{"id":255607,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-06T04:19:43","modified_gmt":"2015-08-05T22:49:43","slug":"srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: L.Narayana Swamy<\/div>\n
  (BY SA;'_V'K1.M:S}\u00a3--:EeA:\u00a7Li, ADVOCA'I'E}\n\nIP\u20ac 1'FifZ I{IC}}i ()()[}f{17 ()}? I{}XI{P\u20ac}X1f!\\}(}X\n(HRCUHT\ufb01%K}iHTDHARWAD\n\nDATED T}-IIS THE 26\"\" DAY OF 0cT0BE_E:;\"'20:_~e..:  ;_. 4 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE3 MR. JUSTICE  NAf{AY}\\TN}X_SWA?xi_Y A  I\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No'.'15'29\/2o_9\"_4AV.'V': 2  \"\n\nBEHNEEN:\n\n1. SRIKANTH,     ..\ns\/0 KRISHNA HORAKERI   ;\nAGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,  . \nOCC: MECHANIC IN.-VRLe.:COM;P\\ANY. A \nR\/O vARUR~H_Uf-BL1,l;_ I '  \nDISTRICT ;t)rL{~_1*RwA.RD.'  _\n\n2. VIJAY, s\/0 KR{S}:{N}\u00a5} HC= R1\\Ki\u00a53RI:._  \nAGED ABOUT-2_'1;YEAfR'S,  \nSTUDYING I'I_'I_DIP.LC)V_l'x\/IA =\n\nR\/O HUBLI, 1)_1sR1c'1*.EHARVVAL). '\n\n3. SMT. MALLAW.\/_A  LAXIVH \nW\/O KRISHNA HORAKERE,\n - .AGED\u00bbABQUT' 45 YEARS. \u00ab\n A Occ: \"HOUSEHOLD WORK,\n'R\/ Q 'H.u\u00a3s1,1; ~ ~I7)'IE3'I'RICT DHARWAD.\nA V A V'  bv  * vs\u00bb ?\u00a7;%'\u00a7goaiif&v?gm\n\n~ \u00ab IA-ND' \n\n\" ~ . _V ': ~.i*H.Ej  OF KARNATAKA.\n\n'  BANAKAR, HCGP]\n\nRESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
\\<\/p>\n
and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000\/– t.o PW~5 and<\/p>\n
appellants Nos.1 and 3 are convicted for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 323<\/a> of the Indian <\/p>\n
and sentenced them to pay a fine of  each”  <\/p>\n
and in default to undergo simple im.pTrison.n1ent=”forV.;3.’<\/p>\n
months and in default to und..e1-go lsignple iien’pVris_on11ient <\/p>\n
for three months and in lieu of-,su–b_stanLi\u00abx}e lsen\ufb01tence of
\nimprisonment, they   compensation
\nof Rs.5,000\/~ each to.~P”vV{5  and in<\/p>\n
default the  _iteaelizic,d dnlder Section 431 of<\/p>\n
the Code  l\u00e9fdced_urveVland paid to PW15.
\n  he c_ase’–oft”the\u00abprosecution is as follows:<\/p>\n
is in the  on 01\/01\/2001 the deceased<\/p>\n
l”K1fislinEaf G’angara1VnHllChikkodi was on his way to his<\/p>\n
 fel~t.-‘giddy and was about to fall. Seeing him,<\/p>\n
accL1se;l’i’lo’j3~Mal1avva Horakeri laughed and when the<\/p>\n
it de,e_ease*d asked as to why she was mocking at him,<\/p>\n
“‘:1ci(:t1sed No.3 abused ti’\/e deceased in Vulgar words and<\/p>\n
in turn the deceased also abused accused No.3. As a<\/p>\n
result, on 02\/01\/2001 at about 1.30 p.m. uriien\ufb01usifiiig<\/p>\n
deceased was sleeping in his house, accused”Nos.”1:”t:’ane’d— ~<\/p>\n
2 along with their mother accu.se\u00bbd\u00bb..No.?3hbeanie  be<\/p>\n
house of the deceased and questfionedi’<\/p>\n
to why he had abused accusedfo.3 onth.e1p1:eifious”jday ” V<\/p>\n
and at that time, accused No’.’b’10ws\u00a7 on the
\nface of the deceased,  the deceased
\non his stomac1″1′:ai1d   with hands
\nall over the’   the husband of
\naccused  “instigated and abetted
\nthe offerice; the deceased suffered severe<\/p>\n
pain;’in_ston1ach”and could not sleep and therefore in<\/p>\n
  d  on 03\/ 01 \/2001, his mother<\/p>\n
.5) took the deceased to KIMS hospital,<\/p>\n
Hubli a.::1d’va’fter initial checkup, he was admitted in the<\/p>\n
 hospital.’ On reciept of MLC information, PW-15 the ASI<\/p>\n
oi””Keshwap1.1r Poiice Station visited the hospital and<\/p>\n
 “”i*ecorded the oral complaint of the deceased as per E\u00a3x.Pw<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
4 and based on the same. case in Crime No.3 \/ 2001 was<\/p>\n
registered for the offences punishable under Se_ctio’ns<\/p>\n
323. 324 and 504 read with Section 34<\/a> <\/p>\n
Penal Code against. accused Nos.l   <\/p>\n
forwarded FIR to the Magis\u00bbtrat.c24,AAfj\u00bb  i<\/p>\n
06\/ 0 1 \/ 200 1, the deceased\u00bb’w.as op’e.ra’i;ed   ;<\/p>\n
course of treatment on 20(a)’l’, vvfdeceased
\nstarted passing blood-..t:hifoIigh_ at about 11.58
\np.:m. breathed his lastiia jthe—h:o_s’};:.iitalZ”. is the further<\/p>\n
case of the  deceased died due to<\/p>\n
the  .4fj3,r’_’mthe’. accused on 02\/ 01\/ 2001.
\nHence,A’SectioriV.e_\u00a75o:g. Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
wasiviricludedi-.and” after investigation, charge sheet came<\/p>\n
,.\u00a2.,to\ufb01’Oe all the five accused under the<\/p>\n
*- afores aid-\u00ab ns.\n<\/p>\n
3._ ‘i”3:i’tie accused appeared through counsel and<\/p>\n
 deiliedthe charges levelled against them and claimed to<\/p>\n
 Statement of the accused under Section 313<\/a> of<\/p>\n
\\”\n<\/p>\n
\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. On<\/p>\n
behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1_ to 19 were ex\u00a3’\u00a2hi’ined<\/p>\n
and EXS.P~1 to P-24 and M.Os.1 and 2 were <\/p>\n
The accused did not lead any defencev—-eifideri:ee..but <\/p>\n
Exs.Dm1 and [)–2 were got at<\/p>\n
examination of the witness\u00bb-i\u00a7s’.\u00ab.__issues’Were <\/p>\n
4. The trial Court,  the oral
\nand documentary  Iby Hvjludgment
\ndated 30 \/ 09\/ 2004  I to 3 for the
\naforesaid     by the said
\n  are before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.  aiivdn\u00e9fare the panch witnesses to the<\/p>\n
 sp_otj\u00ab:.pEaAr1chanai*11a::E:s:.P~I and PW–4, who is also panch<\/p>\n
 ‘ w’itnesstov”sei;<ure panchanama, has turned hostile and<\/p>\n
h_isll'evidencje.is of no assistance to the prosecution. PW~<\/p>\n
 5 is  rhother of the deceased. PW~7~\u00a3)r. Dattaraya<\/p>\n
Baljurao Kulkarrii conducted post mortem. PW–8<\/p>\n
 i31*.Satyabodh21 k. katti got admitted the deceased at<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
KIMS hospital and issued wound certificate. PW\u00ab9 is<\/p>\n
the Assistant Executive engineer who p1'epa1jeldljt.'he<\/p>\n
sketch of the spot as per EX.P–11.\n<\/p>\n
grandmother of the deceased. Pwf 1 1 is _t’l.1e–  of ‘w <\/p>\n
deceased. PW-13 SiddappaSon’1.appa <\/p>\n
Head Constable of Kesliwa_purl’~Police f:lStati.QVn <\/p>\n
carried the FlR-EX.P~ __13 to  is the
\nPolice Cosntable who”has7.spoi:ef1–l.:i:ofabout the efforts
\nmade by him  nab .th”e” .  Dr. Basawant<\/p>\n
Sangappa.  ti-.e_at.ed~..”afivd ogiefated the deceased<\/p>\n
at    1_9_–  the Taluka Executive
\nMagistrate whucolndtietedtest identi\ufb01cation parade and
\nPWs; ifiand 1  afe the .inVestigat.iI1g officers.<\/p>\n
  ‘Lear’ried counsel for the petitioners submits<\/p>\n
  in filing the complaint. and the said<\/p>\n
delay not been explained satisfactorily by the<\/p>\n
V.  p:’o4seci’;1tioI1. As per the complaint\u00abEx.P–4, the alleged<\/p>\n
lilnlcilderit took place on 02\/01\/2001 at “H30 p.m.,<\/p>\n
T<\/p>\n
however, the complaint: has been lodged on<\/p>\n
03\/01\/2001. PW–15. who is stated to have recorvde:(‘l*the<\/p>\n
statement of the deceased in the hospital,  H<\/p>\n
that EXP-4 bears the signaturemof  \u00abABI_it <\/p>\n
contraiy to the same, PW–:_l_6  <\/p>\n
statement.\/complaint-Ex.P44gis froth’ reco’19c'(ed..V_VVin_V\u00a7 hisnli\u00bb<\/p>\n
presence and denies the si_g’1*iatcu.1je found orii EXIDW4.
\nHence. the learned coimsel %.sul’j’1njivts’~that Ex.P–4 has
\ncome into erdstencei-uiider s,u\u00bbspici01,i’s\u00bb” circumstances.<\/p>\n
PWs. 5 and-\u00bb   aife__Ati1e mother’  grand–mother of<\/p>\n
the +;leceas’el:}_., _re.spe.ctiVely.- who are eye wintesses\n<\/p>\n
8.CCOFdi’I’1.g’ljQ the hp-1*osVe’e1_ition, are planted witnesses and<\/p>\n
theijefore tiheifevidence is an improvement. In the<\/p>\n
 c.o\ufb01.3.}.31ai’iitv?E?1\u00a7;.P-4,mthe injured has stated that when the<\/p>\n
  he was alone in the house but<\/p>\n
cof’it.ra-\ufb02y  the same, PWs.5 and 10 have deposed that<\/p>\n
it  they Were present when the incident: took place and<\/p>\n
 they made an attempt to interfere but they were<\/p>\n
it “preventzeci from doing so. Hence, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
T<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
submits there is Contradiction in the statement of the<\/p>\n
deceased and PWs.5 and 10. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
relies on the place of incident. PW–15 in  H<\/p>\n
has deposed thatrfhe incident hastaken  the ‘w <\/p>\n
house but PWs.5 and 10 have  <\/p>\n
same and as per the sketch ‘drawn”b3f PW9: as ‘per I33x.P–.:*<\/p>\n
1 1 the place of incident is  the   per the
\nco1np1aint~EX.P–4  i\u00a7VVs.6 and 15, the
\nincident took ‘place outside  1.30 pm. and<\/p>\n
the area     such being the<\/p>\n
case,a_ the A’ ‘ivi’._-pijosecudtiovn _ -should have examined
\nindepenci_ent Witne.s–s{“—.__S’ince no other witness, except<\/p>\n
the;1’e1ative:5.., p’1″thex’ deceased, who are all interested<\/p>\n
 witness; hiavte been examined, it can be construed that<\/p>\n
 the  has failed to prove the case. In respect<\/p>\n
oft-he\u00bb._’inj’:t19ies sustained by the deceased, the learned<\/p>\n
  eoiinseissubmitted that the Doctor–PW-8 who admitted<\/p>\n
\u00b0frhe”:patient at the first instance who issued the MLC<\/p>\n
 “”fegister as per Ex.P<O, has deposed that on<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
examination. he found two external injuries. swellirig<\/p>\n
and tenderness on both cheeks and super\ufb01cial abrasio.r1<\/p>\n
and haernotonia on left tempero parietal regioriceplof ”<\/p>\n
scalp. in his crosswexamination;”hehas de_posed’–.that<\/p>\n
the said injuries are simple in ria_tt1–re.  as <\/p>\n
evidence of Pw-17, the Doctoifhvho <\/p>\n
and also conducted.   deposed that on
\nfurther examining it  ‘th;’eltt_i’I.1jured was HIV
\npatient.  the patient
\ndeveloped?    he died. Further
\n  postmortem over
\nthe   that death is due to<\/p>\n
septcacemic’-shock has a result of perforation of colon<\/p>\n
”  intreaebeiomirial hemorrhage as a consequence of<\/p>\n
  on the abdomen. The opinion of<\/p>\n
PW–s.7–__”and 17 as regards the cause of death is not<\/p>\n
it   ~cogent”and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the<\/p>\n
 T he learned counsel farther submitted that PW.’7<\/p>\n
it  not a competent doctor since he has not treated the<\/p>\n
<<\/p>\n
injured, his op.inio11 as regards the cause of death<\/p>\n
should not haw: been considered. The death"<\/p>\n
injured according to the appellant is not becau;se..'_*o.f  _<\/p>\n
injuries suffered as alleged by  p1*os_e'c'u–t:ii:ori"'ou<t for 'w<\/p>\n
the reason that the injured was'\u00bb.st1\ufb01'esr.ing'=frorrr H'E\\:f.__an;dA<\/p>\n
for the reason that while t1'at1s_fusion'VefVb1ood_; tlfie <\/p>\n
did not accept the sarne   of the
\ninjured and under  counsel
\nprays to a11OW'_:th__\u20ac   1 and 5
\nhave been  for the major<\/p>\n
offence of    accused 1-2 has been
\nsentencedfor two"simple injury and with a fine<\/p>\n
of   the fight of the order passed by the trial<\/p>\n
 court  parties have confined this submission<\/p>\n
  under Section 325<\/a> of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
‘~’v7x.”;.Lear-ned Government pleader submits that the<\/p>\n
 st.at’eI11ent as per Ex.P4 was recorded on 3.1.2001 in the<\/p>\n
   hospitai which is natgurai course of action and the same<\/p>\n
X’<\/p>\n
X<\/p>\n
has been “treated as evidence under Section 302<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Indian Evidence Act. The said statement of the,inj_ured<\/p>\n
was recorded and 15 days thereafter he  _<\/p>\n
the statement as per EIXP4 is _at par being ”= ‘V<\/p>\n
declaration to reply to the subrfiissiioni’<\/p>\n
as regard the place of ‘j\/ifftf-i.t1ent”‘   the<\/p>\n
Government Pleader   per th:e’jew:fdence of
\nPW.5–10 and also as   a.s per EX.P-\n<\/p>\n
11, incident_to:ok_ pialcejihouse and it is
\nsupported;    i V <\/p>\n
 as regards the injuries
\nsustairied\u00e9by  he submits that the Doctor-<\/p>\n
 who  treated the injured has deposed that<\/p>\n
  oiily two simple injuries and after the injured<\/p>\n
 deizeIop4e’d,\u00bbv__st.orriach pain he was referred to PW. 17 and<\/p>\n
PW’;17~’–.’onv ‘examination found two external injuries and<\/p>\n
V  ‘later conducted surgery on 6.1.2001 a.nd opined that<\/p>\n
Aitjhe\ufb02 initial injuries were grevious in nature. PW.”\/’<\/p>\n
it “supported the prosecution by deposing that on<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
conducting postmortem he found the surgery made to<\/p>\n
the injured. Hence, the Government Pleader <\/p>\n
that t.here is no inconsistency in the evidenaje’ of..EWE3t V’<\/p>\n
and 17.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar as the evidence   \u00bb5.’.a11d\u00ab. <\/p>\n
concerned. learned Governriieitt Pieader. sthatd’<\/p>\n
they have stated in~..their’meVi.denc.e’ that” they were
\npresent when the incicient accused<\/p>\n
were assau1ti*ngjd:eeceased  in his death.
\n  :;..A_C}o*-Lfeifnrnent VVV_Pvieader further submits
\nthat the  alenient View in the matter<\/p>\n
and awardedvvlesser._pu.riishment by bringing down the<\/p>\n
   offence tinder\u00abSection 302<\/a> to 325<\/a> IPC. Hence. he<\/p>\n
   ‘foridisrnissai of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
   izzaoth sides. I have gone through the oral<\/p>\n
 and documentary evidence piaced on record.<\/p>\n
<<\/p>\n
9. The statement of the injured was recorded on<\/p>\n
3.1.2001 wherein he has stated to the police a.ftei’—-.\u00bbt.he<\/p>\n
incident that took place on 1.1.2001, <\/p>\n
accused 1 to 5 entered his house and asls’a,ulted.l1ilm-.1 K <\/p>\n
recklessly and was beat on his stomach <\/p>\n
admitted to the hospital_r’o_y his._niotl1er\u00bb–“?.an’d: gi’fandl’*a\u00bb<\/p>\n
mother on 8.1.2001 and at  12.00 before the
\npolice, he gave stater_fient–}Vi Inthis_i’st.atement he has
\nstated that on 2.1.2.001  fthe”v,ai’t-evrenoon he was<\/p>\n
assaulted.   hefevidence that the<\/p>\n
incident   1.30pm and at that time
\nshe was.__in_the._ the accused entered the<\/p>\n
hoLrsev_ _Accu’seVd’No..l1 assaulted with hands and kicked<\/p>\n
  ac;c_usedlllll\u00a7lo.5 kicked with bootlegs. Accused<\/p>\n
 her son with bootlegs and accused<\/p>\n
No”.”3 sl’a;3p’ed him with chapple. Further. she deposed<\/p>\n
1′   that the\ufb01accused dragged her son outside the house and<\/p>\n
lgooiired water on him when she and her mot:her~in~law<\/p>\n
11  “PW. 10 tried to intervene. they were pushed away and on<\/p>\n
‘K<\/p>\n
the next. day, she took her son to the hospital and the<\/p>\n
police were informed about the incident by thev.d\u00bbo:cto1*.<\/p>\n
PW–5 in her cross examination has deposed””th.at::<\/p>\n
was inside the house when the incident too}:-.;.jiVac’c. * _  <\/p>\n
10. PW.1O who is the   <\/p>\n
deceased in her examinationivifn.chiet’*s_hehas’idei)osed
\nthat on the date of incf1d_ent’.sh’e”V’. house of one
\nLaxman and after hearing  came out of
\nthe house    taken out of<\/p>\n
the house iind:-‘Was”‘ass.ai;i1tecI…2)y7aI1 the accused, which<\/p>\n
has resulted in 5’ri’eVo*L:s’ei.ri””u H to stomach.<\/p>\n
11.  the neighbour, though has<\/p>\n
 ..itur1v.ioexti hostile, has””d’eposed in her examination in chief<\/p>\n
  of the house after the incident and at<\/p>\n
 persons had gathered in front of the<\/p>\n
 ‘house oft\u00e9he accused and she learnt that accused have<\/p>\n
 V”22ssa_u:1ted Krishna–comp1ainant. So far as the<\/p>\n
  .i'(_:Vo_f1ter1t;ion that there is a delay of one day, it is not fatal<\/p>\n
<<\/p>\n
the judgment: reported in 2006(2) KCCR 1202 that dying<\/p>\n
declaration alone cannot. be a basis for convictionlland<\/p>\n
the Cannot. be accepted in View of <\/p>\n
circumstances stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
l2. So far as the injtiriesleau.-sed  <\/p>\n
on the person of the injuredis eonzyerned;”the.eVidenCe_ <\/p>\n
of PWs\u00ab7, who conducted po4s’te-uniortern’ \u00ab.:(\u00a7\\l\u20ac1′ the dead
\nbody opined that deathi”s_Ad’ia,ie lspetieaemic shock as a
\nresult of perfo’ration;””‘of– ifeolonp intra abdominal<\/p>\n
haemorrhagev<asilf;a.'_ Cor1ase.qu.e1i(;e ofmblunt force impact<\/p>\n
on they abvdoinen:\u00a7.l%5V'J:f8.:lwho .init1'ally treated the injured
\nhas deposed that only two simple injuries and<\/p>\n
after' -he dVeiv.e1oped.l"st.omacl1 pain, the injured was<\/p>\n
  PpW~w17VH'and PW~17 on examination found two<\/p>\n
 eX.t_er1na4l"-in]uiries which were simple in nature and the<\/p>\n
int'erna1'i~njL1ries were grievous in nature and he was<\/p>\n
 operated on 06\/01\/2001. Thus the evidence of these<\/p>\n
'''witnesses supports the ease of the prosecution that the<\/p>\n
 .. ,,.-giccused pave cornmit.t.ed\\\u00a7he offence punishable under<\/p>\n
H' Hkrnv<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
accused and I do not find any ground to interfere with<\/p>\n
t.he well considered judgment.\n<\/p>\n
13. At this juncture, learned counse}’Tt”or:”y:’*the
\naccused No.2 prays for reduction of pur1i.s’hme:n’t”don’
\nhumanitarian ground and a1so.’Eook’i’ng Tat <\/p>\n
also the family back ground of   = <\/p>\n
Government Pieader, initiadldiyy:’though_V_ agree,
\nEater submitted that  ‘1*s_for_’tneA to consider.\n<\/p>\n
Heard both side_s.’d’    the socio-\n<\/p>\n
economic and.[_ocVc’L1patior_’1 of accused No.2, sentence of 2
\nyears is .__reduce_d =..t’o  “year. Accordingly, accused<\/p>\n
N02 ‘visyyeordw-icte’d’ for the offence under Section 325 of<\/p>\n
   Pena} Code to undergo simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
“‘ forcne  V V <\/p>\n
 A.,ct1<;rding1y. the appeai is dismissed.<\/p>\n
3&5
\nTUSDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010 Author: L.Narayana Swamy (BY SA;’_V’K1.M:S}\u00a3–:EeA:\u00a7Li, ADVOCA’I’E} IP\u20ac 1’FifZ I{IC}}i ()()[}f{17 ()}? I{}XI{P\u20ac}X1f!\\}(}X (HRCUHT\ufb01%K}iHTDHARWAD DATED T}-IIS THE 26″” DAY OF 0cT0BE_E:;”’20:_~e..: ;_. 4 BEFORE THE HONBLE3 MR. JUSTICE NAf{AY}\\TN}X_SWA?xi_Y A I CRIMINAL APPEAL No’.’15’29\/2o_9″_4AV.’V’: 2 ” BEHNEEN: 1. SRIKANTH, .. s\/0 […]<\/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-255607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSrikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 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\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-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=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Srikanth S\\\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2359,\"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\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Srikanth S\\\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Srikanth S\\\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 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":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 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\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2359,"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\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010","name":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-05T22:49:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srikanth-so-krishna-horakeri-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Srikanth S\/O Krishna Horakeri vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 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\/255607","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=255607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}