{"id":26023,"date":"2003-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003"},"modified":"2016-08-31T19:07:07","modified_gmt":"2016-08-31T13:37:07","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  506 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Karnataka\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPuttaraja\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n<p>A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly<br \/>\nleaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her<br \/>\ndignity, chastity, honour and reputation. The depravation of such<br \/>\nanimals in human form reach the rock bottom of morality when they<br \/>\nsexually assault children, minors and like the case at hand, a woman in<br \/>\nthe advance stage of pregnancy.\n<\/p>\n<p>We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;) makes disclosure of<br \/>\nidentity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or<br \/>\npublishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any<br \/>\nperson against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C<br \/>\nor 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished.<br \/>\nTrue it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication<br \/>\nof judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the<br \/>\nsocial object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the<br \/>\nvictim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it<br \/>\nwould be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High<br \/>\nCourt or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We<br \/>\nhave chosen to describe her as &#8216;victim&#8217; in the judgment.<br \/>\n21st August, 1985 is a day on which the victim suffered<br \/>\nunfathomable physical agony and traumatic ignominy that one can conceive<br \/>\nof at the hands of the accused-respondent.  The libidinousness and the<br \/>\nlustful design of the accused crossed all borders of indecency and he<br \/>\nraped the victim in the presence of her husband, unmindful of the<br \/>\nshattering mental trauma the latter (PW-1) suffered.  Law was set into<br \/>\nmotion and the accused was charged for commission of offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 376 of the IPC. He was found guilty by the trial Court<br \/>\nwhich imposed sentence of 5 years imprisonment, (though the minimum<br \/>\nsentence prescribed is 7 years) and fine of Rs.2000\/-.  What seems to<br \/>\nhave weighed with the trial Court for inflicting a lesser sentence was<br \/>\nage of accused&#8217;s parents his dependent sisters, wife and two young<br \/>\nchildren. Accused questioned correctness of the conviction and sentence<br \/>\nbefore the Karnataka High Court.  While the conviction was maintained,<br \/>\nthe sentence was reduced by a learned Single Judge to period of custody<br \/>\nalready undergone i.e. 46 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State of Karnataka questions the propriety of the sentence<br \/>\nimposed.  According to learned counsel for the appellant, if such<br \/>\nminuscule sentence is awarded for such a grave offence, it would be<br \/>\ngiving premium to one most obnoxious acts punishable under the IPC.  It<br \/>\nis submitted that the sentence should be commensurate with the nature of<br \/>\nthe offence.  In this case the High Court has not even indicated any<br \/>\nreason for reducing the sentence below the prescribed minimum which<br \/>\nunder the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC can be done for &#8220;adequate and<br \/>\nspecial reasons to be mentioned in the judgment&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the<br \/>\nevidence on record does not establish commission of the offence of rape<br \/>\nand at the most the offence for which accused could be convicted is<br \/>\nunder Section 354 IPC, dealing with the assault or criminal force to a<br \/>\nwoman with intent to outrage her modesty. Additionally, it is submitted<br \/>\nthat the High Court has given adequate reasons as to why it considered<br \/>\nthe custodial sentence undergone to be adequate.\n<\/p>\n<p>The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims<br \/>\nand demands.  Security of persons and property of the people is an<br \/>\nessential function of the State.  It could be achieved through<br \/>\ninstrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural<br \/>\nconflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the<br \/>\ncourts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the<br \/>\nchallenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order<br \/>\nand lay it in ruins.  Protection of society and stamping out criminal<br \/>\nproclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing<br \/>\nappropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner stone of the edifice of<br \/>\n&#8220;order&#8221; should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman<br \/>\nin his &#8220;Law in Changing Society&#8221; stated that, &#8220;State of criminal law<br \/>\ncontinues to be  as it should be  a decisive reflection of social<br \/>\nconsciousness of society&#8221;.  Therefore, in operating the sentencing<br \/>\nsystem, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence<br \/>\nideology based on factual matrix.  By deft modulation  sentencing<br \/>\nprocess be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it<br \/>\nwarrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the<br \/>\nnature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed,<br \/>\nthe motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the<br \/>\nnature of weapons used the indelible impact on the victim and his family<br \/>\nand all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would<br \/>\nenter into the area of consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to<br \/>\nthe justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of<br \/>\nlaw and society could not long endure under such serious threats.  It<br \/>\nis, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having<br \/>\nregard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was<br \/>\nexecuted or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by<br \/>\nthis Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC<br \/>\n1463).\n<\/p>\n<p>The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of<br \/>\nproportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of<br \/>\neach kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant<br \/>\ndiscretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case,<br \/>\npresumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations<br \/>\nof culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case.<br \/>\nJudges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime;<br \/>\nyet in practice sentences are determined largely by other<br \/>\nconsiderations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the<br \/>\nperpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the<br \/>\ndesirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the<br \/>\ntragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a<br \/>\ndeparture from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases<br \/>\nof apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in<br \/>\nprinciple, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence<br \/>\nin the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious<br \/>\ncrimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but<br \/>\nsuch a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has<br \/>\ndisappeared from the law only in recent times on account of misplaced<br \/>\nsympathies to the perpetrator of crime leaving the victim or his family<br \/>\ninto oblivion. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences<br \/>\nare imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any<br \/>\nserious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is<br \/>\nunwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those<br \/>\nconsiderations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of<br \/>\nproportion to the gravity of the crime, uniformly disproportionate<br \/>\npunishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.\n<\/p>\n<p>After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\neach case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for<br \/>\nan offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in<br \/>\nwhich a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the<br \/>\nbasis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the<br \/>\nCourt.  Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.  It has been<br \/>\nvery aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of<br \/>\nCallifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof<br \/>\nnature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in<br \/>\ndetermining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of<br \/>\ncircumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime.  In the absence<br \/>\nof any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable<br \/>\ncriteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the<br \/>\nconsideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the<br \/>\nfacts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be<br \/>\nequitably distinguished.\n<\/p>\n<p>The object should be to protect the society and to deter the<br \/>\ncriminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate<br \/>\nsentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing<br \/>\nsystem so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of<br \/>\nthe society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should<br \/>\nbe.\n<\/p>\n<p>Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the<br \/>\nsocial order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The<br \/>\nsocial impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against<br \/>\nwomen like the case at hand, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of<br \/>\npublic money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or<br \/>\nmoral delinquency which have great impact and serious repercussions on<br \/>\nsocial order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se<br \/>\nrequire exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre<br \/>\nsentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of<br \/>\ntime or considerations personal to the accused only in respect of such<br \/>\noffences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and<br \/>\nagainst societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened<br \/>\nby the required string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1351933\/\">In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B.<\/a> (1994 (2) SCC 220), this<br \/>\nCourt has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go<br \/>\nunpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging the criminals and in the<br \/>\nultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system&#8217;s creditability.<br \/>\nThe imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the<br \/>\nCourt responds to the society&#8217;s cry for justice against the criminal.<br \/>\nJustice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime<br \/>\nso that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.  The Court<br \/>\nmust not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the<br \/>\nrights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while<br \/>\nconsidering the imposition of appropriate punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of<br \/>\nRajasthan, (1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said case that it<br \/>\nis the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are<br \/>\ngermane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.<br \/>\nThe Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not<br \/>\nawarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the<br \/>\nindividual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and<br \/>\nvictim belong.  The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be<br \/>\nirrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity<br \/>\nand brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of<br \/>\nthe crime warranting public abhorrence and it should &#8220;respond to the<br \/>\nsociety&#8217;s cry for justice against the criminal&#8221;. These aspects have<br \/>\nbeen highlighted in <a href=\"\/doc\/315677\/\">State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh<\/a> (2003 (8) SCC 13).<br \/>\nRape is violation with violence of the private person of the victim, an<br \/>\nabominable outrage by all canons.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the background what has been stated in Ghanshyam Singh&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra) the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not<br \/>\njustified in restricting the sentence to the period already undergone,<br \/>\nwhich is 46 days.  Leniency in matters involving sexual offences is not<br \/>\nonly undesirable but also against public interest.  Such types of<br \/>\noffences are to be dealt with severity and with iron hands.  Showing<br \/>\nleniency in such matters would be really a case of misplaced sympathy.<br \/>\nThe acts which led to the conviction of the accused are not only<br \/>\nshocking but outrageous in their contours.  The only reason indicated by<br \/>\nthe High Court for awarding sentence lesser then prescribed minimum is<br \/>\nquoted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I have heard at length the submission of Mr.<br \/>\nBhagavan, learned counsel for the accused, on the<br \/>\nquestion of sentence.  He submitted that the accused<br \/>\nis a cooli and agriculturists, young man aged 22<br \/>\nyears old and requires sympathy. It is also relevant<br \/>\nto point out that the occurrence took place in the<br \/>\nyear 1985 and a long time has lapsed.  The trial and<br \/>\nthe appeal have kept the appellant busy in court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Taking all these factors into account I feel that the<br \/>\nappellant need not be sentenced to imprisonment since<br \/>\nhe was already in custody for a period of 46 days.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>If the above can be described as &#8220;adequate and special reasons&#8221;<br \/>\nthen it would be insulting to ratiocination.\n<\/p>\n<p>According to us this is a case where there was no scope for<br \/>\nawarding sentence lesser than prescribed minimum and it should have been<br \/>\nhighest prescribed. But the trial Court awarded sentence of 5 years for<br \/>\nreasons, which may not be strictly meeting the requirements of law.<br \/>\nSince the State had not questioned the sufficiency of sentence before<br \/>\nthe High Court, we restore the sentence awarded by the trial Court along<br \/>\nwith the fine imposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 506 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of Karnataka RESPONDENT: Puttaraja DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T ARIJIT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-31T13:37:07+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T13:37:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2202,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T13:37:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-31T13:37:07+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T13:37:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003"},"wordCount":2202,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T13:37:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-puttaraja-on-27-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Puttaraja on 27 November, 2003"}]},{"@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\/26023","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=26023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}