{"id":251171,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-19T09:46:26","modified_gmt":"2017-01-19T04:16:26","slug":"the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
 2. ,.;ANIIISUYABTAi,\n\n  .A(_}ED,6Q YEARS,\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20m \"'\u00bbI.\n\nPRESENT:    V.\n\nTHE HiON'BLI;3 MR JUSTICE K. SREEDH\u00bb'\\Ri22'*\u00e9C:\"'   '\n\nAND  _ ff: .  \" 1: _ \nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  \"_ \nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1419 \ufb01'2OO5I{A}II , ~\nBETWEEN:  \" \" '  I\n\nTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA,  \nTHROUGH D.J.HALLI.     _ \nPOLICE STATION.  ~  F_  1  ,.VV.I.I.IAI->EELI,AI\\I'I'\n\n(BY SRI.P.M.NAWAZ AI)\ufb01'IT{O1\\E'AL _SP1?) I  \"\n\n1. GANG-ADEARA---@ G2?I.NG.ADHARA RAG,\nRESIDINO ATfINO\u00a7'1\u00a73, I CROSS,\nNANDAOOI.:III;A_E:>:'1*ENSION,\nS}~F{AP\u00a3EPURA,._:i).J;HAI;LI,\nBANGALORE.   \n\n 'wgio AIARAYAEA RAO.\n\n\" A _ ' EESIDiN_G--AT N018, I CROSS,\n. \" ._NA3\\II3.AOO'KULA EXTENSION,\nA SHYAMPURA, D.J.HALI,I,\n BANGALORE.\n\n \n\n\n\nthe 10*\" Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,\n\nBangalore, in SC No.405\/2000. The accused \n\npleaded not guilty for the Charges and \n\ntried.   p\n\n2] After the prosecution  e*;}idenCe_:l' \n\nhearing both sides, the   \njudgmgnt under appeal . llaequitited the\naccused persons of  against\nthem  failed to\nprove the    them. Being\naggrieVed\"bylVaV.tliCe  judignient'iof\ufb01acquittal, the State is\nin appeal l\ufb01epfoliiev    .\n\n__\u00a73]  We' liieard Sri. P.lVI. Nawaz. learned\n\n   appearing for the appellant-State and\n\n:'llFfvad'r_r1a.Vat:hi, learned Counsel appearing for\n\n-V Respondents: 1 to 3. We have perused the records,<\/pre>\n
 ‘}\u00a7:a;e;’1i11\u00a7}” examined the oral as well as documentary<\/p>\n
–   and read the judgment under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
 eiomin’g”t'<)"'know of the incident, PW.7 and<\/p>\n
 other'i*e:is:tiees:i2\u00a7jent to the hospitai, saw the dead body<\/p>\n
9""'~.__V"comp1aiv1]t, ased on which, criminal case was registered
\n T "against the accused persons for the offences punishable<\/p>\n
urider Sections 498~A and 304-13 of WC and<\/p>\n
matrirnonial home. For some time, she was looked after
\nwell and thereafter the accused persons started
\nher to bring dowry of Rs\/$0,000\/– from her  .
\nwhen she failed to comply with   9"\n<\/p>\n
subjected to cruelty and ha1’as:sn1e_nt’:  <\/p>\n
occasions, she was sent tho-dhwer parental’v~ho’:fr1’e’\u00bbw~\\\u00bbi}ith<\/p>\n
instructions to bring dowry of—-P-is:_.40;O’00Qvvijltiniately,
\non 06.12.1999, the deceased’; the cruelty<\/p>\n
and harassment,’ in ax’ bid_”V..:’to.44com_m’it”\u00abs’uicide, doused<\/p>\n
herself   “‘set’\ufb01V_h’erse1f ablaze while she
\nwas stayidng aecVused'”i1’1″her matrimonial home
\nat Bangalore :..’the1*e.hy.,:sustained burn injuries and<\/p>\n
later she 9″sL1ce1irnbAedV”~”to the said burn injuries.<\/p>\n
of   and thereafter, PW.7 lodged a<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
years from the date of the marriage and it was due to
\nburns. As noticed supra, the charge sheet was filed<\/p>\n
only for the offences punishable under Sections <\/p>\n
30\u00ab4_~~B of IPC<\/a>. T he offences punishable   ‘<\/p>\n
& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac_t\u00bbeA{fo.r’short;  in<\/p>\n
were not alleged against the accused “perso_n\u20ac~.norI:”thel*..<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge  any.__ charge’~.nfor ‘the S’<\/p>\n
offences punishable under  41-53 of the
\nD.P.Act. Keeping thisllfact in necessary to<\/p>\n
Consider Wh\u20acl\u00a7h\u00a71:T:’Ch\u20ac liearrieei Ses.s_ion’s’git1dge is justified<\/p>\n
in acqiiittiiig\ufb01\ufb01hel’ac’cused persons for the two charges
\n1eVel1ed””aga.inst. tliera    S<\/p>\n
8] in  Sessions Judge after<\/p>\n
 ..vcon{sjilde\u00a7,f1ng.i_the ora–l——as well as documentary evidence of<\/p>\n
 tlieT_mat’erial”vlfit-nesses. has recorded a finding that the<\/p>\n
evi’cl_ence_ otitlie material witnesses is not convincing<\/p>\n
l\ufb01arzd cogent with regard to the alleged pre–marriage<\/p>\n
‘”i_1egotii\u00abat’ions and also the alleged demand and<\/p>\n
  acceptan(:e of the dowry by the accused persons. The<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\niearned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the<\/p>\n
evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish that<\/p>\n
the accused persons coerced the deceased to bring-..ai1y<\/p>\n
money as dowry from the parental home  .<\/p>\n
regard. she was subjected to cr1_,1e.}.ty_ and”ha:i”assi<ne.nt;i._ ii"<\/p>\n
In that View of the matter, the 1e:arri'ed"Sessions <\/p>\n
was of the opinion that the Changes tinder  * L'<\/p>\n
and 304–~B of IPC<\/a> are not mad.eeVo\u00a71t.”‘–~.,<\/p>\n
9) As could abet seen ironic’-._the case” of the<\/p>\n
prosecution, though theV_ch_arged  498-A of<\/p>\n
{PC is  coercing the deceased for further<\/p>\n
dowry,   charge for the offences<\/p>\n
 punishdable uI”1d.er”Sevc::tions 3 & 4 of the DP Act, the<\/p>\n
said allegations made against the accused persons<\/p>\n
cariaotvv’!:>e’_jc_oiiiitenanced. The whole basis for the case<\/p>\n
— of the p1’o’s’ecution was that, there was pre-rnarriage<\/p>\n
 “_’i..n’ego4tiations and during such negotiations the accused<\/p>\n
—  persoins demanded dowry of Rs.50,000\/– whereas PWI7<\/p>\n
agreed to pay only Rs.i0,000\/~ and accordingly she<\/p>\n
LapvpTeiViai1t\u00a5SVt’ait.e*-..and in the light. of the arguments<\/p>\n
“V.,scrutiniaed the oral and documentary evidence and we
\n   t.he opinion that the finding recorded by the<\/p>\n
 learned Sessions Judge is sound and reasonable<\/p>\n
1]
\nand also about the accused coercing the deceased to get<\/p>\n
balance of Rs.40,000\/–. The learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
referring to various inconsistencies in the  ~
\nof these wltnesses, the om1ss1ons__or1  K”
\ndisclose these facts during
\nTahsildar and the investigat.iLn’g_Ofiicer.   _ >
\nfailure to mention thesefactsy.in:the”correspondences as
\nalso the letters, has  of these
\nwitnesses areyyvunreliabylel xiinsafe to place
\nreliance on;   to the conclusion
\nthat  subjected to cruelty
\nor harasslnieiit  persons to get the
\nbalance dowry.”   it i<\/p>\n
   Haiyirig–regard to the grounds urged by the<\/p>\n
can.yy’assed’hf’oy: Sri. P.I\\\/1. Nawaz, we have carefully<\/p>\n
4?\n<\/p>\n
\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
having regard to the evidence on record. Accused i__\\lo.}
\nis none other than the cousin brother of <\/p>\n
according to the say of PW.’\/, when Accused.A4″i~los.gi.~l&.l  ~<\/p>\n
had come to her house few day-s~.prio:=” to'”‘\ufb01I1arriage,’i’._V A<\/p>\n
Accused No.2 asked her to give
\nAccused No.1, for which  “lfor l’
\nthe marriage. It is   ‘that .at”the.-dtime of
\nmarriage. the deceased’    years and
\nshe was studyi1i.g.’:-. It   that at that
\ntime Kavithal\\li?_asA”i’i’dt   marriage as she was
\nstudyingl.”    widowed mother,
\nproceeded “From the contents of the<\/p>\n
letters said l’i:vo_haV’e beenslwritten by the deceased. it is<\/p>\n
 V’ “vnote:dl’tha.t the rnarfiage was not to the liking of Accused<\/p>\n
   was not good looking and she was<\/p>\n
of Ai3lack~.(1:o\u00a3;m:piexion and he was not showing any<\/p>\n
  ‘i\u00bbngteres’t,v.i_ri her. There were family bickering between the<\/p>\n
 d\ufb01amilyl of deceased on one hand and accused on the<\/p>\n
Al   .otl1er hand. it is also evident that, out of 63\/2 years of<\/p>\n
\u00ab i<\/p>\n
13<\/span>
\nmarried life of deceased Kavitha, for nearly about. 3%.<\/p>\n
years she stayed in her parental home and for about 3<\/p>\n
years, she stayed in her matrimonial home. <\/p>\n
Contents of letters further indicate that she <\/p>\n
happy with the marital life with __ H<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the deceased Comnlitted ‘suiei.de:’d_otisihgH’;<\/p>\n
herself with kerosene and set herself <\/p>\n
from the deceased do not  that.at”A of
\ntime she was subjected to or eriieltjfj by the
\naccused persons in “‘l.’fhe1fefore, though
\nthe two ir1gredier1~ts: of  [i) death having
\noccurred   the date of the
\nmarriage’    established, the third
\n offence that the deceased<\/p>\n
had been subjected to-cr\ufb01uelty or harassment in relation<\/p>\n
lt’o._the  sooI:1Wbefo1’e her death, has not been<\/p>\n
establidsvh\u00e9edl Therefore, in our opinion, the learned<\/p>\n
 \ufb02 5essi.ons”Ji_i\u00abdge is justified in holding that the charge<\/p>\n
Jundtier Seetion 304\u00ab\u00bbB of IPC<\/a> is not n’1ade–out. As the<\/p>\n
,1<\/p>\n
\ufb02ew”\n<\/p>\n
\n
14<\/span>
\nentire basis of the prosecution case was that the<\/p>\n
accused persons coerced the deceased to get balance
\ndowry amount of Rs.40,0()0\/–, in the absence of any<\/p>\n
acceptable evidence that there were prewmarriage<\/p>\n
negotiations and during such negotiations, ” <\/p>\n
demanded dowry of Rs.50,000\/–~ in cash. <\/p>\n
\npaid Rs.10,00()\/– leaving a <\/p>\n
and in the absence oil  under
\nSections 3<\/a> &  the  ‘under Section
\n4_<\/a>~98-A of    held as not proved.\n<\/p>\n
Iii)’   the facts and
\ncircumstances  also the evidence available<\/p>\n
on record. in\u00bb our o’;pin.ioVn,” the learned Sessions Judge is<\/p>\n
11;. acquit;t’ing the accused persons of the<\/p>\n
 against. them. The judgment under<\/p>\n
appeal be termed as perverse or as illegal. The<\/p>\n
3″=~\u00ab._”~learned_ Sessions Judge in our opinion has properly<\/p>\n
it  gV.”apprjeeiated the oral and docurnentary evidence and the<\/p>\n
fijndirlg recorded by the Court below is sound and<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
reasonable. Therefore, we find no gmunds to interfere<\/p>\n
with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly,
\nappeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
KGR*  ….  _   ”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010 Author: K.Sreedhar Rao K.N.Keshavanarayana 2. ,.;ANIIISUYABTAi, .A(_}ED,6Q YEARS, IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20m “‘\u00bbI. PRESENT: V. THE HiON’BLI;3 MR JUSTICE K. SREEDH\u00bb’\\Ri22’*\u00e9C:”‘ ‘ AND _ ff: . ” […]<\/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-251171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 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\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1214,\"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\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 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":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 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\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":1214,"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\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010","name":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T04:16:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-vs-gangadhara-gangadhara-rao-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Karnataka vs Gangadhara @ Gangadhara Rao on 25 November, 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\/251171","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=251171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251171\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}