{"id":270485,"date":"2010-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-12T17:09:42","modified_gmt":"2014-08-12T11:39:42","slug":"t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDated this the 3\"' day of November, 2010 %\n\nB efo re\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HU1.Uv:4p1 G_.RA\ufb01.fEvSH::  _ Q \"  \n\nCriminal Appeal 1886 \/ 2003 C\/w Crimi\ufb01al Revis:\u00a30ri<.Per'i:tio}i" \n\n2oo4_:._\nIn Crl.A 1886\/2003  \nBetween:\n\n1 T K Rajgopai, 32 yrs\nS\/0 late P N Krishnappa\n\n2 Srinivas, 34 yrs:  _  :_\nS\/0 M Govi1jd3pp_a?IfV_V_  " '\n\n3 Chandiu, 28  M \nS\/0 M Go&vin_cI:1ppaV  \n\n4 Shivaji,25 y'rsj  - V %\nS\/0 QO"v'indappa'\u00bb , _ " V\n\n ' Sid Eaie" P N Kt\ufb01shnagapa\n\n "  T. K "Ra\n\nS\/0"\u00ab3_ate  N. K1-ishnappa\n\n" "   T K Reti'n2{chandra, 26 yrs\n\n" S\/V()L"l--z;1't:3 P N Krishnappa\n\n   3? K'Munir21ju, 34 yrs\n\n"   S\/0 Eats P N Krishnappa\n\nW\n\n\n\n:i.'.'~.)\n\n9 T H Rutire Gowda, 37 yrs\nS\/0 Halmme Gowtia\n\n(By Sri M T Nanaiah Asst$., Adv. for 6 & 9;\nSri S K Venkata Raddy, Adv. for 2-4; Smt S\n\nSusheela, Adv. for 1,5,7 & 8)\nAnd.'\nState of Karnataka -- by\n\nVidyaranyapura Police Station\nBan gaiore\n\n(By Sri G M Srinivasa Reddy, GP') _\n\nIn Crl.RP 68\/2004\n\nN anjappa S\/0 late RaI'[j1\u00a3l'E{'t"i:SI.'.1'1\u00a31})[:.'._E1 g \n\nBhairaveshwara Ni_1.a--yav 4' \n\nSapthagiri Layout, "~\/_idy:a1'atiVyapu\ufb01a"1:': \u00ab '\n\nBangalore\n\n(By Sri Satish G'Ra4ikar,'Ady:\u00a7y3\\t'  \n\nAnd:\n\n L S\/oi iate"P_N ,I<~rjs'imappa\n\nS\/ON G-:_)vi1id'appa\n\n"   Chandru;"f%2 yrs\n\n'. SV\/(_) Govindappa\n\nV $hivaji, 29 yrs\n' '"S\/() N Govindappa\n\n\u00a7['\u00a2_,\/\n\n .Re'spr5ndent \n\nIx.)\n\nAppeiiants\n\nPetitioner\n\n\n\nS T K Devaraj, 34 yrs\nSfo T N Krishnappa\n\n6 T K Raghu, 36 yrs\nT N Krishnappa\n\n7 T K Ramachandra, 30 yrs\nS\/0 T N Krishnappa   \n\n8 T K Muniraju, 38 yrs\nS\/0 Krishnappa\n\n9 T H. Rudre Gowda, 41 yrs\nS\/0 Hanume Gowda\n\n10 N Govindappa, 60 yrs   s ;\nSlo Moiappa    _  '\n\n11 M'NanjapDa,   \nS\/0 M0tz1PD\u20ac\u00a7{4    =  '\n\n12 R cha\ufb01dpa\u00a7pa,'e4'y~\u00a7s"9\u00ab.9'   \nS\/0Rama1eh \u00bb   ,9 \nRama_chandr'apura,V B;_1nge_l01'e'\n\n1'3"  _ C1"rij1:I392\u00a2p?;;f-f?.:13'...r37   ---------- -\u00ab "\n V 819 Ramajah' \n\n A11'9_-are "z\/5"\u00ab*3,\u00a3fhi\u00a7{\u00a2iV:Vr;i Village\nBayngaiorey ' ' 9-   Respondents\n\n  T Nans1vi99a';1 Assts., for R1,, 5~9;\n "Sri'B 'V?eerappa'; Adv. for R2--4 & 10)\n\n.9   is fiied under S374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\n\n  '9:r.99p--r:1yingr\u00a7 to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 18.12.2003 and\n' '  1'9,V12;2003 in SC 336\/1999 by the Fast Track Court II, Bangalore.\n\n\\W\/\n\n\n\nRevision is filed under S. 397 & 401, Cr.PC<\/a> to enhance the\nsentence awarded in SC 336\/1999 on 18.12.2003 by the Fast Track\nCourt 11, Bangaiore.   \n\nThe Appeai and Revision coming on for Hearing this  '\n\ndelivered the following:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appeal is directed against the order of the FaSVE”;1ft’30k.C(1’tlFiV’<\/p>\n
r1, Bangalore City in sc 336\/1999 on 181:I2._:2003 cdn~.zi.c’iin’g accused i
\nto 9 and sentencing them for the pnniis\u00abh_ab_1e.under  144,
\n148, 506 B, 307 IPC<\/a> to undergo i17npris–on.rnenta’n’dV.aiso\u00abiihposing fine.<\/p>\n
According ;tU the Vidyaranyapura Police filed
\ncharge sheet against” thirteeinciciaccused before the Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate,};:B1anga1ore1ifo–r1the offences under S..143, 144, 148, 506 B,<\/p>\n
307, .,  As per the evidence on record, on 23.8.1997,<\/p>\n
 in connection in\/ith-._th’e”spot inspection, the Deputy Cornmissioner had<\/p>\n
 visited land in “Sy.N\u00a7$.77 of Tindlu Viliage which according to PW 2 the<\/p>\n
-._inju_1’e,d,’ was in his cultivation and occupation pursuant to the order of the<\/p>\n
:_Land Trihunal granting occupancy rights. it appears, as per the defense<\/p>\n
‘  ‘  version, against the order of the Land Tribunal, there was also a stay<\/p>\n
9*”\n<\/p>\n
\n
order. The said land is an inam land of Anjaneya Devaru of Tindlu
\nVillage of which the accused and other relatives are said to be owners
\nand got the land for the Temple since the time of their forefathers.<\/p>\n
According to the defense, the villagers were using the land for theirright<\/p>\n
of way to reach the temple. En this regard. there was a disputepyand\u00bba:l’soja” V<\/p>\n
public interest litigation was filed by some of the accused seeleiiigi’ <\/p>\n
direction to get the right of way to reach the  ._W_hen’  <\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner visited the spot, : he is saidto have-“made” soprn\u00e9e\u00bb<\/p>\n
inquiries. At that time, some scuffle is said to haveV”ta.keri -place, as per
\nthe version of the prosecution iand defenses’-and,i”som.e persons were<\/p>\n
injured. However;  pm. in connection with
\nthe morning incident(23;’8.Vl’?)97:)4 right of way over Sy.No.77 of
\nwhich the_f\u00a7njut*ed  lirishnappa was in cultivation, it is alleged,
\n assaulted PW 2, PW 3 ~ Vishwanath<\/p>\n
S\/o Ki’ish-n_app’a<ar1d_ it W Nanjappa by deadly weapons like choppers<\/p>\n
 and clubsi""*–The_se accused 1 to 11 as well as the injured witnesses are the<\/p>\n
of Tindlu Village. PW 1 Kariappa being the son–in–law of PW<\/p>\n
It  2 _w~ho"can1e: to know about the morning incident and who is a resident of<\/p>\n
T neigli'l'ioring village i.e., Kodigehalli, came to Tindlu Village and is said<\/p>\n
to have witnessed the incident, lodged a complaint. Based on ___the<\/p>\n
comptaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the"aht2–ve'–,V<\/p>\n
said offences before PW 16 — Ramaiah who was thenjthe<\/p>\n
Inspector of Vidyaranyapura Police Stati()n..\u00bb~~._The <\/p>\n
registered around 8.10 pm. Later, he sent the ZFIRL-Q 3C<\/p>\n
of offence on the next day morning andhco'n.ducteid" the  "0ffeIi;C\u20ac
\npanchanama as per Ex.P2. ".E'he__ scene jAQfi:V{:3A'1?1;cnc.ejA   of the
\nhouse of PW 2 _ Krishnappa ant1"tii:at.is'A'a_ 1piih.1_:e"';\u00a7\u00a7;iiV: crfrindiu Village.
\nOn the spot, the investigating oi*t'ice"r–  pieces, mud
\nsamples and   the statement of<\/p>\n
several witnesses  counter complaint under
\nS.107, Cr.i3C in.__Cripme agaisnt the injured and other
\npersons. Later,    Hospital where the injured were
\n   the statement of the injured persons.\n<\/p>\n
He has also   material objects i.e., more than 40, at the<\/p>\n
 _ii”‘Vii1stance o’f\u00ab..the V_a’c’cused; the blood stained clothes of the injured persons<\/p>\n
one Tata Suhio vehicle under mahazar. He has also recorded the<\/p>\n
V”._V”voluntarystatement oi’ the accused. Subsequently, investigation was<\/p>\n
‘VVC.C:)’T\u00a7”l’plf.3~’.~V(E’,C1 by another investigating officer and he has filed the charge<\/p>\n
sheet. Since the offence under S307, }PC is triable by the Sessions<\/p>\n
Court, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Coartr.–.:”fi7he’<\/p>\n
Fast Track Court IE on such assignment, held trial after frannng ‘7 ‘<\/p>\n
against the accused since they pleaded not..gnil.!ey\u00ab ofy <\/p>\n
offences. The prosecution in all, examined about iseventeen–.witnesses<\/p>\n
and got marked about twenty six
\nD2 and MOs l to 47. However, “split  against
\nthe 14″‘ accused since he was  heard the
\narguments, while  {iessions Court has<\/p>\n
convicted accused;’l’to_~9V under S.l43, 144,<\/p>\n
I48, 506 B and 3_O’_73 _yVAgai21st”~tne order of conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
rendered by the ‘trial court, acc’used.are ‘before this Court in appeal.
\nHeard the counselVrepresenting the respective accused as also the<\/p>\n
:’f:io*a,:e_rnrr:t3_1;i\u00b0r Pgulepader and the-eeunsel appearing for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
  *4  I 2004 who is seeking for enhancement of<\/p>\n
 .    Md
\n sentence awarded.’ ~  v<\/p>\n
The specific allegation against the accused is that, on 23.8.1997<\/p>\n
around 6.30 p..m. in front of the house. of PW 2 Krishnappa, the accuesed<\/p>\n
being members of the unlawful assembly, attempted to comn1:it–.njuirciie\u00e9f <\/p>\n
of Krishnappa holding deadly weapons like, iron rods,_.schloppe\u00a3s”and i<\/p>\n
spade, threatened the injured with dire conseq3;ienceesg,l fTh.e accusedalso, f<\/p>\n
dragged out Krishnappa from his car, abused himland”assaul.te7dthim’. 2
\nThe argument of the appellant’s co.un::sel is that,’the”v1″‘–ancl”‘lO”‘<\/p>\n
accused in order to protect the property o.f*t”ne.. have ‘filed-as public<\/p>\n
interest litigation. Apart from that, ‘the villagers iriaking use of the<\/p>\n
land in Sy.No}77 to  Anjaneya Devaru Temple, which<\/p>\n
land was claimedahy   occupation and it is an inam
\nland. There was agdisptite in respect of the land in question as the
\nland tonbxlttzrai “D\u20ac}}2?…1’\u00a3}l}6IlE. As the injured and others were
\noljstructingethej  way in this regard, especially on the holy<\/p>\n
Satutday in the~\ufb01oiitl1.io’3’7–lShravan, the people gathered there asserted the<\/p>\n
 .yiVright of way anclin itheiscuffle, some incident must have taken place and<\/p>\n
_4l_fn_1allicated falsely and rather, the material<\/p>\n
evidenee’\u00abo_n record, clear that at the time of incident, more than
\nhundred .;;ierseo.n’s\u00bb–._wei*e._p_i:esen1 and even as per the spot mahazar and<\/p>\n
,,,.,_,evidence’ ofisonie.ef_ the witnesses, there were several material objects<\/p>\n
‘7’a__’likechoppei’s. and clubs found and, as is stated by one of the witnesses,<\/p>\n
\ufb01tiielfe-,,wras:a a mob gathered and the incident has taken place in connection<\/p>\n
9?”\n<\/p>\n
\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
with asserting right of way over the land in Sy.No.77, to reach the<\/p>\n
Ternpie. it is also submitted, there is a delay in reaching the <\/p>\n
at all the incident has taken place around 10.30 am. in whieh\u00a7’_:i5VV”i _<\/p>\n
been injured as stated by him, there was no impediment for’the:fa,to’sfileVa <\/p>\n
complaint even when the police came to their house.” .. in ctanneetioiri ,W\u00abi.th<1i_'<\/p>\n
the dispute over the Eand, complaint waziifiled by the iiiijjurediipersonjs and i<\/p>\n
there is a case and counter case, In the___4ab:;ence_p of corroboration, the
\nversion of these witnesses who va"r~\u00a2.\\i:\u00a7;ai,d'i~.to  eye witnesses to
\nthe incident, the version_rof_. the  evidence on
\nrecord, is not     iiiiithe offence.\n<\/p>\n
It is further’  made out by the defense the way
\nin which the accused have several injuries must have been
\nfound on pptheihegdy of   Except one simple injury said to
\n  the injured in the evening as per the medical<\/p>\n
evideiiirqc-i;’i”.tly1e “veirz-;io1i.i’oi””the injured PW 3 himself falsifies the version<\/p>\n
 N that he hassuffered “injury in the morning. Even regarding shifting of the<\/p>\n
  touthe hospital is concerned, PW 9 has not supported the version<\/p>\n
 of_&the”.ih\u00a7ured. The injuries are not fatal in nature. Accordingly, it is<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
submitted, the injured have sustained injuries in a commotion where<\/p>\n
more than hundred people were gathered asserting right of way andjthe<\/p>\n
overt act attributed against each of these accused falsifies the  it <\/p>\n
prosecution itself. Learned counsel also relied upon  the <\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Rehmat Vs State of Harj{ana…–h-Z All’<\/p>\n
Criminal Law Reporter 231 wherein the Apex Court has i:.ei*a.;,. when<\/p>\n
injuries suffered by the appellant is  exuplainediiand also the<\/p>\n
\u00bb 2′\n<\/p>\n
-(,..\/\u00ab…U%  .9?\n<\/p>\n
\u00ae  failed to name the  as does inspire
\nthe confidence of the court   order was set
\naside. Relying upon   that the injured
\nthemselves  ttie.j>'[aoct<)r_' the history of the injury
\nsuffered by thenijthat,'  assaulted by strangers which
\nfalsifies the\u00e9case of  rather supports the version of the
\n  jvirijuries  taken place while the people were<\/p>\n
asseri'injg"tfight""reach the Temple through the land that too on a<\/p>\n
Saturday Viwheie devotees were good in number and they have asserted<\/p>\n
'1'i.g\u00a7,'iit.jagaitnst injured PW 2 who was asserting right over the land in<\/p>\n
"V  que~s\u00a3ion 'asan occupant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
]”}<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Per contra, Government Pleader submitted, the evidence of the<\/p>\n
injured who are witnesses to the incident, has to be believed aswtecthe<\/p>\n
overt act attributed against the accused over PWs 2, 3 and <\/p>\n
.r.’~:~i<\/p>\n
injured persons. Except discrepancies here and there v<.,.–,c.h'fare"-in the vi"<\/p>\n
nature of minor contradictions, the overt act attributed by them 'ag'ai;1st:.,.A<\/p>\n
the accused is corroborating each othe.r.and__the accused ar-::'guil.ty of tlhel<\/p>\n
offences. Rightly, the trial court has convicted andojsentenfced the<\/p>\n
accused which does not call for int_e:rference;,_' . "<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Revision P_etitioner' –_.j.l5W..U4'.__Nanjappa has<\/p>\n
submitted that there is'i5t:~orrohorat,ipng evidence against the accused. PW<\/p>\n
4, the injured hasbeen assaulted_4a"n_d"lre has sustained grievous injuries.
\nThe senten:;e"avvarded-\u00bb bythe trial court has to be enhanced and the
\naccused have be punished rigorousiy and a lenient view shall not be<\/p>\n
tal<en"." ._  ,  ,V
\nIn the lightl'o.;i"the arguments advanced, the points that arise for<\/p>\n
-.  :consideration’ are :: C;\/i,,..-~-\n<\/p>\n
\n
Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the offences u11dert~Sl-\/%’3′,~\u00bb.vv<\/p>\n
144, 148, 506 B, 307 IPC<\/a>;\n<\/p>\n
Whether the material evidence on record is stif\ufb01cient to hold”  accused <\/p>\n
guilty of the offences with which they were charged;.  2<\/p>\n
Whether the order of the trial court suffers–~from any error’i.or:\u00abperversslty<\/p>\n
in convicting and sentencing the accused.  i<\/p>\n
What order, if any.\n<\/p>\n
At the outset, it would berelc\u00bbvant te_br_ieil’y_  the evidence of<\/p>\n
each of these  <\/p>\n
PW l  prime witness and he is none
\nother than the soh=.i_n–lvawi’  PW 2 who claims to be the
\noc’c~u_pa11t  uS’y.vNo..7’7 which is an inam land of Anajaneya<\/p>\n
Dev–aru:of  He has spoken about the complaint written by<\/p>\n
‘ ” i…y_.Jo11e l\\\/Iunirajlu. I?ie'”hj_21s.5’21Eso stated that there is a land dispute between his<\/p>\n
_fa’tl;f:r in law the Muzrai Department in respect of Sy.No.77. He has<\/p>\n
‘f_”‘\u00abalsoii_deposed to the effect that when the “Deputy Commissioner visited<\/p>\n
 in Sy.l\\io.77 on 23.8.1997, his father in law has given a<\/p>\n
Ed<\/p>\n
statement before the Deputy Commissioner and he has stated that he<\/p>\n
came to know ahout this fact. He also claims to he an eye witnesste._the<\/p>\n
incident that has taken place in the evening and he is from   _<\/p>\n
neighboring Village. According to him, while  2 Krislinappaf\u00e9wgii it<\/p>\n
37”\n<\/p>\n
Vishwanath and PW 4 Nanjappa came near theyhotiseygofliratishnappaiin :’_– at<\/p>\n
Maruthi car, accused l to 10 came vl’l()l.t_iing cluhs and.’ic’l1opper <\/p>\n
assaulted Krishnappa, Nanjappa and   fell down
\non sustaining head injury on  Krishnappa also
\nsustained head injury and Vishwanath  on his right
\nforearm. Later,    loiie: Anand shifted the
\ninjured Nanjavppal_’tt)l lie also states, at the time
\nof the incident; one  Rajappa and another police
\nconstable y-{ere iipreslenttpg   spoken about the mahazar\/panchanama
\ntie;E\u00a7~\ufb01;:’At]1:’\u20aci3..,g’\u00a2enevoiloffence by the investigating officer of<\/p>\n
Vidya:anyapt1’ra:’Police;. .\n<\/p>\n
Inhis crogssaexainination, he has deposed that he came to know<\/p>\n
.. iri’_j’:a\u00abho’u.t. the incident that took place in the morning only at 4.00 pm.<\/p>\n
1~-.:lAccordVi.nglto him, he has admitted that there is a telephone in the house<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
J5<\/p>\n
of Krishnappa and that he did not receive any phone call. Rather, he<\/p>\n
ascertained the incident through his brother–in–1aw Venkatesh. <\/p>\n
detail cross–examjnation, several contradictions were elicitedgf”Severai ;. <\/p>\n
suggestions were also got denied, also to the effect that  alt V’ ”<\/p>\n
witnessed the incident on that day in the evening.  ;\u00e9;uggestion :. .i<\/p>\n
put to him. that he went to the police station oni”24li.i8.l997.\ufb01iro1tnd <\/p>\n
am. and gave complaint as per Ex.P1 ar:di’th_at he”di_dnot file the
\ncomplaint on 23.8.1997 aroundi\u00e9-s,i_f’i:(‘ p.i_r1.,  denied. This
\nwitness has also spoken about the of someiiarticiles ‘by the Police.<\/p>\n
PW 2 is one .i   to whom, the Land Tribunal
\nby its order,  granted rights in Sy.No.77. According to
\nthis witness. _ on itihexii date: of ithie incident, the Special Deputy
\nColnrnissioinier Eliadvisiteidt .sy…No.77 and had made inquiry and he
\nih:for_med’that   iniipossession of Sy.No.77 since fifty years and when<\/p>\n
the Die’puty_Cio1nifrxi,s_si.oi1e;’ asked him to submit the order passed by the<\/p>\n
  Tfli)t?_\u00a7’tai,   he has handed over the order to the Village<\/p>\n
.4i_if_Ap_cco:1Vntant  the Revenue inspector and that the Deputy<\/p>\n
{ ‘Coinimisisioher went back. Further, according to PW 2, when the Deputy<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
l6<\/p>\n
Commissioner visited the land, about six accused were there and also<\/p>\n
one Eayaramegowda was present. His son Vishwanath asked the accused,<\/p>\n
.i.e., accused l,2,5,7,8 and .12 regarding speaking falsehood.7:biei”or\u00a7ev:-r,he _<\/p>\n
Eeputy Commissioner that Sy.No.77 is not bein,gMcu1tiva_teti’b:}i{   ii<\/p>\n
that time, the accused picked up a quarrel. He ha-sstated, at that”tim_e;reA;;Ve Al<\/p>\n
accused 2,3,7,8 and 6 picked up choppers and spadeiiand  3 i<\/p>\n
W\u00bb Vishwanath and so also, accused i, 5   strife and
\nson ran away from the spot.    about filing a
\ncomplaint before the Vidyaranyapara._Efolice,piat  it:i:n\u00e9,e,’iiionce again the
\naccused attacked  p  A,\/ihandra and Raj Gopal
\nwent to the   Heiihias stated that later, he and
\nVishwanath wen.t_pi’to  Police Station and lodged a
\ncornplaint.p:’,o,_];to,    they have shifted the injured
\n{to  He has also spoken in detail about<\/p>\n
the oVe.rt*a_ct,1o’fv the accused. He states, the 2*” accused Szinivas<\/p>\n
 “go; down ‘frorn..__th’eTFata Sumo, took out a iron rod and smashed the front<\/p>\n
  the Marathi car. The 3″ accused Chandra also smashed the rear<\/p>\n
 ofiti1ce’l\\\/Earuthi car and the 1″‘ accused, held the hairs of Nanjappa<\/p>\n
it and” dragged him out, Nanjappa felldown near the car and accused<\/p>\n
>3?”\n<\/p>\n
\n
l,2,3,6 and 8 assaulted Nanjappa with chopper on his head, Ieft hand,<\/p>\n
and back and caused injuries. The 2″‘; accused Srinivas was said to ‘be.<\/p>\n
holding a chopper and rest of the accused assauited Nanjappa…w4ith:V”‘<\/p>\n
rod. When this witness intervened, at that time, accused-C5,  8\u00bb it<\/p>\n
assaulted him ie, the 6″‘ accused assaulted__hinfr__withlichopper ‘Genghis <\/p>\n
head and other two accused assaulted him with an..iro?1 rod oinahis. back, f<\/p>\n
Atso, he has given details as to the other accused assaulting-.iV’is.hwanath <\/p>\n
and Nanjappa. According to him, tnevlilpoliceCconstables …were
\npresent near the incident ran away from spot and ‘accused thinking<\/p>\n
that Nanjappa is dead, also ran away frofrn thevi’sp_ot.._i”*..<\/p>\n
In the cross~exVa.r’ii;itnaptii’on,”seye–r_al~ contradictions were eiicited and<\/p>\n
also suggestions Wtzre made to theeffect that one Jayararne Gowda who<\/p>\n
was preserjt atnthe spot.__toId the Deputy Commissioner that the High<\/p>\n
Court has passed  order against the order of the Land Tribunal and<\/p>\n
local iiinspectioniiiirieedpnot be made, which he has admitted. He also<\/p>\n
 admitted. that  Hiiigh Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal and<\/p>\n
._:directe’d+ti)e Deputy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. Also,<\/p>\n
 sttggestpioins were made that he quarreled with Iayarame Gowda,<\/p>\n
{NV<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
Rajagopal and Devaraj and his son and himself assaulted them, which he<\/p>\n
has denied. However, he admitted that Jayarame Gowda had<\/p>\n
complaint against him and his son Vishwanath. He also admitted _<\/p>\n
nearby the scene of incident, there is a hotel, residential. and it<\/p>\n
shops and there are 500 residential houses at Ti-ndlu   at<\/p>\n
persons are residing at Tindlu. He also admitted that hee.’c’ontested for<\/p>\n
Society elections and also won and,   _i:ncidtint there
\nis a BTS bus depot. He has  telephone in his
\nhouse in the year 1997. __A sugges\ufb01on ppgiopt  the Special
\nDeputy Commissioner,  give way to the
\ndevotees to    offering poojas. He has
\nadmitted that acicasedl and  public interest litigation before
\nthe Court  give  oi’erTSy.No.77 to reach Anjaneya Swamy
\n     pending. Also, a suggestion was got<\/p>\n
denied toitheii  thiatijecause of the misunderstanding between them<\/p>\n
 VSlI”lQC accused .l”am.l’ .10 had filed a public interest litigation before the<\/p>\n
  falsely implicated the accused. A suggestion was<\/p>\n
l”\u00ab_'”al.s'(,-. m*a_de~ to him that when the accused smashed the car, he screamed<\/p>\n
ithshelpibut, he has stated that none of the residents of the nearby locality<\/p>\n
‘W<\/p>\n
E9<\/p>\n
or the people in the Hotel came near the spot. A suggestion was also got
\ndenied that no such incident took place either in the morning or in the<\/p>\n
evening and that the accused had not come to the spot armed with deadly<\/p>\n
weapons and that they were not watching the moverrtents of this. ” V
\nand others. He has stated that he was treated at RMV Hos_pi’t’ai fofrfthiree”
\ndays. Several omissions were also got marked.  ;su.g’gestion_.VVtrgisvvalgolta <\/p>\n
denied to the effect that in order to knock off the’ landin o.77′.’vt l<\/p>\n
he had prevented the devotees of Anjaneva’ Swarny. _T’er:tplellr.passing
\nthrough the iand to reach the  Al  alsovrrtade that a
\nfalse complaint is filed against the\ufb02accused demanding right<\/p>\n
of way over  dei\ufb01ed.\n<\/p>\n
PW 3 ~\u00ab7\\\/ishwanath A:_jis_i”th_e”‘s.or: of PW 2. He has also spoken<\/p>\n
similar to that of  father..PW’v_2lr’egarding witnessing the incident and<\/p>\n
s:lustai–ning~—-injuries.”– xlele has”a'{so narrated the incident and the injuries<\/p>\n
sustlainetlahlys  ‘and_o_’ther injured persons. According to him, one<\/p>\n
Devaraj Aasasaultetl hiniilwith a chopper on his left hand and Muniraju and<\/p>\n
* \u00abi..fjVChaml.ru assatI.i_t’ed with an iron rod on his back and legs. He has also<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
deposed that other accused have assautted Nanjappa with chopper on his<\/p>\n
head and atso on the chest.\n<\/p>\n
In the cross–examination, he has admitted that accused pet;s0–ns<\/p>\n
did not prevent him and his father from going to the police st~ati.o_n., .<\/p>\n
has also stated that when he got down from the i\\\/iaruthiHca_f’~aion.ig’~wiLhi <\/p>\n
his father Krishnappa and Nanjappa, they didginotiscreairn foif .ft\u00e9l13.s <\/p>\n
the accused armed with deadly weapons surroundtid their  he aiso*<\/p>\n
has not requested the neighbors to rescuVe’hin1 and his father fsjona the
\nhands of the accused. A suggestii\u00e9on is also got–. to the effect that<\/p>\n
he sustained ‘injury.  .n_io\u00abtorhi,i{e-,,accident and he has filed a faise<\/p>\n
complaint in connivanee w.ith~hi;;,_fa’ther, to implicate the accused.
\nPW 4 _– Na4i’ijappaVV_i’v:s anottier injured witness who has spoken<\/p>\n
sitniilat to’-t__hiat  I”J\\\/A s 2  ‘According to him, after the assault in the<\/p>\n
incident’, he fed_down_unconscious. He has stated, it is one Devaraj,<\/p>\n
‘~….Chandra’a_nd some~5ai’e; accused who have smashed the front glass of<\/p>\n
~ .i’_jt,he ‘Marathi Carfwith an iron rod. He regained conscious after fifteen<\/p>\n
1fidays’–oi’a.the””incident at Maiiya Hospitai. According to him, the accused<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
also tried to stop the car on the way and later, he drove the car near the<\/p>\n
house of PW 2 Krishnappa and stopped the car and there the aeettsed<\/p>\n
came in a Tata Sumo vehicle and, the accused 1 to 9 arrnetlw’ith’~-\u00e9.rQ’n:_.__’= _<\/p>\n
rods and shoppers came near him and some aceused ha.’se”a–ss\u00a7t:il_te\u00bbd him  l<\/p>\n
with chopper on his head and left hand and also assaullteld.wi.th”-ironirodsg if<\/p>\n
on the hand and on his back. .._V _ V V pp  _
\nHe has been cross–examined in deltaigl and seVerall”o:nissions were<\/p>\n
also got marked. He has giVlen..,_a dleseription asllitoil who all<\/p>\n
assaulted. A suggestion was also got rl_ei:iied tha_t\u00ab.thel.’aeeused 1 to 8 & I3<\/p>\n
did not assault with e’hoppei’.,on\u00abhi’s._head_’ and also on his left hand. He
\nhas admitted several suggestions”regarding presence of several shops and<\/p>\n
hotels nearthe se”ene”of’i’;1cid,en_t~.–‘and also a bus stop. It is also the<\/p>\n
vsuggesticgiiti\/fiihe defense,V___t_he. people of Tindlu Village had given a<\/p>\n
{l)lG{‘Ilpl2:lii’1.E’Vt0_lli6i~l\u00a7t”~a{?CUSCd alleging that PW 2 Krishnappa was not<\/p>\n
 pass through the land in Sy.No.77 and<\/p>\n
V ae_eording*–.to theldefense, PW 2 and himself being friends, have sustained<\/p>\n
ll :v’.,l’lht3_L\u00a7Vfif;S in a road accident, which is denied. Also, a suggestion was got<\/p>\n
 (i–et1iead*to the effect that when an inquiry was made, at that time, he told<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
the Doctor at Mallya Hospital that he had sustained injuries in the road<\/p>\n
traffic accident.\n<\/p>\n
One of the witness for seizure panchanatna has not ‘supj3e1’ted the <\/p>\n
version of the prosecution and another charge :shc.e’t witness for:”et.he*<:;_r<\/p>\n
seizure has not been examined by the prosecntionli'-V. 2 V _
\nPW 5 \u00ab K Ajjanna is the Police inspect'or who .fi1ed.charge sheet<\/p>\n
after taking over charge of the front  'l'6~,..\u00abthe Inspecvtor who
\nconducted the investigation of the case._   i<\/p>\n
PW 6  K__ soniof PW 2 and he has also
\nspoken about the tncidentinl  and evening. He has stated that
\nwhen the incident   atvthat time, people had assembled and
\nalso  place on seeing the people. Several<\/p>\n
sugge'st.ion.s .w"e~re~~.got\u00bb.i"de'nied and suggestions regarding the omissions<\/p>\n
 were made-. to this-.w'itness. A suggestion was also made to the effect<\/p>\n
that _there_is enn:1ity between his father and the accused persons even<\/p>\n
 t'oVt'iie'al1ege.d incident in respect of Sy.No.77 which belongs to<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
Anjaneya Swamy Temple and in that connection, a false case was<\/p>\n
against the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
PW 7 one Srinivas, according to the prosecution, is .Witf1eSE}.iuf(} ”<\/p>\n
the incident but, he has not given any details as”to-the o–ccurrence of  <\/p>\n
incident. He was cross–examined by the puE1ic::.prosecu’tor. .. _”1″hoai:gh_. <\/p>\n
some of the suggestions were admitted  but he has is’tate~d”t’hat”he<\/p>\n
has not given such statement before the p,o}’ice\u00a7’g_’–.  A.  ..
\nPW 8 one Gangappa, ‘~\u00ab.{{eadCQi1sta*Ebe., ‘”ac_cording to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, was ptesen.t,a.t_the t\u00abi._rtit:.,_of.inc’ident and has witnessed the
\nincident. In hiseyi4dencie;\u00bb.he~h’as istiatedi that on the day of the incident,<\/p>\n
while he was on,,.patro1’-dtttygihe learnt through some peopie that a gaiata
\n goingduon ?i’ron’t._of the house of Krishnappa and as such, he went<\/p>\n
there “aiong ,lwith’~\u00ab.,Yen’l\u00a7aitachaiaiah, Police Constable. When he was<\/p>\n
 iiiiapproachintg the  of office, the public cried as ‘police’ and about<\/p>\n
ii_”i’;}_ir’rdred persons “had gathered at the spot. By the time he went there,<\/p>\n
 not there and he noticed that Nanjappa had sustained<\/p>\n
linj’u’1ci_e–s’lon his head but, he did not see Krishnappa and Vishwanath at<\/p>\n
336\/<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
has stated, he has not seen the presence of people of nearby locality<\/p>\n
assembled near the spot and that Nanjappa driving the Maruthi <\/p>\n
near the spot and none else were there. He also admitted thatiiheididfiiolt  _<\/p>\n
ascertain the details as to the incident.\n<\/p>\n
PW 10 ~ Muniraju is the scribe of the c’omplai:1vt.7._He’  <\/p>\n
about the smashing of the front glass of the Marut.hi”c.ar I’1\u20ac31%.t.1’E”.\ufb01f10l1SC:”(5fVi V<\/p>\n
Krishnappa.\n<\/p>\n
PW il Gangadhar is a..pancha\u00ab~~~for–.the_ seizluire-..0f–\ufb02several<\/p>\n
incriminatinglgartieies”at .r__he.pinstaiice of the accused. He has not
\nsupported the version oi”-se’izure”ot'”the articles by the police at the
\ninstance of}.;hi”s accused. ., _ it V<\/p>\n
PW___ VAVCYjh’andrashekar who treated Krishnappa at RMV<\/p>\n
 iiospitai and f:5und”‘that there is a lacerated wound over the scalp and<\/p>\n
 ewithe head with bleeding from the left ear. He has opined that<\/p>\n
“V  ther~inj’uri’es”are grievous in nature. Krishnappa is said to have told him<\/p>\n
  Vi V T thathe”was assaulted by the assailants on 23.8.1997. He has noted in the<\/p>\n
W\/<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
Wound Certificate that Krishnappa was assauited by strangers in the<\/p>\n
viiiage at Tindiu and issued a certificate aceordingiy as at Ex.P8.<\/p>\n
However, in the c:ros$–examination, he has opined that he cannot<\/p>\n
say whether the margins of the wound at Si.No..E was a clean cut iiiijinry<\/p>\n
or not. He has also stated that if a person is assaulted by a bh.:~nt4’ohj_e’e’t,.Vi” .<\/p>\n
he may sustain a ciean cut injury or may not sustain a c1ean~–eutfiinjury.ii <\/p>\n
He has stated that if a person is assauited by  cluhi or ironi ‘rod, he _ <\/p>\n
suffer contusions on his person and maypaiso suffer fractu,re9.. HoWe\\5’er’,V<\/p>\n
he has opined that he has not found any con_tusi.ons o’r~.in.\u00e9’is~e:d wound on<\/p>\n
PW 2 Krishnappa and”it.ha.t,_Vi\u00a3a’pei’son .fa’1is on a hard surface, injury E
\nand 2 can be eausedii Hie=hasr.Aad1ni’tt_edthat Krishnappa toid him that he<\/p>\n
was assaulted’ by strarigersv at ‘\u00a7”indiu, based on the case records and<\/p>\n
d’ischarge_psumrnaryZrizaintained in the hospital.
\n  PW ‘V333 the Head Constable who has reg.ist’ered the<\/p>\n
i “*~~–i_?.rR aroui1di2.3Gpi1n, an 23.8. :99? on the compiaint fiied by PW 2.<\/p>\n
AV’<\/p>\n
PW 14 is Dr Mali Manjunath who has treated Vishwanath S\/o PW<\/p>\n
2 Krishnappa and found laeerated injury over the left upper arm of <\/p>\n
” skin deep and also opined that it is simple in nature and V,~;.\u00abf\u00a71′]T’\\2fs2’8,I._’1″ci{.if’lr’.<\/p>\n
was treated as an out patient and that the injuries could.ybe_'”eau;sed one <\/p>\n
hour earlier to the treatment. According to this D_oct;or;_pheAl1a.s’*tre.at’edV_ <\/p>\n
Vishwanath around 7.30 p.m. and issued sic WoundCertifipcaieipiat I3x.}\u00e99′;’vv ‘<\/p>\n
PW 15 is or Raj Gopal who has a\u00a7a~:_\u00a2d the injured”vl\\la\u00a3oj’a”ppai at
\nMallya Hospital on the intervening night”of..23f24tS.l99i7’and..found as<\/p>\n
many as seven injuries -w on the parie’ta1’i’egi(Jn, _leftv”t1aitd, left wrist and<\/p>\n
fracture of the 1’ighAtx’paVrieta\u00ab].p bot1e.___ He has opined that injury 8 —
\ntenderness on the left vvrist ‘aoar_t”froiri\ufb01injuries 6 and 7, is grievous in<\/p>\n
nature andhas issued a-\u00bbWo’und Certificate at Ex.P10.
\n  In crossexaniination; he has stated that he cannot give the<\/p>\n
exaetflength the injuries and also could not say whether the<\/p>\n
‘ injuries a.re’f.incisedfv;ound or lacerated wound and that he did not notice<\/p>\n
 contusion on the body of Nanjappa. He has admitted at E1-LP10 ~\u00ab<\/p>\n
4’.._:”wou:id.certificate that there. is a struck off portion mentioning as ‘road<\/p>\n
W”\n<\/p>\n
\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
traffic accident’ and also admitted the words ‘road traffic accident’ was<\/p>\n
in his hand writing which was struck of and later written as ‘assaul.t.’i~-<\/p>\n
also admitted that E.x.Pl0 was issued based on the <\/p>\n
maintained in the hospital i.e., MLC Register.\n<\/p>\n
PW 16 ~ Ramaiah is the investigating”officer. who-i’ha.s.i ‘spoken <\/p>\n
about the investigation conducted, recoveries naadeland theg.fi1siln’g of the”; ‘<\/p>\n
Charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
In the cross-examination, he hasp_.,ad’mi_tted that”‘S-1_07H,iCr.PC<\/a><\/p>\n
proceedings was  the accused persons as well as
\nagainst PW 2  that there was also instruction
\ngit\/gen for patrolling   of the incident. Also, a suggestion
\n    to know after the investigation that MOs<\/p>\n
at l2–i:<\u00a7,  novt"connected to this case. Also according to him,<\/p>\n
 iatthe timepf coi1tiue'ting search in the house of the accused, he secured<\/p>\n
l.llt\\tlie"h,'ii'\u00ab\\i';\u00a3' .01' aiwioman constable and also he knew that when male<\/p>\n
\ufb02liiielrnhersl"were not present in the house, he had to secure a woman<\/p>\n
 V  for help and for searching. But, he has admitted that he has<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
not mentioned the name of the woman constable who has assisted. A<\/p>\n
suggestion has been got denied to the effect that he has s_se~i_jz,ecl__<\/p>\n
agricultural implements and kitchen items.\n<\/p>\n
DW 1 was also examined on behalf of the  <\/p>\n
Nanjappa, aged about 80 years and he is ar\ufb01ayedgglasivthe <\/p>\n
According to him, accused l to 10 are ph’is_relative_sl’and the} ‘hp<\/p>\n
is his brother in law and the 13″‘ accusediliislhis friend. \u00ablie  stated,<\/p>\n
Anjaneya Swainy Temple was cons\u00abtruc–ted\u00a7.about2U0_to 300″ years back<\/p>\n
and that he is born and brought \\;=”;1.1ag\u00e9’ ;_ar;*d that he is an<\/p>\n
agriculturist.  He has’j’s*tatedl.lonepipl’-lnarayaaiiaswamy Gowda was looking
\nafter the management  Narayanappa was the Archak
\nabout thirty; years   sonli\u00e9rinivas Murthy was looking after the
\n  ‘to_vhim,vv\u00e9lg.lNo.77 measuring L22 acres is a temple<\/p>\n
inami”l.a_nd’__adjoini~n3g thel\\n_janeya Swamy Temple and people used to go<\/p>\n
 to the Tef’nple.–__io’ (2f’l’er pooja, through the land in Sy.No.77 and the land<\/p>\n
“ivs’i3eing c_ultiV’ated and, Ragi and other crops were grown. Except the<\/p>\n
 yield “f_ro’r’rr:1he land, there was no other income to the Temple and the<\/p>\n
T la_4n”d”iniSy.No.77 stood in the name of Srinivasa lvlurthy, Archak. But,<\/p>\n
W.\n<\/p>\n
accu\u00e9_}ed*<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
later in the year 197435, RTC was changed in the name of ?W 2<\/p>\n
Krishnappa. However, the Tahsildar appointed thirteen person5;._llas.<\/p>\n
Trustees to the temple in the year 1980 including DW 1.   <\/p>\n
him, Sy.No.77 was a valuable land and ?W 2 was  iti ‘<\/p>\n
declared as a grant, as an occupant. Against the order of the “I’ribun’al,..,,p_, f<\/p>\n
writ petition was filed by Srinivasa Mmrthy ancllthe’ order\u00bb’tv3fAthe.Lahduil<\/p>\n
Tribunal was set aside and matter  ‘t5hel:i}I)eputy
\nCommissioner, Bangalore. to getthe entries
\nin the RTC in respect of  He has stated,
\nthe villagers of   to reach the
\nTemple as  PW 2 Krishnappa was
\nobstructing. The people  and other devotees complained
\nofxthe obstrpction    this regard, a public interest litigation
\n   the accused persons have been falsely<\/p>\n
irnplic}:tc’d’__on   complaint by PW 2 through his son in law.<\/p>\n
 has a.1.\u00ab;'<;—. stated,-oh 23.8.1997, himself and accused 10,12 and 13 had<\/p>\n
 Crhannakseshavaswainy Temple at Siddlaghatta in the morning<\/p>\n
"i  landeeaineback around \u00a30.30 pm. This witness was also cross–exa1nined<\/p>\n
iat–.le'n'gt'n to deny various statements.\n<\/p>\n
W.\n<\/p>\n
\n
3E<\/p>\n
As per the medical evidence, PW 2 has sustained two injuries and<\/p>\n
as per the evidence of Dr Chandrashekar, there is one lacerated_’wo-und._<\/p>\n
over the scalp and another injury over the left ear and the.-doc’tor;’has _<\/p>\n
opined that they are grievous in nature. It is alsojpertiuezaf to note ithatas <\/p>\n
per the MLC Register maintained,  per the staterr1en::iofirP._W ij_’<\/p>\n
he was assaulted by strangers in the village,” Thedoctor alsioi\ufb01could not<\/p>\n
give opinion whether the injuries mention_e._d”aVre=clean cut injury? or not.
\nHe has also stated, he did not findijanyiior-_ wound over the<\/p>\n
person of Krishnappa.\n<\/p>\n
As to the i_njurieE’-;rs.u_stainedby PW 3 — son of PW 2, it is stated
\nthere is one lacerapted wo:.1nd’ Aov,er=theV’1eft upper arm and the injury is
\nsimple in nature and” would have been caused one hour prior to<\/p>\n
exanainmgiirl  :the”doctor. The doctor has examined the injured on<\/p>\n
23.8.  per the evidence of PW IS — Dr Rajagopai, he<\/p>\n
 has seen as rnany eight injuries and injury 2 and 3 were grievous in<\/p>\n
 etuheyviwere fracture to the parietai bone. The evidence of the<\/p>\n
inj_ured._vvitness speak to the effect that all the accused have assaulted<\/p>\n
T thern’;* <\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
So far as seizure of weapons are concerned, except the evidence<\/p>\n
of the investigating officer, independent witnesses have not supporhteda<\/p>\n
the seizure of weapons from the house of the accused. Apart ;”f’ror:fi..’_tE1.nti., ;.<\/p>\n
one more independent witness has not been examined regardi_n’g seiaure.<\/p>\n
it is also admitted that the accused personsaare frorn Tind.llu’=Viilalgesa;i Al<\/p>\n
Even PW 2 and 3 are the residents of Tindlu Villagei’w.vher.~.5as   <\/p>\n
resident of Kodigehalli, an adjoining villagei.*._i V  ;
\nAs could be seen, PW 2 has…sustaiAried’ttwo irguries but; the doctor<\/p>\n
could not narrate as to the nature’ ofthe-injtiry__la’nCi’uthedescription to<\/p>\n
arrive at a conclus_i-an lwhethei’. they are grievous in nature except stating
\nthat they are grievous in nature. ,  PW 3 is shown to have sustained
\nonly simple injuries. According to his version and also according to the<\/p>\n
prosecputionl versi.on,”l<1e sustained injuries in the morning. However,<\/p>\n
there is .also__ a iiricidventntalien place in the evening. So far as the morning<\/p>\n
 incident isl'eono.ernen"; complaint is said to have been filed. According<\/p>\n
3, he hassustained injury in the morning but, evidencing the same<\/p>\n
i there is2_no' inedicai evidence. However, the doctor who examined PW 3<\/p>\n
 '   , _ ilf'olund"only simple injury on the left upper arm.<\/p>\n
w\ufb02<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
So far as injuries sustained by PW 4 Nanjappa is cor1cernedl”l;1e<\/p>\n
has sustained  many as eight injuries. As per the ad1nission..1n.ade<\/p>\n
the cross–examination of Dr Rajagopal, first it is Wfi[[\u00a2\ufb02”l’fI’.VE)4i’P’3O -9 <\/p>\n
Wound Certificate that it was due to road traffic aecAide;nt\u00ab_an1d   _ <\/p>\n
struck off and written as ‘by assault’. _rH_oweve*r. such entry.  said’.to<<\/p>\n
have been made based on the MLC  maintaiinted at;:Maiiya
\nHospital.\n<\/p>\n
It is also pertinent to note thatiaccusied l___an’d_’ are said to have<\/p>\n
filed a public interest”‘liti’gatic=n  who was claiming<\/p>\n
occupancy   of Tindlu Village and
\nwas obstmctingijpeyople ‘\/iiiiyijaneya Swamy Temple through the
\nsaid Eand._;l’het..land  inarnvland. It appears, the Archak of the
\n   was there also filed a writ petition<\/p>\n
wherein “the. o’rder,_of.:’tlie Tribunal was set aside and the matter was<\/p>\n
remitted to th_e’De”puty Commissioner. In this connection, several<\/p>\n
 aresaid to have been given by PW 2 before the Deputy<\/p>\n
 Clomrnissioner and in this background, some scuffle is said to have<\/p>\n
T tal{eri*place between the accused and PWs 2 and 3. As narrated by PWs<\/p>\n
3%”\n<\/p>\n
\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
2 and 3 as regards the morning incident, they filed a cornpiaint and<\/p>\n
according to them, PW 3 sustained injury. I.t is also their case thap\u00e9they<\/p>\n
accused assaulted them with clubs, chopper and stones._.\u00a7i_’iH’oxiJ_e-ver,r.-___<\/p>\n
evidencing the morning incident and sustaining injuries;v~–there”*\u00bbis’no <\/p>\n
medicai evidence much iess other evidence eorrobo.rating tAhe”sain:ei.___to~::Vei<\/p>\n
believe the version of the injured witnesses\u00ab\u00ab_.._V V V   _.
\nSo far as the evening incident eoncerned_,_ ‘allf.=th\u00e9.: injured<\/p>\n
witnesses have spoken in unequivocal terms ‘regarding sustaining injuries
\nand the overt act of the accused statingtiiatdthey”ha”ve.:as_s_au1ted with iron<\/p>\n
rod, chopper\ufb02and\ufb02 liif at..:ValiiV__as. narrated by these witnesses, if
\nthirteen accused “have mdiscriminately by weapons as
\nmentioned by then1;.inevcessa1’ilythere should have been several injuries
\nfound onv\ufb01ie body: }iowev_er_,Nanjappa\/PW 4 has sustained a fracture,
\n“agvper thyedii’i”ned’iie\u00abal_e’videnoe, that may be due to assault or due to fall or<\/p>\n
dueV’it.oVVa~ 1ri.ot’o*r._vehicl_e accident and it is not made clear by the<\/p>\n
prosecution either fsby re–examining the witness  to under what<\/p>\n
~ \u00abi..j’jve’i\u00abrcu\u00bbmstance the Wound Certificate of PW 4 Nanjappa, the history<\/p>\n
‘1.”‘\u00abwa:~f_’writtenyas ‘road traffic accident’ and later struck of and written as<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
35<\/span>
\n‘by assault’. The vivid description of the injuries sustained by PW 4 has<\/p>\n
also not been properly explained.\n<\/p>\n
It is also pertinent to note, the prosecution failed to “prove—t;i’te7..<\/p>\n
recovery at the instance of these accused as the independent “w__itn.ess.vvhoe\u00bb <\/p>\n
was examined has not supported the versio’n”oi”the ‘.pro.s\u00abecuti_enV. “Tlt <\/p>\n
appears, as many as nearly 15 to 20 rnaterial”obl3’ects were recoveiiedf”<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution, all these accused were ;\u00a7rine_d_: wigthlleither
\nchopper or pickaxe or clubs and”spade,\u00bbl’BurL:thereis no corresponding<\/p>\n
injury found on the person to prove using’ ofilitiiesepvvveapoiis at the time of<\/p>\n
commission of the ofifenee_.l_3yt\u00abthe.aceuse_d._’
\nIt is also-the jcv’idence'”of thelponlice witness who was present at the<\/p>\n
spot that more than htvindredlpersons had gathered near the scene of
\ncjifenvce  3\u00a3l_l[liQ_LIgh lil”e’l~..g=.–;\u00ab;..turned partially hostile to the version of<\/p>\n
thel’prosecutio’n, laceolrding to him, the accused were not present. It is<\/p>\n
 to ‘be”noted,”\u00e9li_ere was previous enmity between the is’ and 10″‘<\/p>\n
_li’e~..gccus_ed and  The possibility of implicating these accused for the<\/p>\n
‘heirro_lusyVof’i’ence cannot be ruled out. Even according to the description<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
given by PW 2 before the doctor, he is a resident of Ti.ndlu Viliage and<\/p>\n
accused also are from Tindlu Village.\n<\/p>\n
If really such an incident has taken place as is explained’<\/p>\n
witnesses, there was no impediment for them to makeha ‘1’aen’tion ‘the?’ <\/p>\n
names of the assailants at the time of Iiarrating’t–he\u00ab_histor.y’–.of: the <\/p>\n
incident. Of course, PW 1 — compla.ina11t wouldvhave :nemfioned’=thea. V<\/p>\n
names of some of the accused- But, PW  stated”th_at’the assault was<\/p>\n
by strangers.\n<\/p>\n
Further, according .to”the’de’fe1_1se version, the day of the incident
\nwas a Saturday in the n:ointVh’vofi’~~Shp:avan and several devotees had<\/p>\n
gathered and in the ..sct1ffle-.betwee.rr PW 2 and his men on the one side<\/p>\n
Vartd._the d.\u00a2siar\u00a2\u00a7’s on the uo’th\u00a2:.Ii._Sitie ~ might be some villagers, the injured<\/p>\n
wouldih-ave _sAurstained injuries. Although they have given a vivid<\/p>\n
descriptio1_1  ofkhe accused holding some weapon and assault, it is<\/p>\n
n”‘”noticed, there .are_ corresponding injuries on the body. There are<\/p>\n
\u00bb f’_j~emhellishment;s”:a11d exaggerations made by these witnesses to implicate<\/p>\n
‘ the accused;\n<\/p>\n
5%”\n<\/p>\n
\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
others, the evidence of these witnesses are shown to be little clumsytand<\/p>\n
more contradictions are there which are not in the nature ;of-.imin_orf’ <\/p>\n
contradictions to over look to hold all the accused guilty <\/p>\n
So far as the version of the cornp_l_ainant._PW l its”iconcerne:d,i.l<\/p>\n
according to him, he is a witness to the  and filed cornplaint.
\nBut, it is also evident from his  not explain the
\nindividual overt act. Apart frorn–   PW 8 Head
\nConstable is that, w.h.\u20acl1:V   ‘ofi’ence , none of the
\naccused were there;  Might be that PW 8
\nturned liostile.:’:__Even  i [has witnessed the incident as
\nstated by him,  was no  for him to give the minimum
\ndetails as tciithei.overt  the accused and that itself shows that he<\/p>\n
would,An’ot._,be an  A’w.itness to the incident. The ‘$1-{I16I’l{i0I1il1g of the<\/p>\n
 names’ 0f”th_e\u00ab assa’i_l:1i1ts:;’iii” the  t that too filed after 2. % hours of<\/p>\n
 the inciderit” by =\u00a7,_::oing”ito the police station, without filing the complaint at<\/p>\n
dtlieiispot thouglithe police had arrived at the spot on such information by<\/p>\n
4*._vPWf_.8;’-throws suspicion on the version of the complainant as to the<\/p>\n
H  ‘  involvemeiit of these accused.\n<\/p>\n
W.\n<\/p>\n
\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is contradictory to the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW 4. According to PW 3, the accused came in<\/p>\n
Sumo Vehicle and dragged out PW 4 from the Maruthi   _<\/p>\n
version of PW 4 is, he got down from the car along w_i–t’i1’PW*s p2’=andA 3.__ it <\/p>\n
The version of PWs 2 and 3 is as if the accused have ?.relngei*ulIy di’ag,_gec!:;Vs it<\/p>\n
out PW 4 from the car. This verszionahas been’contradi’c.t\u00a73d_bygthel<\/p>\n
version of PW 4 himself. Further,  to PW.’3i.:t_he Isiiacciised
\ninstigated others to finish of PW\u00bb?l:7but,’i\u00ab_ac:i;(3rdi’ng\u00bbto”PW 4, the 10″‘ and
\n11″‘ accused instigated others ffilere also there is
\ncontradictory versionl–..,Vby:P’\\7_f{‘s.3’\u00abandj\u00e9i.  to PW 2, the 1″
\naccused heldighe tI1_Aftof’vPW:’4palidiildragged him out of the car and PW 4<\/p>\n
fell down is notisinalported.hy~the_  of PW 4 injured himseif.
\nAs noted earlier; I.hpe’V-.vei*.sior{ of PW3 injured .is that he sustained<\/p>\n
,injuri_es \u00a3ll\u20ac;_Ai.f:1Ci\u20acl\u00a73nt thlat”u*c*c’ur1’ed at 10.30 am. on 23.8.1997 but, no<\/p>\n
medical je”vi.dence..’i’:;.j_Vproduced supporting the same. The wound<\/p>\n
Vi”n….certificate_ llissuedllivttlnthe doctor who examined him in the evening<\/p>\n
..liji’_j.:egarding the incident that took place in the evening shows that PW 3<\/p>\n
“.._:l’h.ad”‘o_iiiy one simple injury on the left forearm. This shows there is<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
exaggeration. A suggestion is also got denied to the effect that he___is a<\/p>\n
motor cycle racer and he would have met with an accident and s.i_ista:i_ned–_<\/p>\n
injuries. But, the manner in which PW 3 has narrated the..Airicideii’t-iihati'”: ‘<\/p>\n
is, if really all the accused have assaulted the_.in\u00a7u.red, there “\\’a’v’il:)t.?.ll..’.ll.V’l’1’_f’;1″m(C <\/p>\n
been several injuries much less fatal injuries. ‘”‘vEx(:’eptionesiriiple ji11jur.v;7T.A<\/p>\n
..\n<\/p>\n
there are no other injuries and that showsfthe accused have been falriely<\/p>\n
implicated in this case. The version  that_Athej\u00a7accused
\nhave attacked the injured   and choppers. If
\nan attack as stated by  2  more fatal
\ninjuries would begthereg.   weapons by the<\/p>\n
investigating _th-emziccused have also not been.
\nproved much  is iiot  as to the fact that there were
\nblood stainsongggthel .welei;xjo’1iS prodiiiced. The 1″ accused is said to have
\n theE”‘ifolti:1itary  given by him and as per S.27 of the<\/p>\n
Evide’nceI’_Act,”-;it’*has no.-vevident.iary value and, if at all several material<\/p>\n
lilobjects like choppers and iron rods were there at the scene of offence as<\/p>\n
 by onewof the witnesses, seizing of all the weapons by {he<\/p>\n
 investigating officer which are, in all 34 in number, would improbablise<\/p>\n
OLE’.\n<\/p>\n
\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution. Was it practically possible for these l.3__–l4<\/p>\n
accused to bring about 34 material objections to commit the of’fe;1ce–?1?.j”~\u00ab.V””<\/p>\n
PW 6 who is the brother of PW 3 and son of PW 2 has _<\/p>\n
the effect that the 14″‘ accused assaulted the injured, paiso 4-his it <\/p>\n
evidence that the 1″ accused pulled down  4;_fr.orii ‘the: Martitliiii’-CaiI;;Va_ei<\/p>\n
but, nothing has been whispered by PW -4__ in this regard.c.’vAiccordi11gi\u00a7 told<\/p>\n
this PW 6, accused 10 to 13 were standi1ig.at any distance ifrnornvfthe spot
\nand that the 14″‘ accused assaultcdii’ Adilinzi\u00e9t.ithe_’lvv4*’i?1Ccused a split UP<\/p>\n
chare sheet is filed and heis absconding. VAccior\u00a7:Ii’ng:t’o, 6, accused 7<\/p>\n
and 8 assaulted PW 3″ivit.hvchoppei;.,.__If both of them have assaulted as
\nexplained by ii.i1n,’– then,  there should have been severai
\ninjuries. His evidence”aIso’.caiu_1ot~~–be believed. It is even his evidence
\nthat the l-413;: accused has assaulted on the head of his father. As regards<\/p>\n
shifting.ot’P”the ;’ii.njtIre’dy_.is concerned, he has stated, his father and brother<\/p>\n
V’ishxvjaiiath’xvereytalcenviiin a Tata Sumo to the hospital and that PW l<\/p>\n
ih*–..___Kvariapna  in the Tata Sumo of one Anand. But, the<\/p>\n
7_version of i\ufb01rtanyd  aitogether different regarding the shifting of the<\/p>\n
LiVrij1it1’f;d.’r Further, according to the injured witness, the Maruthi Car was<\/p>\n
31\/<\/p>\n
<12<\/p>\n
damaged but, that has not been seized under rhahzar nor it has been<\/p>\n
produced so as to identify having regard to the evidence ice: in.<\/p>\n
prosecution witness. Even the version of PW 9 is that, he did\ufb01tot seevihthe  b *<\/p>\n
accused persons in the Tata Sumo but, he has _onEy__seen'soihete.chojjper.$ <\/p>\n
in the hands of some persons who came to  ih the. Tata <\/p>\n
Krishnappa and Vishwanath, PWs 2  were ~iVi "QS
\nRamaiah Hospital and so also PWJ4 Nanjapgaa}"gv.PVJ_.4  'adimitted in his
\ncrossexarnination that he and .and–   Such being the
\ncase, had the incident reaiiy occurred have turned
\nhostile to the version as    and  the overt act of<\/p>\n
the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Accoi:di’ng. to .Vthe.__e’videnV’ce of Dr. Raj Gopal – PW 15, the
\npos.sibiii.ty Pwbgnljisusgtaining injury due to a road traffic accident aiso<\/p>\n
is not “1’u_ie-id out; :\u00b0*Apartv\u00bb’i’rom that, as noticed in the wound certificate<\/p>\n
 issued as we-ii as.”the\u00bbe;ntry in the MLC Register, the history was recorded<\/p>\n
 traffic accident and this had been struck of and written as ‘by<\/p>\n
 “‘\u00a3’h’at also throws doubt on the Version of the prosecution. One<\/p>\n
V’  V  of–\u00abthe”panch witness for the seizure of as many as forty four articles has<\/p>\n
?r*”\/<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. The recording of<\/p>\n
statement of PW 4 by the police is shown to be after thirty five.._ol7_<\/p>\n
the alleged incident although he regained consciousness __i'{nrne:dia:telyi'”t——1lor<\/p>\n
after one or two weeks of the incident. Even .t.he_FSL;lreploitjaslitoythe <\/p>\n
presence of blood stains identifying the persons’ blo_’od’Vor is<\/p>\n
the blood stains on material objects’ia_re*~..not made ayaivlable””‘oy. the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
Might be some semblance of_* evidence is there on record<\/p>\n
regarding the accused assaulting the   But, the version<\/p>\n
of the injured  juot above doubt and several
\nembellishmentsarethere. The background on which
\nthe incidentiharzrytakeln place  the morning of 23.8.1997 is, there was a
\n  Commissioner in respect of Sy._No.77<\/p>\n
whiclh”-is   property of Anjaneya Swamy Temple given<\/p>\n
 the farnily t:_:l”a:-otiuised l to 1] during the time of their forefathers,<\/p>\n
.4 ginjured PW 2 is said to have got entered i.n his name and the<\/p>\n
t’he*Land Tribunal has been set aside subsequently in the writ<\/p>\n
llpetui’tion’*l’iled by the Archak of the Temple and in that connection, the<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner had visited the land .in Sy.No.’\/7. Might be, some<\/p>\n
incident has taken place but that is not enough to connect the accusied_’t~o_<\/p>\n
hold guilty of the accused. The connecting iinks\/evidenceairei’rtti.’s’si:ig-‘1′ _<\/p>\n
and there are doubtful circumstances made “out by.”the’~d_efeii1wse*_to <\/p>\n
disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The prclihciipleiicis,”prosecu’ti.onij_’<\/p>\n
must be abie to prove beyond reasonable-._doubti’thal thei’iaccu’se.dyyyhave<\/p>\n
committed the offence with which they arecliarged. T’here_ is scope for
\nentertaining a doubt as to the veracity of  iin”Je’:+tigation and also the
\nseizure of the weapons match less”th’e–  the  sustained by<\/p>\n
the injured and also   of-syustainin.gi theiinjuries due to a road<\/p>\n
traffic accident  .th’eHentry in the MLC Register
\nwhich was  as ‘by assauit’. As per
\nthe ratio laid down  decisihcnitelied upon by the appellant’s counsel.
\n cited  the complainant has faiied to mention<\/p>\n
the narneis oft on-e..–v’accused while lodging the complaint and this<\/p>\n
 avspect does not’i’ri:~i_o’it’e the confidence of the court to hold that these are<\/p>\n
if H ” ”the—- persons involved in the commission of the offence in the background<\/p>\n
   there’ was also a iand dispute between the accused on the one side<\/p>\n
if  thevinjured on the other side. Might be the injured have sustained<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
injuries but, to connect the accused and to prove the case beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt, there is short of evidence. The nommentioning.oi’~.the_<\/p>\n
names of the accused as the assailants in the complaint filed\ufb02-aiill   ~<\/p>\n
to the case.   –\n<\/p>\n
The trial court has noted that PW 1 coh1p]a.inatit isthe sori4’\u00a7n’-.l_aw;c .l<\/p>\n
of PW 2 and an eye witness to the incident and it has nc.ted,f_as_V_per_i\u00a7theh<\/p>\n
evidence of PW 1., accused ] to 9 came to spot armed \\’2vithV}Machhu
\nand sticks and that he, along vVvit_hiFone’l._An_and’,*–..w-as”standing inside the<\/p>\n
compound of the houseaof KrishnvapipaVand__at’t~hat”tithe, Krishnappa,<\/p>\n
Vishwanath and Nanjappastiere’ getting down from the car and accused 1
\nto 9 came in ad Talta, Sumo uac.c”o’rding to him, the 1*” accused told<\/p>\n
other persons to assau.ltlKrish’nappa, Vishwanath and Nanjappa with<\/p>\n
v’w.eaVp:on.s,’Vlx”court has noted that PW 1 did not state that accused<\/p>\n
10 to ._li5__were:”prese’nvt””at the place of the occurrence and instigated<\/p>\n
 ac-fcused ll”-to  toassault Krishhappa, Vishwanath and Nanjappa. The<\/p>\n
“tria1,’court, noting PW 3 Vishwanath in his evidence has no where<\/p>\n
I’  :;t_ated’.that”accused l0–l3 were present at the spot and instigated accused<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
l to 9 to assault PW 2 Krishnappa and PW 4 Nanjappa, acquitted<\/p>\n
accused 10\u00bb 1 3.\n<\/p>\n
lt is pertinent to note that in the cross–examination of PW  * V<\/p>\n
specifically stated that he could not say what is the overt__act_oi each of <\/p>\n
the accused i.e., accused 1. to 9. Apart from that,\u00bbthc.elvidence_.’c-.fVPWl”8 <\/p>\n
also speaks to the fact that PW 1 came to the soon :a::tfiei”‘he w,en’t. ll<\/p>\n
there. By that time, the accused were notpelpltiiere.  PW  has
\nturned hostile but, the very fact.th’atp_PW’  eitarninationiitsell’ could<\/p>\n
not say the individual overt act of ‘l~accufseid’ l_–~to”‘\u00a7jat’_’the time of the<\/p>\n
incident. If he had really…witne\u00e9:.sed__the incident, he could have at least
\nmentioned about, the overt “act _oi”\u00ab,sorne of the accused regarding the<\/p>\n
blows on the i.njured,”\u00bbw_lithl what weapon and on which portion of the<\/p>\n
“body;   liairssifies that he could not have witnessed the incident.<\/p>\n
Aisoil’the’~lv_ery”fact.,tha.t’at the time of the incident, police constables were<\/p>\n
also present and immediately the Circle inspector of Vidyaranayapura<\/p>\n
 V’?oiicleAS.tation’also came to the scene of offence and, nothing prevented<\/p>\n
ll   tc.  a complaint with the inspector then and there, shows there<\/p>\n
i was”scope for PW” l to implicate the accused. as an after thought. The<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
trial court has simply believed the version of PW 1 to treat him as an<\/p>\n
eye witness to the incident<\/p>\n
Even the version of PW 9 M Anand said.to__be anieye–:’witiriess.st0  <\/p>\n
the incident and a friend of Vishwanath — PW  is,f_he~  White eoiiourii.\/_i<\/p>\n
Tata Sumo and at that time, the Marut_h”i~._Car Bel.ongingi..\u00a2to\ufb02jsianjappa<\/p>\n
came on the road near the house of  “found niiimber of
\npersons in the Tata Sumo and ‘”nnth:Vi.Ieapons. But, he
\nhas not mentioned the n_arne_s the  he states that
\nKrishnappa, Vishvraniathp   and had sustained<\/p>\n
injuries. The trial. eoiujt.1ay,eniphasis.01: the evidence of this witness
\nalso. But, he has i’ai1ed=to “nien_tionii’tiie names of the assailants despite<\/p>\n
the fact thagtiheis a friend ‘of Vishwanath.\n<\/p>\n
 inv.’Vp_th~e ;_c:ircumstariCes,—–the trial Court has simply relied on the<\/p>\n
evidenceiofti  1i’anVd=.9 to hold that the accused have assaulted the<\/p>\n
i v’=….v.injuredi ‘despite_th’e’i.\u00a7’a}et that PW 1 has pleaded his ignorance as to the<\/p>\n
– ifgoyertp act of theiaecused and, PW 9 has not whispered anything about the<\/p>\n
 asi=2iult.ing the injured despite both of them claim to be eye<\/p>\n
xiv”\n<\/p>\n
\n
49<\/span>
\nwhether the incident has taken ptace as is narrated by them or due to<\/p>\n
some other reason or whether they sustained injuries because ofxthe act<\/p>\n
of strangers who had gathered on the day of the incident to offer   _<\/p>\n
Anajaneya Swaniy Temple and who were obstructed by’? iniusingvpi ”<\/p>\n
the tand in Sy.No.7’7 to reach the Temple.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the discussion made above, a1.though it  doubted V<\/p>\n
that the injured have sustained injuries  incidet’it,_ thedfactfthat near
\nthe scene of offence more than hundretiiiperisons  gatheredgcannot be<\/p>\n
lost sight of and, the witnesses whothavei’deposed”bei7Qre the Court have<\/p>\n
spoken to the effect th.at..;_1_one “the villagers have arrived at the spot,
\nand coupled withthe ‘evid’enee_”‘of_”FW 8 \u00abM Head Constable who was<\/p>\n
present atgthccscene ‘offence that more than hundred persons had<\/p>\n
V”gathered_xat th’e:spo’t\u00ab,,_’clearly speak to the fact that some other persons<\/p>\n
were” also pz’esent’. [They were not examined except one or two, to<\/p>\n
narrate about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
‘._V1’_n”the circumstances, extending the benefit of doubt and also<\/p>\n
–ho’1d’ing that the prosecution has failed to establish the case. against the<\/p>\n
ta”\n<\/p>\n
\n
so
\naccused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are acquitted of the<\/p>\n
offences with which they are charged. Their bail bond stands Cargcellled.<\/p>\n
The material objects be destroyed. The fine amount be returned’ affteiri ‘4 <\/p>\n
appeal time is over.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal is allowed. The Revision Petititm–fi1ed–‘_:by_:PWv  ll<\/p>\n
dismissed.    v, ,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 3″‘ day of November, 2010 % B efo re THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HU1.Uv:4p1 G_.RA\ufb01.fEvSH:: _ Q ” Criminal Appeal 1886 \/ 2003 C\/w Crimi\ufb01al […]<\/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-270485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-12T11:39:42+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=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-12T11:39:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":8795,\"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\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\",\"name\":\"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-12T11:39:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-12T11:39:42+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":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-12T11:39:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010"},"wordCount":8795,"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\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010","name":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By ... on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-12T11:39:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-rajgopal-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270485","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=270485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}