{"id":28455,"date":"2004-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004"},"modified":"2017-01-11T04:13:43","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T22:43:43","slug":"r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1179 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nR. Prakash\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/02\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court of Karnataka found the appellant guilty<br \/>\nof offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode, 1860 (in short &#8216;the IPC&#8217;) and sentenced him to undergo<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment for two years, by upsetting the order<br \/>\nof acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Three accused<br \/>\npersons were acquitted, but the High Court did not interfere<br \/>\nwith the order of the acquittal of two other persons (A-2<br \/>\nand A-3), who are brothers of the appellant and faced trial<br \/>\nwith him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeal is<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> On 1.5.90, between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. PWs. 1, 3 and 6<br \/>\nto 9 had gone to a hotel to take tea. While they were taking<br \/>\ntea, appellant (A-1) came there. The sister of the three<br \/>\naccused persons was supposed to be the mistress of one<br \/>\nNarasimha @ Dasi. When A-1 reached near PW-3 and the others,<br \/>\nhe was questioned by PW-3 as to why he and his brothers had<br \/>\nassaulted Narasimha.  There was verbal exchange between P-3<br \/>\nand A-1. A-1 left the place. After taking tea, PW-3 and<br \/>\nothers went towards Vishvas Cut-piece Stores. Suddenly,<br \/>\nthree accused persons reached there, and quarreled with PW-3<br \/>\nand stated that it was none of his business, if Narasimha<br \/>\nwas assaulted.  A-2 and A-3 held shirt collar of PW-3 and in<br \/>\nturn PW-3 also held his collar. While pulling and pushing<br \/>\nwas going on, the appellant went out and brought a weapon<br \/>\n(Machu) and assaulted PW-3 on his head, left hand and thigh.<br \/>\nOn receiving the injuries, PW-3 fell down and he was taken<br \/>\nto the hospital where he was treated by doctor (PW-10).<br \/>\nOral complaint was lodged by Krishna (PW-1) which was<br \/>\nreduced to writing by the officer-in-charge (PW-11). He<br \/>\nvisited the place of occurrence, and started investigation.<br \/>\nOn the next day, A-1 gave information about the concealment<br \/>\nof weapon by him and he took PW-11 and other witnesses to<br \/>\nthe place where weapon of assault (Machu) was concealed in a<br \/>\npushcart. The same was seized. After completion of<br \/>\ninvestigation charge sheet was placed.  Accused persons<br \/>\npleaded innocence and faced trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Trial Court did not believe the evidence of PWs 1,<br \/>\n3 and 6 to 9 on the ground that being friendly with PW-3<br \/>\nwere interested witnesses. It is noted that PWs 1 and 8<br \/>\nresiled from their statements made during investigation<br \/>\npartially.  Holding that the evidence of PW-3 was not very<br \/>\ncogent and credible, the order of acquittal, as noted above,<br \/>\nwas recorded.  The State of Karnataka filed an appeal before<br \/>\nthe High Court which by the impugned judgment confirmed the<br \/>\nacquittal of A-2 and A-3 but held acquittal of A-1 was<br \/>\nuncalled for, convicted him for the offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment for two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nHigh Court ought not to have interfered with the well-<br \/>\nreasoned order of the Trial Court.  Cogent reasons were<br \/>\ngiven to discard the evidence of the injured witness and PWs<br \/>\n1, and 6 to 9 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses.<br \/>\nSignificantly, PWs 1 and 8 did not support the prosecution<br \/>\nversion. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is<br \/>\nvulnerable.  The genesis of the controversy has not been<br \/>\nestablished in view of the admission of PW-3 that he had not<br \/>\nmet Narasimha, and therefore the question of his asking A-1<br \/>\nabout the differences between the accused and Narasimha is<br \/>\nhighly improbable.  It is also submitted that offence under<br \/>\nSection 307 IPC is not made out.\n<\/p>\n<p>Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State<br \/>\nsubmitted that the High Court noticed the infirmities in the<br \/>\nconclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. It noticed that<br \/>\nthe cogent evidence of the injured witness and the<br \/>\neyewitnesses was discarded on unsustainable grounds.<br \/>\nTherefore, there is no scope for interference with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is to be noted that the Trial Court referred to the<br \/>\nevidence of the eyewitnesses, and observed that only on the<br \/>\nground that the eyewitnesses were friendly with PW-3, their<br \/>\nevidence was not to be discarded. It is strange that the<br \/>\nTrial Court having observed that their evidence was not to<br \/>\nbe discarded only on the ground of friendship, did so<br \/>\nwithout indicating any plausible reason as to how their<br \/>\nevidence suffers from any infirmity otherwise. It is a<br \/>\nfairly well settled position in law that the evidence of a<br \/>\nwitness who is related to either the deceased or the injured<br \/>\nis not to be automatically rejected, notwithstanding the<br \/>\nfact that it is cogent, credible and trustworthy. The<br \/>\nreasons indicated by the Trial Court to discard the evidence<br \/>\nhave no acceptable or supportable basis. So far as genesis<br \/>\nof controversy is concerned, it is to be noted that the<br \/>\nTrial Court itself with reference to the evidence came to<br \/>\nhold that there was exchange of hot words between accused<br \/>\nand PW-3. The Trial Court has even gone to the extent that<br \/>\nthere was no ostensible reason for PW-3 to abuse A-1 during<br \/>\nthe course of such occurrence. Therefore, the plea that if<br \/>\ngenesis of occurrence has not been established is clearly<br \/>\nwithout substance, and High Court has rightly not accepted<br \/>\nit.  The Trial Court though referred to the evidence of PW-3<br \/>\nthe injured witness did not indicate any reason as to why<br \/>\nhis evidence was not worthy of credence.  Mere cryptic<br \/>\nobservation of general nature that it appears to be<br \/>\nsuspicious is without any material to support the conclusion<br \/>\nand is indefensible.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court has rightly acted on the evidence of PW-<br \/>\n3 and other eyewitnesses. We find no infirmity in their<br \/>\nevidence. Even though PWs-1 and 8 had resiled from the<br \/>\nstatements made during investigation to some extent, their<br \/>\nevidence does not get wiped out in toto, as the evidence of<br \/>\nsuch witnesses does not get washed off.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt<br \/>\nwith relates to the applicability of Section 307 IPC. The<br \/>\nevidence of the eyewitnesses goes to show that they tried to<br \/>\nintervene and save PW-3 from being assaulted by the<br \/>\nappellant A-1, but he continued to assault PW-3.  The first<br \/>\nblow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region.<br \/>\nEven though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does<br \/>\nnot take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC.  It is to be<br \/>\nnoted that in spite of interference by five persons,<br \/>\nappellant continued to assault PW-3. This clearly indicates<br \/>\nthe intention of the appellant A-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section<br \/>\n307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overtact<br \/>\nin execution thereof.  It is not essential that bodily<br \/>\ninjury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.<br \/>\nAlthough the nature of injury actually caused may often give<br \/>\nconsiderable assistance in coming to a finding as to the<br \/>\nintention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced<br \/>\nfrom other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be<br \/>\nascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.<br \/>\nThe Sections makes a distinction between the act of the<br \/>\naccused and its result, if any.  The Court has to see<br \/>\nwhether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with<br \/>\nthe intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned<br \/>\nin the Section.  Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an<br \/>\naccused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because<br \/>\nthe injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a<br \/>\nsimple hurt.\n<\/p>\n<p>The above position was highlighted in <a href=\"\/doc\/384160\/\">State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors.<\/a> (1983 (2) SCC 28)<br \/>\nand in (Criminal appeal No. 1034 of 1997 decided on<br \/>\n4.2.2004).\n<\/p>\n<p>As rightly held by the High Court, evidence on record<br \/>\nclearly establishes commission of offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 307 IPC. The sentence of two years as awarded cannot<br \/>\nbe called to be in any manner higher or disproportionate.<br \/>\nThe appeal is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail is<br \/>\ndirected to surrender to custody to serve remainder of his<br \/>\nsentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1179 of 1997 PETITIONER: R. Prakash RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/02\/2004 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. The High Court of Karnataka [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T22:43:43+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T22:43:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\",\"name\":\"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T22:43:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T22:43:43+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T22:43:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004"},"wordCount":1331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004","name":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T22:43:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-prakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/28455","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=28455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}