{"id":259787,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-07T02:34:18","modified_gmt":"2016-07-06T21:04:18","slug":"honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST: 2.01\"\nBEFORE E E E H\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUST\u00a3C'._E A1$;Ai~\u00a7i:iA'   V\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL;\"NO:;.A6O:2\/E2063'_ , '  EA\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
.Chikkav\u00e9\u00e91’\u00e9r7g\u00a2w'(i$i.\n<\/p>\n
Honne Gowda @
\nHonnaraju  V– -_<\/p>\n
Aged about 45 yea”r’s;_” ‘ . 2
\nS\/0.Chikkayeeregowda.   E ”\n<\/p>\n
Aged abo\u00e9\ufb01 v753’yearjg..Vj'””‘~ _ V
\nS \/ 0.1ateV H ai:1_1,1 m.a_nth’;1r1r1a_. V<\/p>\n
Aged about V 68:jy(\u00e9’a1fs’*- .. E <
\nW\/o.ChiEkvka'v\u00a2\u00e91ie \u00bb–G\ufb01wda.\n<\/p>\n
_._{X1I are res*id.ents of
\n _ ‘-.E.iVIuppac:1ig11att\u00e9ivillage
\n. ‘ n ., IV{adu1’av ‘f*~l(‘)b1i
\nA   V _ D0\u00a7idab\ufb01{–=]_&:i_1.)L1fa Taluk
\n‘ ~. A’ ‘\u00abBanga”1:)1′{-:=V[‘R} District.<\/p>\n
. .. APPELLANTS<\/p>\n
   [By S”r\u00a7_.AFi.C.Ha:1umaiah, Adv.)<\/p>\n
State of Karnataka
\nBy Doddabelavangala P.S
\nBy State Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
accused Nosi to 3 have preferred this appeal. Accused
\nNo.2 [appellant No.2) died during the pendeney:”of~\u00bb.the
\nappeal. Therefore, appeal against him abat–e:s.” A   <\/p>\n
3. In brief. the case of  as
\nfollows: A A A A A A<\/p>\n
Accused No.1 is the  and 3.<\/p>\n
His marriage with   Wsg’p&rfonned
\nabout 10  Manjuia is the
\ndaughter     PW–2 is the
\nmothermoi’–\u00bb..i?Vit:”.3.h:.V_   elder brother of PW~1.
\nAccused__  iiving together. The first
\n to cruelty in connection<\/p>\n
 “dowry  The first accused was also ill<\/p>\n
 t1<eatiifigA..arid~–.harassing deceased. He was to addicted<\/p>\n
 intervening night of 7\/8.8.1998 at<\/p>\n
–V about p.m.. accused No.1 returned home and<\/p>\n
 pi’ck.edv”‘ up quarrel with PW~1, accused Nos.1 to 3<\/p>\n
Aasisauited PW– E. Accused No.1 droused kerosene on PW\u00bb<\/p>\n
 Accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated accused No.1 to set<\/p>\n
PW–1 on iire. Accused No.2 had given a match box to<\/p>\n
the hands of accused No.1. PW–1 ran away. The<\/p>\n
gv.\n<\/p>\n
\n
neighbors. on hearing the noise, canie there and
\nchastised accused -No.1. On the following <\/p>\n
sent words to her younger brother PW–3 <\/p>\n
who came to the house of PW~l_, and to()1the:r’jv >1′ <\/p>\n
Health Centre, Kadanur Post.\n<\/p>\n
4. PW\u00bbli Dr.Vinay   and
\nfound the following:  g  it it
\n1} Smc-2lli_i’_1g of ”\n<\/p>\n
2)   chest, cheeks,
\ngggg _Vtiii:g17;’i”\n<\/p>\n
  (small) seen over the lower<\/p>\n
“3tbdc)i’1ien’}”.A’ .–\n<\/p>\n
 ,{?W-\u00bb.t1z} o;\u00a71’r’i”e”(i’Vthat injuries were sustained as a<\/p>\n
  ‘eig’V.ifire.u_l:3″_t.;rns and they were simple in nature.<\/p>\n
  –1 with the assistance of PW-3 lodged first<\/p>\n
 inifornriatiori on 11.9.1998. The Investigating Of\ufb01cer<\/p>\n
‘visited the piace of occurrence, recorded statements of<\/p>\n
99 wtlvitnesses and seized the clothes of PW–1. The<\/p>\n
Investigat:i1″1g Officer submitted the charge sheet for the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
aforestated oiieiices. {mg is .91\/*~&v~<\/p>\n
if’<\/p>\n
6. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to  were
\nexamined. Documents filed by the prosecutionftdgwere
\nmarked as per Exs.P–1 to P-13 and
\nwere marked as per Exs.C–1,_,\u00bbC–._1(a} <\/p>\n
material objettis were marked   3. ”<\/p>\n
7. As aiready stated,   Judge
\nconvicted actmiscd   i’oif.\u00bb.ai”\u00a7:)i7fencesA punishable
\nunder Sectio;1’$  convicted
\naccused  307 of IPC<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore:    would arise for
\ndeter13riinat’io\u00a7’fi’i’.V   ‘ a p ” d <\/p>\n
1]’&  i\ufb01jorosecution has proved that<\/p>\n
   to 3 were subjecting PW–1 to
\n  in connection with dowiy demand and
\n  No.1 was subjecting PW–1 to cruelty
\n b’_\\ii:<ii'1stantiy harassing and assaulting her'?<\/p>\n
A'  W'I"iether the prosecution has proved that
\ndtiring the intervening night of 7\/8.8.1998 at
\nabout 12.00 a.rn., in the mid night, accused
\nNo. 1 assaulted PW–1 and droused kerosene on<\/p>\n
PW-J and attempted to set \ufb01re on fer\/. With<\/p>\n
s1,u'ri'1 intention and knowledge, if by theacts if<\/p>\n
he had caused the death of PW–1, <\/p>\n
have been held guilty of an offence'<\/p>\n
Set;-:i()r1 302 of IPC<\/a> and…t.hereby”tcg:\u00a75j.:fji’tted ‘   T <\/p>\n
oi’i’e1’1n:e under Section 1307<\/a>?ffof’IPC<\/a>~?_”‘    <\/p>\n
3] To what order’? it I<\/p>\n
8. The ;):”<)secu_tion  the evidence of
\nPW– 1 Laksh :'namrna,.. " .:PiV–i'3:    Gowda, PW–4
\n  :;p:tV"\ufb02f'\u00a7Vhankarappa, PW–6
\n PW–8 Manjula
\nand  1__are' alleged to have convened<\/p>\n
some p\u00e9ll'-3,(.'1i*E31}'$\u00e9t\u00a7S."'VI \u00bb– <\/p>\n
 A.  none of these panchayatdars<\/p>\n
  suppo_1_*'te_d= ti"'._L""_:sZ3\u00e9lS(\u00a7? of the prosecution. The prosecution<\/p>\n
' has: alsoDiitrilttic-~<'i on the evidence of PW–11 Dr.\\\/inay<\/p>\n
 Kumar, "\n<\/p>\n
A 9. Befme proceeding to appreciate the evidence of<\/p>\n
aforestated vmiiesses, it is necessary to state that as per<\/p>\n
the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW–8, accused assaulted<\/p>\n
PW–1 and cimnsed kerosene on PW–1 and accused No.1<\/p>\n
w <\/p>\n
was about to set \ufb01re to PW–1. This incident occurred
\nduring the intervening night of 7\/ 8.8.1998.  has<\/p>\n
deposed that as she was helpless she seciired-..:.h.er<\/p>\n
younger brother Veere Gowda and <\/p>\n
information. However, from)’ the \u00ab ‘contents. _ of first<\/p>\n
information marked as Ex_.P–1  <\/p>\n
information was lodged by 1 on 1   about<\/p>\n
8.30 a.m. The first  marked as Ex.P\u00ab~
\n11 prepared on them .–first[_’information was<\/p>\n
received by rh\u00e9fiiizrisc3.ictiu1iai’p\u00a7:iice.05 11.9.1998. Thus,
\nfirst ir’1i’or*mlafE;ioriWas”‘lodgedlaftezr a period of one month
\nand  if days  date of occurrence. The<\/p>\n
jurisdictional’pol’ice’=isVat a distance of 10 kms. from the<\/p>\n
‘ V’  placie of oecurrence.\n<\/p>\n
    and 3 have not given proper<\/p>\n
e};planatiori*i:for belatedly lodging the complaint. In the<\/p>\n
 first “information marked as Ex.P~11, PW\u00ab~1 has not<\/p>\n
 stated that at the first instance, jurisdictional police had<\/p>\n
wriefused the registered complaint or PWs.1 and 3 had<\/p>\n
thought that accused and his parents would amend<\/p>\n
N .J\u00bb~.a\u00bb\u00a3t..\n<\/p>\n
\n
themselves. The explanation offered during the course<\/p>\n
of trial is a clear after thought.\n<\/p>\n
11. From the contents of wound certi\ufb01cate:<\/p>\n
as Ex.P~13, we \ufb01nd that PW-1 was examirre-id   <\/p>\n
Dr.Vinay Kumar at 11 a.m. o;:’1″”‘1’0\u00ab.8\u00ab, ‘
\nHealth Centre at Kadanur,
\nhistory is given as due to
\naccused Nos} and     of the
\ninordinate delay in  first’tA~’.I’,_’inforrnation, the<\/p>\n
evidence of :to   relating to the<\/p>\n
occurlrvencelt  -taken place during the
\nintervenirrgi   requires careful<\/p>\n
scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
it  —   \ufb01rst information, PW–}, has not stated<\/p>\n
that had set fire to her after drousing kerosene<\/p>\n
 on her,_. A1′ However, during the evidence not only PW–l<\/p>\n
 –..hu.t.’..aiso PW~8 has deposed that accused No.2 had lit a<\/p>\n
  ….rnatch stick and threw it on PW–l as a result, her saree<\/p>\n
caught \ufb01re. The neighbors came and saved her. PW~1<\/p>\n
has deposed that on account of occurrence, she had<\/p>\n
N wdtwa,<\/p>\n
suffered burn injuries and she had gone to the hospital.
\nPW–8 Manjula is the daughter of accused and .,uAt
\nthe time of occurrence, she was aged
\nShe has deposed that at the tirn__e…of_  .\/ 9
\nNo.1 droused kerosene on PVV:-1V
\nmatch box to accused   on   ‘f’W–\n<\/p>\n
was set on fire. Thusawe finduthe’Vevidencevvgiven by FW-<\/p>\n
1, apart from being’ of first
\ninformation   2  is the daughter
\nof accused_.,g    ‘I.’ In the normal
\n be any reason to
\nsuspect her the aforestated evidence<\/p>\n
of PVWV-8, ‘We find she too had given an exaggerated<\/p>\n
  versioiyitiiiat fnother [PW-1] had been set on fire by<\/p>\n
   that too after accused had droused<\/p>\n
kerosene’ From the medical evidence given by<\/p>\n
 PW– 1″1.v__and the contents of Ex.P-13, we find that PW–I<\/p>\n
“”V’,,,ha.d’f.-not suffered burn injuries. PW–11 Dr.Vinay Kumar<\/p>\n
…_vvho had examined PW-1 on 10.8.1998 at Primary<\/p>\n
Health ‘Centre, Kadanur had deposed that she had<\/p>\n
suffered foilowing injures: T\\’s   ‘<\/p>\n
l) Smeliing kerosene<\/p>\n
2] blunt injuries to the left shoulder, chest, ch_eeks,
\nboth thighs and lower abdomen. T T<\/p>\n
3} Signs of burns blisters {small} seen <\/p>\n
abdomen. 1 s_ .s _ _ __ Vs A
\nPW~11 had noticed that  iaotms ‘w.ojrn.’_ <\/p>\n
were emanating smell of   d
\nthat injuries were c.at1sedV.i-ac:..”sa. ‘result llofwassauit and
\nsetting fire. He had’ d_epose3di’ blisters were as a<\/p>\n
result of bu.i’na’injur\u00a7ies: wJith..Vlkef*.osser;e; Blunt injuries<\/p>\n
were Zcausedl ‘i:i’y–i,_1 se of._b1~u__n–t fforce.<\/p>\n
__Duri:iigVV’cro,ssl’=ei\u00a7:arnination, PW–11 has admitted<\/p>\n
 theiwioirds n”clothes””‘Vwere inserted subsequently before<\/p>\n
   of kerosene” marked as Ex.C–1. He<\/p>\n
had d\u00a7?i1id\u20acisdAl.i1\u20ac suggestion that the words “two blebs”<\/p>\n
 had  subsequently in the accident register.<\/p>\n
   The prosecution has not adduced evidence of<\/p>\n
b    independent witnesses to show that accused had set \ufb01re<\/p>\n
to PW–1. The evidence of PWs.i and 8 that accused 1<\/p>\n
and 2 had droused kerosene and set PW–1 on fire does<\/p>\n
N <\/p>\n
not inspire confidence. The clothes of PW-1 were not
\nburnt. Even F.S.L Report as per Ex.P–12 does not<\/p>\n
disclose that clothes of deceased were burnt.  the<\/p>\n
contents of l*’.S.L Report, PW–l was <\/p>\n
saree at the time of occurrer;;ce.”‘I\u00abf
\nnylon saree and if she had bee.n’._setV_Aon
\nhave suffered burn injuries”vs:ai1d her
\nburnt. The other  is that
\nthe clothes worn by!’ smell of<\/p>\n
kerosene. As”alijeady;3Stated t’heTfi.rstinformation relating<\/p>\n
to occurrence \\3}a;s’lod.ged \u00e9;iter”a period of one month
\nand three. dz-:3\/s;’..l’:_t\u00abThe:el_4othes and other incriminating<\/p>\n
articles such”as_o–ne’=_plastic bucket and plastic can were<\/p>\n
‘i V’  reccCVeired’viai’i:er aperiod of one month and three days. In<\/p>\n
 thecifeunisiaiices, the presence of kerosene on the<\/p>\n
saree of  and the other articles such as plastic<\/p>\n
 bucketstahcl plastic can is not sufficient to hold that<\/p>\n
 -..accu’sed had spilled kerosene on PW–1. In View of the<\/p>\n
l    above discrepant evidence, it is not possible to hold that<\/p>\n
during the intervening night of 7\/8.8.1998 at about<\/p>\n
12.00 p.m., accused No.1 droused kerosene and he had<\/p>\n
Iv. _;\\–=\\– 9M\u00bb<'14~ –\n<\/p>\n
\n
set PW-1 on fire, with such intention and knowledge by
\nthe above acts, if accused No.1 had caused the death of<\/p>\n
PW~1, he would have held guilty of an offerice”:..u~nd\u20acr<\/p>\n
Section 302<\/a> of IPC, thereby committed’::”ai:\u00bb::offenVc’e<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 307 ofTPC\u00ab.. Q_  _ V<\/p>\n
13. The learned trial
\ndiscrepancies has held  I.\n<\/p>\n
offence under Sectionyy  :4  it Therefore, the
\n\ufb01ndings of the learned  be sustained.<\/p>\n
   poilnt for””d’etermination is whether<\/p>\n
the prosecu tior1’h:as” provyegzl that after marriage, accused<\/p>\n
was_subje’ci’ing.Vd~eclease’d to cruelty and accused Nos}<\/p>\n
  ari:d”i’3;L_Awere subjfecting deceased to cruelty in respect of<\/p>\n
  and accused No.1 was always harassing<\/p>\n
and assaultnig PW~1?\n<\/p>\n
 marriage of PW–1 and accused had taken<\/p>\n
 about 10 years before the first information was<\/p>\n
___l.bdged by PW\u00bb1. PW–8 is their daughter. PW–1 has<\/p>\n
deposed that after marriage, accused demanded and<\/p>\n
received gold jewels from her. The first accused was a<\/p>\n
womanizer. The first accused had assaulted and
\nextracted gold jewels form PW-1. The first accused had<\/p>\n
sold gold jeweis and squandered money. T<\/p>\n
was demanding PW–1 to bring money frorrl:her=parent_s’ll” <\/p>\n
house. On some occasions, Shemhad
\nRs.500\/- from her parents’,
\nnamely Mu11ithimmegowdal””‘lfl%Vi7w4)l  [PWl–ll\n<\/p>\n
6), Shankarappa  [PW-7},<\/p>\n
Kempegowda (PW–9) planchayath. In<\/p>\n
the said par’;’::lia3i.ath;l–.the   promised and<\/p>\n
gave a”coix;;’i;o  “I’he’-\ufb01rst'”a”c’cused sold cow within a
\nperiocl’_of._six.rrionths..llTl1.e first accused again started<\/p>\n
beating 15W–l” a,nii  her to get money from her<\/p>\n
 pairentsp’ h,ou.se.l “”i’heV first accused was also advised by<\/p>\n
   from Bangalore. They advised first<\/p>\n
ainend his behavior and take proper care of<\/p>\n
 PW\u00bbI,vai1d his child. The first accused did not reform<\/p>\n
  iiimlself. He was always harassing and assaulting<\/p>\n
 .. _..deceased on one pretext or the other. He was also<\/p>\n
demanding her to bring money from her parents’ house.<\/p>\n
PW\u00bb~8 is the daughter of PW–1 and accused. She had no
\n{Va  ”'”‘d(‘~ !<\/p>\n
grudge or iii will against her father. PW-8 has deposed
\nthat accused No.1 [her father) was harassing PW:_t (her
\nmother) to bring dowry from her parental houseff’ ‘vI”_i’i,’:[.l*1at
\nconnection, her father and other
\nher mother. PW~l had
\noccasions froni her parental
\nwas beating PW~1), On
\nby her was iiisufficient. crossffexaniination,
\nevidence of l_”W~\u00bb8 that :’dern_emding PW–1 to<\/p>\n
bring dowry;’~iiasVg:gr1ot iheegn-~serio:u:sl\u00a7,r.C\ufb01introverted. Apart<\/p>\n
from tthis,’lit.iii\u00a7s   was staying in the
\nhouse”.gof._ her :  grand father. In fact, the<\/p>\n
evidence  lf_’5V’J~_8– Was””sought to be demolished on the<\/p>\n
   PW?8″‘has been staying in the house of her<\/p>\n
    parents and they wefe taking care of her<\/p>\n
educationtf At this juncture, it is relevant to state that<\/p>\n
 accused’ No.1 is the father of PW-8. In the normal<\/p>\n
circumstanms. one would expect accused No.1 to take<\/p>\n
N   \u00abcare of PW–8. In the instant case, accused No.1 had not<\/p>\n
offered any expianation for leaving PW–8 in the care and<\/p>\n
custody of her maternal grand parents. On the other<\/p>\n
We d\ufb01et- \u00a3’>*v\u00bb–\u00a3(.\u00a2\\s<\/p>\n
demanding PW.1 to bring money from her parental<\/p>\n
house and he was abusing and assaulting her. <\/p>\n
16. We have the evidence ‘Au
\nthe younger brother of PW– 1,
\nless similar to the evidence–o:’i”~PW\u00bbA2’v’.  sjseendd
\nfrom the backgroundv ofV.PW;2′,”i:sAthat is: a rustic<\/p>\n
J;\n<\/p>\n
villager not: capable   or giving
\nfalse evider1(__~c_   stated, PW–3
\nis the  has given evidence
\nwith r\u00a7:gai~a  to PW–1 by the first
\naccused.’ ‘ii-:ic-5 \u00abgiven evidence regarding<\/p>\n
panchayatlj\u00e9iwlivat.vvas’v.co’nvened to advise the accused.<\/p>\n
 \ufb01e  deposed thatacow had been given to accused to<\/p>\n
‘patzigfjf ;\u00a5’ndV”_i11e was advised to mend his behavior.<\/p>\n
Accused_.1’ec'{%.ived the cow and sold it but did not mend<\/p>\n
it ‘ ~ ‘~ .  his beh.avi”or.\n<\/p>\n
    17. PWs~i–, 5 and 6 had participated in panchayath.<\/p>\n
 “”They have imt: supported the case of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
PW-7 Veeremuddaiah, one of the panchayathdars has
\n Q’- ‘\/”‘O(1\u00ab<\/p>\n
supported Hie case of the prosecution. PW~_?” has
\ndeposed that PW~7 at the behest of PWs.1 to 3
\npanchayath and advised the accused
\nbehavior.   V ‘<\/p>\n
PWs.1 to 3 had cornp1_ained._v.”that
\ndemanding dowry from   advised
\nthem. to live \u00a3iarmonio,_u”s–1y. received a cow and<\/p>\n
sold it. Their:-zafter, aga.in.:’s:tart.ed_g PW– 1.\n<\/p>\n
During’    PW-7, nothing has<\/p>\n
been elricite-citiyito  thehetvidence of PW-7. I do not<\/p>\n
\ufb01nd that PW-J’? iiadj_~any..V_iii\u00bbte:’est in the success of case of<\/p>\n
prosecutioiiwnor.he  any i11–will against accused.<\/p>\n
 \u00ab..Thei7:e:f0iT\u20ac:,  ironit  evidence of the aforestated<\/p>\n
wi’i;ness:\u00a7f:s.,_h  find that the prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
beyond ‘v.rea.:s<'iVnabIe doubt that accused No.1 had<\/p>\n
t3"\u00bb-'\u00ab.___V'subjectedA:' PW\u00bb .1 to cruelty, by continuously harassing<\/p>\n
 gV.'and..an;ssauii.:ii'1g her. The accused did not mend his<\/p>\n
 behavior even after a panchayath. Accused had also<\/p>\n
"abandoned his daughter PW–8 and she was being taken<\/p>\n
care of by lier maternal grand parents. The conduct of<\/p>\n
Conviction oi' accused No.1 for an offence under Section<\/p>\n
498<\/a>~A of 13\u00b0C and the ‘sentence passed <\/p>\n
con\ufb01rmed. The period of detention un:Iergo1je””ii3jf_4’i M<\/p>\n
accused No.3 cf-urirag the course vof””u’-2:11 is g.i.Ve’nfset’–off,.”;<\/p>\n
as provided under Section 428<\/a> of <\/p>\n
118.8 .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010 Author: N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST: 2.01″ BEFORE E E E H THE HON’BLE MR.JUST\u00a3C’._E A1$;Ai~\u00a7i:iA’ V CRIMINAL APPEAL;”NO:;.A6O:2\/E2063’_ , ‘ EA BETWEEN: 1. .Chikkav\u00e9\u00e91’\u00e9r7g\u00a2w'(i$i. Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju […]<\/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-259787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHonne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 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\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-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=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-06T21:04:18+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\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T21:04:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2463,\"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\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T21:04:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 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":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 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\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-06T21:04:18+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\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T21:04:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":2463,"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\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010","name":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T21:04:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/honne-gowda-honnaraju-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Honne Gowda @ Honnaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 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\/259787","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=259787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259787\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}