{"id":27190,"date":"2014-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014"},"modified":"2014-11-15T09:26:27","modified_gmt":"2014-11-15T03:56:27","slug":"ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","title":{"rendered":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
                              1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\n   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014\n\n                            BEFORE\n   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY\n\n           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487 OF 2009\n\nBetween:\nRavi S\/o Mogannagowda\nAged about 34 years\nOccupation: Petty business\nR\/o House No.169, Police Colony\nBeeranahallikere, Hassan\nPresent Address:\nHouse No.211, Hemavathi Extention\n13th Ward, Krishnarajpet\nMandya District                        ... Appellant\n\n(By Shri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\nThe State of Karnataka by\nExtention Police Hassan              ... Respondent\n\n(By Shri K.R.Keshavamurthy, SPP1)\n                             *****\n                                2\n\n       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C praying to set-aside conviction and sentence dated\n05.06.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in\nSessions Case No.33\/2004 - convicting the appellant\/accused\nfor the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 313 and 506 of\nIPC and the appellant\/accused sentenced to undergo rigorous\nimprisonment for a period of three years and shall sentenced to\npay fine of Rs.2,000\/- for the offence punishable under Section\n498-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further\nundergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, he\nshall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years\nand shall sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000\/- for the offence\npunishable under Section 313 of IPC and in default of payment\nof fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a\nperiod of two years, and he shall undergo rigorous\nimprisonment for a period of three years and shall sentenced to\npay fine of Rs.3,000\/- for the offence punishable under Section\n506(II) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall\nfurther undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three\nmonths. All the sentences award shall run concurrently. The\nappellant\/accused prays that he be acquitted.\n\n      This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court\ndelivered the following:-\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the<\/p>\n
learned State Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
2.    The appellant was accused No.1 along with his parents<\/p>\n
who were accused Nos.2 and 3, respectively. The complainant<\/p>\n
was the wife of accused No.1, to whom he had been married as<\/p>\n
on 3.6.1996. It was alleged that at the time of her marriage, her<\/p>\n
father, B.R.Gowda, had provided dowry in terms of cash of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,15,000\/- and had provided gold jewellery weighing 100<\/p>\n
grams. Even after having received the same, the accused had<\/p>\n
insisted on she bringing additional dowry in terms of cash and<\/p>\n
also to obtain a transfer of a house standing in the name of her<\/p>\n
mother in favour of the accused and it is claimed that this<\/p>\n
harassment and demands caused a lot of physical and mental<\/p>\n
agony to the complainant from 3.6.1996 till 3.3.1997, when<\/p>\n
apparently, she withdrew from the society of the accused. It is<\/p>\n
further claimed that when she was pregnant with a child, she<\/p>\n
was forced to undergo abortion, while ensuring that she was<\/p>\n
unconscious. It is alleged that she was administered a drug and<\/p>\n
when she was in an unconscious state, the child was aborted
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
and further there were constant threats of putting her to death.<\/p>\n
It was particularly alleged that accused No.1, in the presence of<\/p>\n
his brother and sister-in-law, had threatened to burn her alive.<\/p>\n
It is on these allegations that a case was registered against the 3<\/p>\n
accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313,<\/p>\n
506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity). Though the FIR<\/p>\n
was registered including for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the<\/p>\n
charge sheet did not include those provisions. The charge sheet<\/p>\n
having being filed after further investigation by the police and<\/p>\n
after further proceedings and the Court having framed charges,<\/p>\n
the accused had pleaded not guilty and after having recorded<\/p>\n
the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”<\/p>\n
for brevity) and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties, the court below had framed charges.              The
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution had then tendered evidence through PWs.1 to 12<\/p>\n
and had got marked several exhibits in order to prove the case<\/p>\n
against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    After hearing the parties and the counsel for the accused,<\/p>\n
the court below framed the following points for consideration:<\/p>\n
      “1) Does the prosecution prove that, the accused
\n         were given physical as well as mental
\n         harassment to the complainant Sulochana in
\n         order to bring additional dowry from her
\n         parents’ house despite of received dowry in
\n         terms of cash and gold jewelleries and thereby
\n         committed an offence punishable under Section
\n         498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
\n         Code?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2) Does the prosecution prove that, the accused
\n         have forcibly got abortion of the complainant
\n         Sulochana without her consent and thereby
\n         committed an offence punishable under Section
\n         313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
      3) Does the prosecution prove that the accused
\n         have committed an offence punishable under
\n         Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian
\n         Penal Code by causing criminal intimidation
\n         saying that as to do away her life by dousing
\n         the kerosene and also made her as a prostitute?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.    The court below has answered all the points in<\/p>\n
affirmative, insofar accused No.1 is concerned and in the<\/p>\n
negative, insofar as accused 2 and 3 are concerned and has<\/p>\n
convicted accused No.1 and sentenced him to imprisonment for<\/p>\n
a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000\/- for the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine<\/p>\n
of Rs.10,000\/- for the offence punishable under Section 313<\/p>\n
IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 506 (II) IPC. It is that which is under challenge in the<\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    The learned counsel for the appellant would point out<\/p>\n
that there is an inordinate and inexplicable delay in filing the<\/p>\n
complaint before the police and in the FIR reaching the<\/p>\n
jurisdictional Magistrate and this delay would certainly explain<\/p>\n
the false case that is sought to be concocted against the<\/p>\n
appellant with the active connivance of PWs.4 to 7 who were<\/p>\n
all her close relatives, namely, her parents and her sisters. The<\/p>\n
court below has placed reliance only on the evidence of those<\/p>\n
witnesses, which could not have been acted upon. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel would point out that the admitted position is that the<\/p>\n
complainant lived in her matrimonial home for a period of 9<\/p>\n
months and even during that period of 9 months, she was<\/p>\n
constantly visiting her parental home and remaining there and<\/p>\n
intermittently coming back to her matrimonial home and had<\/p>\n
ultimately withdrawn from the society of the appellant. As on<\/p>\n
the date of tendering evidence, she had remained apart from the<\/p>\n
complainant for a period of 11 years and by that time, the
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
marriage stood dissolved, on the complainant herself having<\/p>\n
filed a petition for divorce.       This would indicate that the<\/p>\n
complainant has lodged the complaint out of sheer spite. As is<\/p>\n
evident from the record, no case was made out against the<\/p>\n
parents of accused, as found by the trial court. It is only on the<\/p>\n
basis of evidence of PWs.3 to 7 that the court has convicted the<\/p>\n
present appellant. In this regard, he would submit that insofar<\/p>\n
as the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A is<\/p>\n
concerned, the burden was heavy on the prosecution to<\/p>\n
establish that the appellant had meted out cruelty to the<\/p>\n
complainant of a degree that would have driven her to commit<\/p>\n
suicide. From the allegations made, it is clear that they are at<\/p>\n
best self-serving and not supported by any cogent evidence to<\/p>\n
corroborate the same. The complainant has even admitted that<\/p>\n
there was no physical violence at any point of time meted out to<\/p>\n
her. Therefore, the oral demands said to have been made by<\/p>\n
accused No.1, is not even claimed by any of the witnesses,
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
namely, PWs.4 to 7 as regards, any such demand being made<\/p>\n
by the parents of the appellant, which would have been the<\/p>\n
normal course of conduct in the family seeking additional<\/p>\n
dowry, as sought to be made out by PW3. This significant<\/p>\n
circumstance is overlooked by the court below and the<\/p>\n
allegations being made solely against accused No.1 of<\/p>\n
continuous demands for dowry, therefore, was not to the<\/p>\n
hearing or in the presence of any of the witnesses and it is on<\/p>\n
the basis of information which may have been provided by the<\/p>\n
complainant that the other witnesses have purportedly stated<\/p>\n
about the alleged cruelty meted out to the complainant. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel would take this Court through the record to<\/p>\n
demonstrate that the allegations in the complaint have been<\/p>\n
vastly varied and magnified in the course of evidence of the<\/p>\n
complainant herself and the fact that the other witnesses,<\/p>\n
namely, PWs.4 to 7 have tried to match her allegations, word<\/p>\n
for word, would be an indication that it was a got up case, only
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
initiated to cause harassment and torture to the appellant and his<\/p>\n
family. Hence, to establish a case for an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 498-A, which has visited the appellant with<\/p>\n
stringent punishment now imposed by the trial court, the burden<\/p>\n
was heavy on the prosecution, which cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
discharged on the basis of evidence of PWs.3 to 7 and in this<\/p>\n
regard, the learned counsel would also take this Court through<\/p>\n
the rather lengthier judgment of the Trial Court, which merely<\/p>\n
reiterates the statements made by the several witnesses in<\/p>\n
ultimately concluding that the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
498-A has been established. The further claim that there were<\/p>\n
constant threats to her life and that accused No.1 especially,<\/p>\n
threatened to do away with her life and put her out as a<\/p>\n
prostitute, are self-serving claims which have not been<\/p>\n
corroborated by independent witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
6.    Insofar as the allegation of causing abortion against the<\/p>\n
will of the complainant is concerned, there is no mention of the<\/p>\n
same in the complaint. However, it is only during the course of<\/p>\n
her evidence that she has embarked to make allegations on the<\/p>\n
appellant. But, however, it was included in the charge sheet,<\/p>\n
possibly on a subsequent statement made by the complainant.<\/p>\n
Insofar as the said allegation is concerned, in any case, it is not<\/p>\n
established by any cogent evidence. The medical practitioner<\/p>\n
who is said to have carried out the abortion has been examined<\/p>\n
as PW10.      Though the court below has referred to the<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief, as regards the abortion having been<\/p>\n
carried out on the complainant, the cross-examination where it<\/p>\n
has been elicited as to the manner and the occasion for<\/p>\n
performing such a procedure has been overlooked. In that, it<\/p>\n
was the opinion of the medical practitioner herself that in view<\/p>\n
of improper development of the feotus, it was necessary to<\/p>\n
cause abortion and it was with the consent of the complainant
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
that such a procedure was carried out. This has been elicited<\/p>\n
from PW10 – the medical practitioner. Therefore, the claim of<\/p>\n
the complainant to the effect that she was first rendered<\/p>\n
unconscious and thereafter the procedure was carried out on her<\/p>\n
to abort the feotus is a wild allegation, which has been made as<\/p>\n
an after thought, as is evident from the fact that the allegation<\/p>\n
does not figure in the complaint, but has been incorporated in<\/p>\n
the charge sheet as an after thought. Hence, the finding of the<\/p>\n
court below that the appellant was guilty of causing such<\/p>\n
abortion and having been imposed a harsh punishment of 10<\/p>\n
years in respect of the same, is not based on any positive<\/p>\n
evidence. On the other hand, in the face of evidence that there<\/p>\n
was no such occasion for the medical practitioner to carry out<\/p>\n
abortion on an unconscious woman.         The court below has<\/p>\n
proceeded to impose punishment, which results in a miscarriage<\/p>\n
of justice.\n<\/p>\n
                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
7.    The allegations insofar as the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 506 IPC, is nothing but a fall out of the allegations<\/p>\n
made in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A.<\/p>\n
When that has not been proved with any degree of proof, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the threats to the life and limb of the<\/p>\n
complainant has been held out by the accused, as claimed in the<\/p>\n
absence of satisfying corroborating evidence. Therefore, on a<\/p>\n
close examination of the record and the even lengthier<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial court, it is clear that except the evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs.3 to 7, there is no evidence of any independent witness as<\/p>\n
regards the commission of any offences as against accused<\/p>\n
No.1. More particularly, when the allegations were common as<\/p>\n
against accused 1 to 3, the court below having been found that<\/p>\n
no case was made out insofar as accused 2 and 3 are concerned,<\/p>\n
it is indeed inexplicable that the court has been able to conclude<\/p>\n
that the prosecution has established its case against accused<\/p>\n
No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. This is indeed not tenable
\n                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
and therefore, cannot be said on the basis of the material<\/p>\n
evidence on record that there was such a degree of cruelty<\/p>\n
meted out to the complainant and that the accused had gone to<\/p>\n
the extent of forcibly having the complainant abort her child are<\/p>\n
established beyond all reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of<\/p>\n
the court below, insofar as it convicts accused No.1, is set aside.<\/p>\n
Accused No.1 is acquitted. The bail bond stands cancelled.<\/p>\n
The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded<\/p>\n
to him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
AHB\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 Author: Anand Byrareddy 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487 OF 2009 Between: Ravi S\/o Mogannagowda Aged about 34 years Occupation: […]<\/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-27190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - 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\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\" \/>\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=\"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi S\\\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\"},\"wordCount\":1958,\"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\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\",\"name\":\"Ravi S\\\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi S\\\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - 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\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014","datePublished":"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014"},"wordCount":1958,"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\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014","name":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-15T03:56:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-so-mogannagowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-18-september-2014#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi S\/O. Mogannagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2014"}]},{"@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\/27190","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=27190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}