{"id":28463,"date":"2010-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-11T21:02:16","modified_gmt":"2019-02-11T15:32:16","slug":"yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 20'\" DAY OF AUGUST 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICE N. ANANIZ)_A\"- I  A' \n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1343\/2093\u00bb V  O\"\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. Yaiakaiah,\nS \/ o\ufb01angaiah.\n32 Years, Vokkaiigaru,\nWorking at Hun' Machine.\n\n2. Prasaxma, \nS \/o.Narasimhajah,\n25 Years, Vokkaligaru, V V\nStudent.   \n\n3.  :'*__:_  .,\nS\/0v.Rang2tpf\u00a7i_a. ' < .4 \n40 Years; Voki&a1_iAg'a;"u~,.t_ .. '\nA\u00a7I'iCu.1turist; _ *  " \n\n4.. Ramann\u00e9i; V _\nS]0.Gangai9.h._V V\n-3.42' Yearst, Vokka\ufb01igaru,\n\n, ' .AgriCu}tufist.\n\n_ 'AJLX3&5?"Rt\/uAV.ONethenaha11i,\nA L\/iagadj"I'a_J1ik.\nBangaio-re' Rural District. ...AppeIIan.ts\n\nA R A A' ' ----  [By _Sri.G."Suresh, Advocate)\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nThe State of Karnataka\nBy Magadi Police,\n\nBangalore Rural District. . . .Respon   - .,\n\n(By Sri.P.Karunakar, HCGP}\n\nThis appeal is \ufb01led under Sf;'C\ufb01bl'i'37'lr   if\nthe judgment dated 22.07.2003 Zpassleid' by\u00bb._t'he" 11' :2%cl\u20acil.;_:\nDistrict & Sessions Judge,' -Bangalpolre   \n\nBangalore, in s.c.No.20'1-1:19.99,  .cont_?i=ctingH the\nappellants\/ accused No. 3 p to 4 for offences punivshabile under\nsections 341, 323, 324   and sentencing\nthem to undergo VS.I. forVV_av'3'perio_Vcl   for an offence\npunishable section   I'P(f:; sentencing them\n\nto undergo_.Sc'iv.ufor..'_r--1perfioclp of" six months for an offence\n\npunishable 1inderasis:ctionp'3i23fr'\/'W34 IPC. sentencing them\nto undergo'  of two years for an offence\npunishable \u00e9unclerl  r\/w 34 IPC and further\n\nsentencing  toipay\ufb01 affine of RS500\/- each for an offence\n\n  punishalpilewvpundei' se_c_ti0n 504 r\/w 34 IPC, in default to pay\n\n',Afi'n.e,' theyftshaii undergo S.I. for a further period of one month\n\nA  all sentences to run concurrently.\n\n This appeal coming on for \ufb01nal hearing this day, the\n\nV  Court "cielivered the following:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appellants arrayed as accused 1 to 4 <\/p>\n
referred to as ‘accused 1 to 4′) in S.C.No.291\/ <\/p>\n
file of H Addl. District & Sessions “Judge, Rural};<\/p>\n
District at Bangalore, were tried lV1″or’–oi5fences.,p pi.111isi1:able’e._<\/p>\n
under sections 341, 323, 324–,.j5-94, 3″o7__ r\/we-.34.l;v’:Pe.”:The ” i<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judgepacqui *teVd”paccused it for an
\noffence punishable  it 34\u00bb IPC and
\nconvicted then;   sections 341,
\n323, 324 3;. 3c3;.:_El%C.,_Thereloreil\ufb02accused 1 to 4 are
\nbefore vthiis  preferred any appeal
\nagainstiiccluittalieof:._1’to 4 for an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under section 307- 1_-\/vlr’ szigitplc.<\/p>\n
   pende’ncy of the appeal, accused 1 & 4 died.<\/p>\n
  as it relates to accused 1 & 4 stands<\/p>\n
abated.  2 & 3 are the surviving accused.<\/p>\n
 3. lvliave heard Sri G.Suresh, learned counsel for accused<\/p>\n
 and Sri Karunakar, learned HCGP for State.<\/p>\n
We Judas?”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:-<\/p>\n
On 23.10.1998 at 11 p.m., near Magadi <\/p>\n
Hospital, on the road between Government  _<\/p>\n
Magadi Police Station, accused 1 to 4 in*”furt:heranceV  <\/p>\n
common intention picked up Zia 5-;L1.a}rrelL. 1 if<\/p>\n
Balakrishna and wrongfu11y\u00bb’restrained’ himf’ “fl <\/p>\n
assaulted and \ufb01sted PW3  c_omrni’t–*:ed’v’:  offence
\npunishable under  in tiieucourse of
\nsame transactioni accuAseV~:1:’_ANVof..v:’:2i \u00e9dggju\ufb01es on neck
\nand right thigii    biade.”an.d::thereby committed
\nan offence   324 r\/W 34 IPC. In the
\ncoursegodf  2 & 3 insulted PW3 by
\nusing abnlsiive inagane”, “sule Inagane” and<\/p>\n
committed an offenveetpunishable under section 504 r\/w 34\u00bb<\/p>\n
  ..  “””\n<\/p>\n
Win\u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
.3,  of prosecution that there was previous<\/p>\n
enx\ufb01ity ‘.rjetv.re’en PW3-Baiakrishna and accused 1 to 4. At the<\/p>\n
 J’r.e1eVante–*time, PW3 was residing in Magadi. At the time of<\/p>\n
  ‘occurrence, PW3 has visited Magadi Police Station to lodge a<\/p>\n
{\\>. -\/\u00a7.\u00bb\u00bb.1.9\u00bb\u00bbw\u20ac\\;.\n<\/p>\n
complaint on behalf of one Nagaraja. At the time of
\noccurrence. PW3 along with PW2-Mudalagiriyaiah.'””PW4~<\/p>\n
Balakrishna s\/o. Rarnanna and PW5–Jayara1n”Kiiere<\/p>\n
returning from police station. When they were  <\/p>\n
the road in front of police station.jacct1’sed  to {confronted<\/p>\n
them. Accused No.3 held collar  ‘acci.1sed–:i<.'.o.2._g<\/p>\n
wielded a shaving blade onVhi.s"'*tlriroat and and" O<\/p>\n
caused injuries to PW3.zand ii(asVV'i:nmediavtely\u00bbvshifted to
\nMagadi General Hospital. _7Ehes._1:}iIolice:"\\risite'd.VMagadi General
\nHospital. On V the._folloiiiiingiliday\u00ab\u00ab.:PWll-~V{.lll'\u00a7ll.Malali examined<\/p>\n
PW3 in Mag-ac1T1__\u00e9efi_er'al:_Hospital..fE'W8;ll\u00a7r.Usrnan Khan had<\/p>\n
examined"   The Investigating Officer
\nseizedvlcbla-de .-'of occurrence and recorded<\/p>\n
statements" witnesses': The Investigating Officer seized<\/p>\n
  blooldsitained clothesof PW3. The Investigating Officer after<\/p>\n
  iiiyestigation, filed chargesheet.<\/p>\n
 I.11Hvie'W of acquittal of accused 1 to 4 for an offence<\/p>\n
 iminishable under section 307 IPC and death of accused No.1<\/p>\n
O  the points that would arise for determination are:–<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved on
\n23.10.1998 at 11 p.m., on the road
\nbetween Government Hospital and Police\u00bb-.___
\nStation at Magadi, accused 2 8: 3 shared:<\/p>\n
common intention and in
\nthe same accused No.3 held and <\/p>\n
accused No.2 wielded abeladep on    \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
and right thigh of Pwsg\u00e9andiaaisoainsiii-ted’if–..__  7<\/p>\n
PW3 by using abuse words””\u00bbbo1i magane” ” .
\n“sule magane” andpi’-..Cpmrnitted.VVAgffen:ee’s” S
\npunishable _under seetions_,_341,’ 3\u00ab23_i
\n504 r\/w 34 :1-:\u00a2~:>  L’ ‘<\/p>\n
(2) Whether the””1eatf13eVd:’.Jt.1dge has<\/p>\n
 appreciated   . ….evidence on<\/p>\n
‘reco_rd?7fV ‘  t”\n<\/p>\n
‘{3} ‘Whe”the1~d:.’tbe”irnptigned judgment calls for<\/p>\n
“in te1*fer\u00a7;:nc-:3? ‘  ”\n<\/p>\n
 15:4.) “What c5ft:\u00e91%i\u00bb”\n<\/p>\n
“\/J adtrerting to appreciation of evidence, it is<\/p>\n
-V necessary  state that there was pre~existing enmity<\/p>\n
 V’ Vbctwaeentttaccused and PW3. The occurrence is alleged to have<\/p>\n
Iv. $.~\u00bb(\u00bbx~\u00abJ%<\/p>\n
taken place in front of Magadi Police Station. The first<\/p>\n
information as per Ex.P.2 is stated to have been lodgedpat<\/p>\n
11.45 p.m. on 23.10.1998. As per the endorsement”rnad.e  p<\/p>\n
Ex.P.2, Crime No.266\/98 was registere_di–\u00ab.i;o:r.VVvofienees”  <\/p>\n
punishable under sections 341, 323, <\/p>\n
IPC at 11.45 p.1’n. on 23V.io.199s.._’diiowey.e;+,.._’p’tr\u00a3e <\/p>\n
information report marked as  whieh.  on
\nthe basis of Ex.P.2   ‘iurisdietional
\nMagistrate at 4 p.m.. on has
\nnot offered anpydreasons  ‘\u00abt”x’i.e_._investigating O\ufb02icer
\nhad retained.’  lt’h3e~..I’,o1ice station for two
\ndays, reasonaiole doubt as to Whether
\nthe   EX.P.2 was recorded and<\/p>\n
registered at*i  ‘p.rri_. on”u23.10.1998.<\/p>\n
  the contents of wound certificate marked as<\/p>\n
‘vir\u00e9_~..fir;~d’viiiat the injured was examined by the Senior<\/p>\n
Med’iea1.–__’Offie’er\/Specialist, Magadi at 8 a.rn. on 24.10.1998.<\/p>\n
 per the evidence of PW3 (injured), injuries were profusely<\/p>\n
  ‘blleedling and clothes were stained with blood. PW3 has<\/p>\n
N l gets\/we<\/p>\n
5340 of 24.02.1999 as per report incomplete linear<\/p>\n
fracture of lower end patella of right side.<\/p>\n
PW8 in his cross-examination has admitted  ~<\/p>\n
No.1 i.e., pain and swelling presenton,right–‘l{ne*el’_wasV fresh <\/p>\n
in nature, but injury No.2 was an old  <\/p>\n
not say exactly which object had”caused..said   <\/p>\n
10. From the evidenc’e.__pof find lee’:-e;am: glaring
\ndiscrepancies.  examined PW3
\non the follovvingtday  deposed that
\nthere was ~oi:_  knee. At the relevant
\ntime,  zlldrfiinistrative Medical Officer
\nof Magvadi ..–~PW1 has deposed: PW3 was<\/p>\n
brought byl4Magadi’V*.Police'”ilvith history of assault caused on<\/p>\n
at al5out”;i1 pm; on examination, PW} found<\/p>\n
”  _ following _in}u1tie’a: —\n<\/p>\n
if ‘  ‘clear cut incise injury on left side of the neck,<\/p>\n
. Vllrrieasuring 4 ems X 1 cm, skin deep, bleeding with<\/p>\n
clot present. W’ (3EQ\\.LM;>\/cbx\u00e9a\ufb01 ,~_<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
II. A clear cut incise injury on right thigh, measuring 4<\/p>\n
cms X 1 cm, skin deep, bleeding with clot present;..V_<\/p>\n
Thus, we \ufb01nd medical evidence given by     <\/p>\n
contradictory. We also see from description of i_njuri.esVgi.\u00a3Jienv..<\/p>\n
by PW1 that both the injuries are sirfnlar.inrdiinensions.” ill<\/p>\n
1 1. The injured eyexrsritness–l?lW.l’.3V\u00a7’v’ has  ‘v’inco\u00a7nsistent
\nand incredible  any of
\nthe accused had assaulted_on_Vhi\u00bbs_V clubs, even
\nthen PW8 has ;ie;:’g;t\u00e9\u00a2d    on 24.02.1999
\nat about   swelling present on<\/p>\n
right kI_iee”it”Wafs_   ‘ ~ \u00bb <\/p>\n
:2. Thus. find visited Victoria Hospital after<\/p>\n
fourqinorrths to”getVaddi’i;ional medical certi\ufb01cate to aggravate<\/p>\n
nature  injuries. PW3 has deposed that occurrence took<\/p>\n
‘place .in’vfront i\\\/Eagadi Police Station. However, police were<\/p>\n
not”‘aware’otA”:galata that took place on the date of occurrence.<\/p>\n
 :.”Contra1″y– to this, we \ufb01nd first information marked as Ex.P.2<\/p>\n
it was lodged at 1}..45’p.m. on the date of occurrence. We also<\/p>\n
N o\u00a3cx.._..4.r:>\u00bb\u00ab\u00bb~\u00ab:\u00bbQ2\u00ab<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
\ufb01nd. first information. which was prepared on the basis of
\nfirst information was received by jurisdictional Magistrate on<\/p>\n
26.10.1998 at 4 pm. Therefore, from the CVidQI1(“)’t3.V:C$iru<\/p>\n
and contents of first information, it is clear that”   <\/p>\n
information had not come into existencer at3,the\u00ab  Voftime,<\/p>\n
borne by it.\n<\/p>\n
13. ‘ PW3 has deposed; on th’e\u00bbV:VV.fo1Iowin’g.day.hat 5.1;-silt 3.30 V<\/p>\n
p.m., he came to Victot*ia._ treatment; one
\nByanna and Parvathamnia;   aunt of PW3
\naccompanied;.P’?it?{‘to   PW2, PW4
\n& PW5 toijk  PW3 had not observed
\nwhether  ._ stained with blood or not. PW3
\nhas deoosocl;  condition on the next day<\/p>\n
of ft1j\u00a7ie’Vincident.A-Joolice recorded his statement at about 10.30<\/p>\n
   Government Hospital in the presence of PW1.<\/p>\n
  PR;’i”.aT’;;?_..~+i\\\/\u00a3i.V;iCiVz..1\u00a3agiriyaiah is stated to be an eyewitness to<\/p>\n
the”‘*occ–iirrcnce. PW2 has deposed; at the time of occurrence,<\/p>\n
.   PW2 came near the Government Hospital which is at a distance of<\/p>\n
  \/L.,. .\/’\\\u00ab”g-”’\\ ‘-51<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
200-250 feet from the police station, at that time PW3 to<\/p>\n
PW5 were present with PW2; PW3 to PW5 were pl_”{)(.’aC-\u20aci’_’>C’11’-.1_’1g<\/p>\n
ahead of PW2, PW2 was proceeding towards  itpu’ .<\/p>\n
see a patient; at that time, accusedA\u00bbNos.1.”to’~*\/{eoiifronted <\/p>\n
PW3; accused No.1 held PW3 and:’\u00bbslap-pied onhits”-facet;-i__PWv3f<\/p>\n
shouted; on hearing the sa:ne..__ PW2g_came ibaoVi:.;v4_Vacofu.sed_ <\/p>\n
Nos.3 <3: 4 had held PW3 andfiavccuusedff intiicted cut
\ninjuries on left side of  of PW3 with a
\nblade; PW3 sustained  Vcitothes of PW3 were<\/p>\n
stained with       <\/p>\n
15.   had intervened and
\npaci\ufb01ed –. others shifted PW3 to Magadi
\nGeneral fHo_spita1f.”  information was lodged by
\nPW??? if   if in<\/p>\n
  ii 6:.  i. Attthis..\u00a3jVu–ncture, it is relevant to state that PW3 has<\/p>\n
notf’depos’ed.V_that accused No.1 had slapped on his face. PW3<\/p>\n
 has deposed that accused 1, 3 & 4 were instigating<\/p>\n
A 5]” accused No.2 to 1:111 PW3.\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
During cross–examination. PW2 has deposed; after the<\/p>\n
occurrence, four persons carried PW3 to hospital and  was<\/p>\n
unconscious; on the date of occurrence, the police” _<\/p>\n
enquire PW3 and PW3 had not given his .state.n_:ent: befo1fe” <\/p>\n
police and police were present in the hosapi’tal;.. 1   l<\/p>\n
17. From the contents ofllizzst infofr1:atio:n  as,”<\/p>\n
Ex.P.4. I find PW2 had not stated’ unconscious
\nafter the occurrence;  ‘\u00ab–_too;g.V. \ufb01zgapon of assault – a<\/p>\n
shaving blade imznediaiiely after  wrapped and put<\/p>\n
it in his pocket;  of lodgilng’fi1*”st information, PW2<\/p>\n
told    assaultlwas with him; but police<\/p>\n
told PW2  give ~sa1ne”on.–~the following day morning.<\/p>\n
l8g._{l ‘Contrary . evidence. we \ufb01nd the Investigating
\n‘R  …..  ‘<\/p>\n
 ‘prepared a\ufb01panchanama on the following day<\/p>\n
“‘ nears Apiace cifoccurren<\/p>\n
‘ and a blade was seized from the<\/p>\n
place  -oclcurrence. Thus, we find PW2 has given<\/p>\n
 exaggerated version and his evidence is inconsistent with the<\/p>\n
” ‘evidence of PW3 and spot mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1 \ufb01sted on his face. We do not \ufb01nd any” injuries on the<\/p>\n
face of PW3. PW3 has not deposed that accused 3 8;<\/p>\n
him. PW3 has not deposed that accused 2 8: 3 hja”c1~u <\/p>\n
him as “boli magane” and “sule magane”.<\/p>\n
During cross-examination,   ‘deposed:.”aftef_i”\ufb01~\u00a7\u00e9.i.ip<\/p>\n
minutes of galata police came hear place of_o’ecuzjrer1ce’i at = ‘<\/p>\n
that time, police apprehended   seized the
\nblade from his possesvsi’_oii.ai’3d igtheftyv’:d’c’cused ran away;
\npolice had not   PW4 and
\nothers did   1, 3 8: 4 as they
\nwere taking   was present in the
\nhospitalgpup mid night on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence’; >’ ”\n<\/p>\n
 21.  this jiinctiire,  is relevant to state that PW2 has<\/p>\n
 stated  had collected a blade from the place of<\/p>\n
he had wrapped it and kept it in his pocket:<\/p>\n
whe\ufb01 \ufb01r3t’1rstorn1ation was lodged, PW2 wanted to hand over<\/p>\n
 Jth.eVasa1n’e–* to police; police told him to hand over the same on<\/p>\n
[La ?\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
the following day. Contrary to this, PW4 has deposed: police<\/p>\n
seized the blade from accused No.2 from place of occurrence’.<\/p>\n
22. At the relevant time, PW7–K.Ravishankar   V’<\/p>\n
as the Subwinspector of Magadi Police Stationi”  it<\/p>\n
deposed; on 24.10.1998, at about  <\/p>\n
PW2, PW6–Thamrnaiah and QW5-Chandrashekl1;ara~ “and ‘ it<\/p>\n
prepared spot\/ seizure  place of’ occurrence; at
\nthat time, PW’? seized a  from place
\nof occurrence; uatjlthat   Shirt, banian
\nand a lungif.    of panchas; on
\nthe  PC 1356 and PC 808
\nproduced police station before him; PW’?
\narrested them before JMFC at<\/p>\n
Magajriiv with a rerriand application.<\/p>\n
    ‘find the evidence of PW4 that accused No.2<\/p>\n
xvifaslllapprehejnzded by police from the place of occurrence and<\/p>\n
 immediately after the occurrence is blatantly lse.<\/p>\n
N,   <\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
I\n<\/p>\n
24. PW5-Jayaram is stated to be an eyewitness. PW5 has<\/p>\n
deposed; he was proceeding along with PW2 & <\/p>\n
were ahead of PW3; PW5 heard shouting of  _<\/p>\n
hearing shouting, they turned back and saw~\u00bbth:e.V it  <\/p>\n
persons were making galata with PW3;\n<\/p>\n
3 & 4 were holding PW3; PW5.*saw accused’   <\/p>\n
PW3 with a blade over his left  neclk-andlriglit thigh:
\nPW3 sustained bleedingziingurjeslll l\ufb01eftpgsidelvof neck and
\nright thigh and blood was   others shifted<\/p>\n
PW3 to Govern;iic’:it:jHoslpital tor  l\n<\/p>\n
25. From evideielce oi i~   version of occurrence<\/p>\n
is altogether  to PW4 have not deposed that<\/p>\n
accused   hlade and inflicted on PW3 after<\/p>\n
 PW3.*waslAhe1d by accused 1, 3 & 4.\n<\/p>\n
 _V Duringvpcrossexarnination, PW5 has deposed; on the<\/p>\n
 over weapon of assault ~– 21 blade to<\/p>\n
–g police. has deposed; police came to place of occurrence,<\/p>\n
.e,lvhoi:u\u00a2’VerV”‘they did not apprehend the accused. PW5 has<\/p>\n
(1%  .c~w~44~-\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
deposed that police took his signature and the signature of
\nPW3 to the first information.\n<\/p>\n
26. Thus, we \ufb01nd the evidence of injured <\/p>\n
and eye–Witnesses is highly discrepant: the11:4′::exr:d.\u00a75\u00a7r;\u00a7:e  V’<\/p>\n
inconsistent and contradictory on vital-.aspe’cts. Ti51e point of<\/p>\n
time and date on which first infor’\ufb01’2at:ion’ffwas– iodged <\/p>\n
certain. The first inforrnation,_V_”which “wast _iodged_”‘atw1j1.45″i V<\/p>\n
p.m. on 23.10.1998 had not…uVreach_ed ggurfiisdic\ufb01onai
\nMagistrate till 4   had visited<\/p>\n
Victoria Hospitai after,”a”’per.iod._”o_f ‘  roonths to get a
\nsecond  1-to aggravateffwfnature of offences.
\nThe version’ ofgiven by PW2 to 4 is inconsistent.
\nIt aiso 1oo’i;s improhfahletiyiat PW3 had suffered identical cut<\/p>\n
injtiries ‘on left of his neck and right thigh. Both the<\/p>\n
.i’n3’uries’ wereaincised injuries, measuring 4 ems x 1 cm X<\/p>\n
s1{inVgdeef\u00a7’;..v,vgt[iif:\u00a7’:”description of injuries does not tally with the<\/p>\n
Weapon._’of”‘a’ssau1t. The Medical Officer has not deposed that<\/p>\n
  there was gapwof injuries. The evidence of eyewitnesses<\/p>\n
“rand-A”fevidence of Investigating Officer regarding recovery<\/p>\n
{L7 ,  D1 “”‘3(“‘”*<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
27. In the result, I pass the following-<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
The appea} is accepted. The impugned judgment is  ‘ ‘d  L. 1<\/p>\n
aside. Accused 2 8: 3 are acquitted of offences pun1si1a–‘\u00a3i1\u00a7:\\.V  <\/p>\n
under sections 341, 323, 324 a 504 r\/W  f1*:%ie_E}.a;i1–. 4’<\/p>\n
bonds executed by them stand cancelled \ufb01ne”amou1’1’t if d<\/p>\n
any deposited by accused 2 & 3 shall be  td <\/p>\n
SNN<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010 Author: N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20′” DAY OF AUGUST 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUS’I’ICE N. ANANIZ)_A”- I A’ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1343\/2093\u00bb V O” BETWEEN: 1. Yaiakaiah, S \/ o\ufb01angaiah. 32 Years, Vokkaiigaru, Working […]<\/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-28463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 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\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-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=\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-11T15:32:16+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T15:32:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2227,\"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\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T15:32:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 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\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-11T15:32:16+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T15:32:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010"},"wordCount":2227,"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\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010","name":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T15:32:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yalakaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yalakaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/28463","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=28463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}