{"id":262624,"date":"1999-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999"},"modified":"2017-02-18T19:57:28","modified_gmt":"2017-02-18T14:27:28","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  263 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. YARAPPA REDDY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS & A.P. MISRA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 Supp(3) SCR 359<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
THOMAS, J. A love affair got swerved to the wrong side and sank into
\ntragedy The female partner in the affair, as it often happens, became the
\nvictim of the tragedy. Rekha, a working woman and Yarappa Reddy, the
\nrespondent – a milk trader – were the participants in the ill-fated
\nromantic adventure. Rekha was badly mauled to death on the morning of the
\nMartyrs Day (30th January) of 1982 for which the respondent Yarappa Reddy
\nwas indicted by the Police. Sessions Court convicted him, but the High
\nCourt acquitted him. Thus the present appeal at the instance of the State
\nby special leave.\n<\/p>\n
Rekha was put up in a college hostel at Bangalore while she was doing her
\nB.A. As she failed in the final examinations her father put her up in the
\nhouse of a relative for prosecuting her studies. That relative’s daughter
\nAnitha (PW-8) became her friend. Respondent Yarappa Reddy was living .1 few
\nyards away from the house of PW-8. Respondent developed a fascination for
\nRekha which in due course snowballed into a love affair. They exchanged
\nlove letters between each other. In the meantime Rekha got a job as
\nReceptionist in a company called “Acad Coach Builders”. She was later
\npromoted as Cashier.\n<\/p>\n
The love affair initially was on cloud nine, but as days passed it did not
\nsail smooth. One of the love letters happened to reach Rekha’s father, He
\ntook his daughter to task and wangled a promise from her that she would not
\ndo coquetry towards respondent and that she would not marry any one against
\nthe wishes of her parents.\n<\/p>\n
But respondent was not prepared to softpedal the affair. He con-tinued to
\nfrequent Rekha to her chagrin and persisted with his plan to marry her. She
\ntold him of the hubbubs which took place after one of the love letters mis-
\nreached and she expressed her disinclination to marry him. This recusancy
\nwas beyond his limit of forbearance. He determined either to repossess her
\nor to finish her off.\n<\/p>\n
Now, comes the disputed part of the story. On the day of occurrence Rekha,
\nas usual, went to the Coach Factory by 10 A.M. Respondent went there on a
\nmotorcycle and talked to Rekha and persuaded her to go along with him to
\nanother place for continued parleys over their affair. The unsuspected lady
\nwent with him. He decoyed her to the house of PW-11 (Sharadamma) who was a
\nfamily friend. Rekha was introduced to her as his would be bride. PW-11
\nSharadamma presumably welcomed the choice and showed her hospitality by
\nsupplying coffee to her guests. She withdrew to her kitchen for affording
\nthe young couple undisturbed forum to carry on their chat, without knowing
\nthat a cauldron of rancour was fuming in his mind, and a blood craving
\nchopper was twitching in his bag.\n<\/p>\n
How the conversation turned violent is not known to anyone else except the
\ntwo. At one point of time respondent whipped out a chopper from his bag and
\ninflicted murderous blows on Rekha. She yelled out “Amma”. PW-11 Sharadamma
\noverhearing the cry rushed to the drawing room and saw Rekha lying down
\nbleeding. Respondent suddenly turned towards PW-11 and fell on her feel
\nwith the blood-oozing chopper and prayed for pardon as he killed his
\nfiancee. The stunned housewife remained transfixed and dump- founded.
\nAccused then left the house with the chopper and rode away on his
\nmotorcycle.\n<\/p>\n
Accused went to the local police station and surrendered the bloodstained
\nchopper to PW-15 Thimmaiah, the Sub-Inspector of police who was then the
\nStation House Officer. He gave a statement which was used as first
\ninformation statement. PW-15 took the respondent back to the house of PW-11
\nas he offered to show the house where the dead body was lying. PW-16 Circle
\nInspector later arrived and held the inquest. Post-mortem examination was
\nconducted by Dr. H.A. Somaiah (PW-4) on the body of Rekha, He noted 9 ante-
\nmortem injuries of which 4 were stab wounds and the remaining were
\nscratches. The injury which became fatal has the following description :
\n“An incised stab wound over the middle of the chest at the level of
\nnipples, vertical spindle shaped, measur-ing 5 cms. x 8.5 cms. with tailing
\ndownwards for 3 cms.” On dissection of the injury the doctor noted that it
\nhad gone down, cut the cartilages of the 3rd and 4th ribs of the left side
\nand passed through the pericardium and further went down and perforated the
\nright ventricle. The wound on the right ventrich measured 2 cms. x 0.5 cms.
\nThe lower end of the wound was sharp and upper end blunt.\n<\/p>\n
PW-11 Sharadamma is the star witness of the prosecution. She stood by the
\nprosecution version and narrated further that when she rushed to the
\ndrawing room on hearing the cry she saw the accused standing in the drawing
\nroom with a blood-stained chopper. Prosecution examined, among others,
\nPW-11’s aged mother Nanjamma as PW-12. But as she was short of hearing her
\nevidence is not of much probative utility.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent adopted a defence of total denial of his involvement in the
\nmurder of Rekha. However, he suggested, as his defence, that Rekha would
\nhave been killed by one of the sons of PW-11 who would have tried to ravish
\nher. According to the respondent, he was dragged into this case by PW-15
\nSub Inspector only for extricating the real murderer out.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his version he examined three witnesses. DW-1 Dr.
\nGopalkrishnan was a surgeon having special knowledge in forensic medicine.
\nHe gave his opinion that the injuries noted on the dead body of the
\ndeceased  would not have been inflicted with M.O. 16 chopper as its tip is
\nnot sharp but curved and blunt. DW-2 Gopi merely said that he saw Rekha on
\none or two occasions talking over the telephone from a nearby shop. DW-3
\nVenkatesh is the brother-in-law of PW-11. We will refer to his evidence
\nlater.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court relied on the evidence of PW-11 and found the other
\ncircumstances narrated by the prosecution as proved in this case and hence
\nconcluded that Rekha was put to death by the respondent and accordingly
\nconvicted him under Section 302<\/a> of the IPC and sentenced him to im-
\nprisonment for life. On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court
\ndisbilieved the testimony of PW-11 and launched a scathing criticism
\nagainst the investiga-tion. Learned Judges accepted the defence contention
\nthat the injuries on the deceased could not have been caused by M.O. 16
\nchopper.\n<\/p>\n
Sri M. Veerappa, learned counsel for the State contended that the reasoning
\nof the High Court for disbelieving the testimony of PW-11 is too fragile.
\nAccording to the counsel, every word of what PW- 11 said in the court was
\nnothing but true. He also contended that the defence version that police
\nfavoured a rapist murderer of Rekha (son of PW-11) and for rescuing him
\nthis innocent respondent was substituted, as absurd and most far-fetched.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench of the High Court made a fatuous exercise for concluding
\nthat MO- 16 chopper (as it is in the present shape) could not have caused
\nthe incised injuries described in the post- mortem certificate. The curve
\nnow found on the tip of the chopper (which made that portion look blunt)
\nseems to have persuaded the High Court in harping on such an exercise.
\nTrue, the defence counsel in the trial court had taken much strain to
\nestablish that MO- 16 chopper, as it now remains, could not cause the
\ninjuries indicated by the doctor who conducted the autopsy. It was quite
\npossible that the chopper could have become curved either when its sharp
\ntip made a forcible entry into the sternum (injury no. 1 in the post-mortem
\nreport involves perforation of the sternum) or when it hit on the ribs. The
\ntip of the chopper could as well have been curved if the weapon had struck
\nthe floor when the assailant fell on the feet of PW-11 with the weapon in
\nhis hands. We are, therefore, not interested, in this case, to probe into
\nthe possibilities of a blunt tipped weapon causing incised injuries.\n<\/p>\n
If the said chopper remained in its original condition when the strikes
\nwere inflicted by the assailant there is no room for any doubt that all the
\ninjuries sustained by the deceased would have been caused by it. Of course,
\nanother endeavour was made to show that a single edged weapon could not
\nresult in spindle shaped incised injury, PW-4 Dr. Somaiah, a Senior
\nProfessor in Forensic Medicine has repudiated the said suggestion. It is
\nnot a correct proposition that such a shape of injury is not possible if
\nthe weapon used is single edged. Regarding the incriminating conduct of the
\naccused that he surrendered before the police station at 11.20 am, the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court made a frontal attack on the evidence of
\nPW-15 (Sub-Inspector Thimaiah). Learned Judges scrutinized the Station
\nHouse Diary and noted that two sheets therefrom had been torn off and in
\nthat place another sheet has been pasted. The newly pasted sheet is marked
\nas Ex.D7. The following observation made by the High Court on that aspect
\ncannot be ignored :\n<\/p>\n
` Therefore, the so called entry in Ex.D.7 on the basis of which the Police
\nSub-Inspector claims to have registered a case is, in our opinion, highly
\nsuspicious and appears to be manufactured and cooked up one. Therefore, the
\nversion of the Police Sub-Inspector that on the basis of the information
\ngiven by the accused he registered a case looks rather unnatural and
\nunacceptable.”\n<\/p>\n
We too have scrutinised the aforesaid Station House Diary and felt that the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court is justified in making that observation.
\nAs the entries on the particular sheet related to the events on 30.1.1982
\nwe concur with the finding that no credence can be given to the police
\nversion that accused gave First Information Statement to the police. No
\ndoubt it vitiates the testimony of PW-15 (Sub-Inspector). Even other-wise
\nthe First Information Statement given by an accused at the Police Station,
\nso long as it contains inculpative statements, would stand excluded from
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
But can the above finding (that the Station House Diary is not genuine)
\nhave any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the
\nother evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the
\ncourt be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Inves-tigating
\nOfficer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so
\nunscrupulously. It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not
\nthe solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion
\nof the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity
\nof investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is
\nillegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized
\nindependently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to
\nthat level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must
\nhave predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken
\nby investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casually
\nfor the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In
\nother words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to
\nthe occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit investigating
\nofficer’s suspicious role in the case.\n<\/p>\n
PW-15 (Sub-Inspector) was asked during examination-in-chief about what
\nhappened on 30.1.1982, and he wanted to check up his records as he could
\nnot remember without refreshing his memory. But then the defence counsel
\nseriously objected and wanted the court to disallow him from looking into
\nsuch records. It is not clear whether the said objection was upheld or
\nwhether PW-15 was allowed to check up with the records of investigation.\n<\/p>\n
Trial court cannot overlook the reality that an investigating officer comes
\nto the court for giving evidence after conducting investigation in many
\nother cases also in the meanwhile. Evidence giving process should not bog
\ndown to memory tests of witnesses. An investigating officer must answer the
\nquestions in court, as far as possible, only with reference to what he had
\nrecorded during investigation. Such records are the contemporaneous entries
\nmade by him and hence for refreshing his memory it is always advisable that
\nhe looks into those records before answering any question.\n<\/p>\n
Section 159<\/a> of the Evidence Act is couched in a language recognising the
\naforesaid necessity. The section reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“759. Refreshing memory :- A witness may, while under examina-tion, refresh
\nhis memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the
\ntransaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that
\nthe Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh
\nin his memory.\n<\/p>\n
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any-other person,
\nand read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he
\nknew it to be correct.”\n<\/p>\n
The objection of the defence counsel when investigating officer wanted to
\nreply by referring to the records of investigation is, therefore, untenable
\nand unjustified- The trial court should repel such objections. The most
\nimportant witness in this case is PW-11 Sharadamma. Since it is undisputed
\nthat the murder of Rekha took place in the house of PW-11 no court can
\npossibly ignore the importance of the evidence of the inmates of that
\nhouse. In that way PW-11 is the most natural and the most probable witness
\nto speak about the murder of Rekha. What the witness has deposed in court
\nis apparently in consonance with the narration of the prosecution story.
\nThe Sessions Judge before whom PW-11 gave evidence was so impressed by her
\ntestimony that he placed absolute reliance on it. But the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court has advanced a very feeble reason to sidestep the testimony
\nof such an important witness. The first reasoning is this :\n<\/p>\n
“Admittedly Sharadamma P.W. No. 11 and Nanjamma P.W. No. 12 are living in
\nthe ground floor. Murthy and some others are living in the first floor of
\nthe house. Admittedly there are innumerable houses roundabout the house of
\nSharadamma and within the hearing distance of her house. That Murthy and
\nothers have been living in the first story, has been admitted by Nanjama
\nP.W. No. 12 herself. If such a ghastly murder had taken place would it not
\nattract the attention of the persons living in the first floor.”\n<\/p>\n
Whether the killer of Rekha was the accused or anybody else, when the fact
\nis admitted that murder of Rekha took place inside the house of PW-11 and
\nif no neighbour had rushed to the scene, how can that be a reason lo think
\nthat the murder would have been committed by somebody else? So the said
\nreasoning is a flimsy premise.\n<\/p>\n
The other reason to disbelieve her evidence is that if PW-11 had seen the
\nmurder she would have cried out or shouted. This is what the High Court had
\nsaid about that aspect :\n<\/p>\n
“She claims to have remained calm like a stone in the house. This unnatural
\nconduct of Sharadamma makes her evidence highly suspect and incredible.
\nWould she not have atleast told the neighbours that a girl had been
\nmurdered in a room of her house and that the accused, if he really had done
\nso, had murdered the girl in the room. This passive conduct of hers makes
\nher evidence highly suspect.” Criminal Courts should not expect a set
\nreaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five
\npersons witness one incident there could be live different types of
\nreactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a
\nstructured reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to
\nsuggest that PW-11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident.
\nUnless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so
\ninconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair
\nto dub his reactions as unnatural, Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, AIR
\n(1983) SC 680, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat<\/a>, AIR (1988) SC 696<\/p>\n
The evidence of PW-11 was sought to be attacked by Shri Naresh Kaushik,
\nlearned counsel for the respondent, on a ground which the High Court did
\nnot choose to countenance. DW-3 Venkatesh – brother of Laxminarayanan
\n(husband of PW-11) was examined to say that accused’s father and
\nLaxminarayanan had a long transaction on which they later fell out. The
\nsaid evidence was let in, presumably, to show that PW-11 had some ire
\ntowards the accused. In other words, it was intended to impeach the
\nimpartiality of PW-11.\n<\/p>\n
The general rule of evidence is that no witness shall be cited to
\ncontradict another witness if the evidence is intended only to shake the
\ncredit of another witness. The said rule has been incorporated in Section
\n153<\/a> of the Evidence Act which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing
\nveracity. – When a witness has been asked and has answered any question
\nwhich is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his
\ncredit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict
\nhim; but if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving
\nfalse evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
The said rule has only two exceptions. One is that if the witness denies
\nhaving been previously convicted then evidence can be adduced to prove that
\nhe was so convicted. The other exception is the following :\n<\/p>\n
“Exception 2. – If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his
\nimpartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be
\ncontradicted.”\n<\/p>\n
Illustration (d) cited in Section 153<\/a> is to amplify the aforesaid cxcep-
\ntion no. 2. That illustration is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood fued with the family
\nof B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted
\non the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.”\n<\/p>\n
The basic requirement for adducing such contradictory evidence is that the
\nwitness, whose impartiality is sought to be contradicted with the help of
\nsuch evidence, should have been asked about it and he should have denied
\nit. Without adopting such a preliminary recourse it would be meaningless,
\nif not unfair, to bring in a new witness to speak something fresh about a
\nwitness already examined. In Vijayan v. State<\/a>, [1999] 4 SCC 36 this Court
\nhas held that “the rule limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a
\nwitness on collateral issues excludes all evidence of facts which are
\nincapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the
\nprincipal matter in dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
As the general rule of evidence is one of prohibiting evidence on
\ncollateral issues and since it is only by way of exception that such
\nevidence can be permitted, the court must guard that the defence evidence
\nfalls strictly within the exception.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the basic premise has not been laid by asking PW-11
\nabout the alleged loan transaction between her husband and accused’s father
\nand hence it is not permissible to cite a witness like DW-3 to say about
\nany such transaction.\n<\/p>\n
PW-11 Sharadamma who is the most natural and probable witness to the
\noccurrence in this case, has stated about the role which the accused had
\nplayed in the murder of Rekha as far as she had witnessed it. Her evidence
\nadmits of no other hypothesis except the exclusive involvement of the
\naccused in the murder. Learned counsel for the accused contended that if
\nPW-11 had supplied coffee to the accused and deceased (as she claimed) the
\nviscera of the stomach contents should have shown coffee. It is too puerile
\na contention, for, there is no finding by the doctor as to the precise food
\narticles remained in the stomach of the dead body. No effort was made by
\nthe doctor to see whether there was coffee in the stomach, and there was no
\nneed to do so either Perhaps the doctor would have chosen in ascertain that
\naspect if the death was suspected to he due to poisoning.\n<\/p>\n
PW-6 Ankaiah had testified that at about 11.45 A.M. he saw the accused
\nproceeding to the house of PW-11 escorted by police personnel. PW-6 has
\nfurther said that it was the accused who pointed out the house of PW-11 and
\nthat the dead body of the murdered lady was lying inside that house. PW-6
\nwas one of the attestors of the inquest report and he is a resident of the
\nsame locality. His evidence lends credence to the version of PW-11.\n<\/p>\n
M.O. 16 (chopper) was surrendered by the accused to the police station.
\nPW-5 and PW-13 are the witnesses who were present when the accused
\nsurrendered the chopper which was smeared with blood. Both witnesses have
\nput their signatures on Ext. P-6 Panchanama drawn up then. When M.O. 16
\nknife was subjected to serological examination it was found containing
\nblood of B-Group. The significance of the above circumstance is that when
\ntwo bed-sheets (on which the dead body was lying) were subjected to
\nserological test they too contained blood of B-Group.\n<\/p>\n
From the above evidence we have no speck of doubt that accused was the
\nmurderer of Rekha. The Sessions Judge who arrived al the above conclusion
\nhad rightly convicted the accused. The Division Bench of the High Court
\nerroneously upset such a well merited conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judg-ment. We
\nrestore the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on the
\nrespondent. We direct the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore to lake
\nimmediate and prompt steps to put the respondent back in jail for
\nundergoing the remaining portion of his sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 Bench: K.T. Thomas, A.P. Misra CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 263 of 1994 PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT: K. YARAPPA REDDY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/10\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS & A.P. MISRA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 Supp(3) SCR 359 The Judgment of the […]<\/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-262624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\" \/>\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 K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-18T14:27:28+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=\"18 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-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T14:27:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3685,\"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-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T14:27:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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 K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-18T14:27:28+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T14:27:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999"},"wordCount":3685,"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-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999","name":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T14:27:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-yarappa-reddy-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/262624","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=262624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}