed must have participated in the occurrence.  PW 5&#8217;s<br \/>\nevidence  is  further corroborated by the evidence of  PW  8<br \/>\nwhose name is also mentioned in the FIR.  The version  given<br \/>\nby  these  two witnesses regarding the part  played  by\t the<br \/>\nappellants  is consistent and is amply corroborated  by\t the<br \/>\nmedical\t evidence.   We are of the confirmed view  that\t the<br \/>\nreasons\t given\tby the trial court are\thighly\tunsound\t and<br \/>\nerroneous.   Therefore the view taken by the High  Court  in<br \/>\nthese  circumstances  is correct and sound.  So far  as\t the<br \/>\nnature\tof the occurrence is concerned, we are of  the\tview<br \/>\nthat  a case punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/295920\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 302<\/a> read with  <a href=\"\/doc\/295920\/\" id=\"a_9\">Section<br \/>\n34<\/a>  is\tnot made out.  Undoubtedly there was  bitter  enmity<br \/>\nbetween\t the  two groups.  If really the  intention  of\t the<br \/>\nassailants  whoever  they may be was to cause the  death  of<br \/>\ndeceased  they would have been armed with deadly weapons  or<br \/>\nwould have inflicted more serious injuries.  The doctor,  PW<br \/>\n6 who conducted the postmortem noticed on the dead body only<br \/>\nsix  injuries.\tThe first injury was lacerated wound on\t the<br \/>\nmiddle\tof  the head measuring 2 cms x 1 cm and\t bone  deep.<br \/>\nThe  second injury, a bruise (exhymosis) black\tcoloured  on<br \/>\nthe  antero laternal aspect of the right arm extending\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  right shoulder joint aspect measuring 23 cms x  9\tcms.<br \/>\nThe  third  injury  was again  a  bruise  (exhymosis)  black<br \/>\ncoloured on the interior aspect of the left upper arm up  to<br \/>\nthe  left elbow joint measuring 10 cms x 9 cms.\t The  fourth<br \/>\ninjury\twas  an abrasion black colour on  the  left  patella<br \/>\nmeasuring 3 cms x 2 cms.  The fifth injury was also abrasion<br \/>\nblack  colour  just  middle to the injury No.  4.  The\tlast<br \/>\ninjury\tis  again only an abrasion on the left side  of\t the<br \/>\nabdomen\t at  the level of the unbelious 6 cms.\t The  doctor<br \/>\nopined that there was extravasation of blood just below\t the<br \/>\nhead  injury No. 1. The doctor opined that the death  was  a<br \/>\nresult\tof  shock and haemorrhage.  He further\tstated\tthat<br \/>\ninjury\tto  the brain and the vessels was  due\tto  external<br \/>\ninjury\tNo. 1. Injuries 1, 4 and 5 would be caused by a\t hit<br \/>\nwith  a cycle chain.  The medical evidence thus\t shows\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is only one injury which was serious on the head\t and<br \/>\nthe  other injuries were only burised abrasions.  If  really<br \/>\nas  contended by the learned counsel for the State that\t the<br \/>\nintention  of the appellant was to cause death,\t they  would<br \/>\nhave  inflicted\t more serious injuries.\t We  find  only\t one<br \/>\ninjury\ton  the\t head which unfortunately  resulted  in\t the<br \/>\nextravasation  of blood causing injury to the brain.   Under<br \/>\nthese  circumstances it cannot be said that they had  common<br \/>\nintention  to cause the death of the deceased.\tHowever\t the<br \/>\ninjuries inflicted would show that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">239<\/span><br \/>\nthey  had only knowledge in which case they  are  punishable<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1439698\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 304<\/a> Part 11 read with <a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_11\">Section 34<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">6.   In\t the  result we confirm the convictions of  the\t two<br \/>\nappellants Panchaiah and Khan Sab under <a href=\"\/doc\/724142\/\" id=\"a_12\">Sections 324<\/a>\/<a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_13\">34<\/a>\t IPC<br \/>\nand  the sentence of six months awarded\t thereunder.   Their<br \/>\nconvictions  under <a href=\"\/doc\/1439698\/\" id=\"a_14\">Section 302<\/a> read with <a href=\"\/doc\/1439698\/\" id=\"a_15\">Section 34<\/a> and\t the<br \/>\nsentence of imprisonment for life thereunder are set  aside.<br \/>\nInstead\t they are convicted under <a href=\"\/doc\/1439698\/\" id=\"a_16\">Section 304<\/a> Part  11\tread<br \/>\nwith  <a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_17\">Section  34<\/a>  IPC\tand are\t sentenced  to\tfive  years&#8217;<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment.\tThe appeal is partly allowed to\t the<br \/>\nextent indicated above.\t So far as Shankariah is  concerned,<br \/>\nthe appeal abates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 963, 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 235 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: PANCHAIAH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/11\/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) RAY, G.N. (J) [&hellip;]<\/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-250830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-09T08:50:00+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-09T08:50:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1999,\"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\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\",\"name\":\"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-09T08:50:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-09T08:50:00+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993","datePublished":"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-09T08:50:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993"},"wordCount":1999,"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\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993","name":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-09T08:50:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-4-november-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Panchaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993"}]},{"@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\/250830","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=250830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}