{"id":38268,"date":"2008-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-08T16:46:20","modified_gmt":"2014-11-08T11:16:20","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & Gowda<\/div>\n
3\n\nIN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CECUIT BENCH\n\nTHE E-I()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE AIN. vgnjpgaopp.-331% \u00a3:@\\'x,\u00a5::>A% V': %  \n\nCriminal Amm No.121a;%%or2 m__'_2_;;x%%%     7\n\nAT DHARWA9\n\nDATED THIS THE 77*' DAY OF JULY, 2008\n\ni3RESEN'I' \nmm HON'BLf3 MR. JUSTICE 3.12. BANNuRMA':'I\u00a7n _[\n\nAND\n\nBetween:\n\nState of Ka:'r1a\u00a3e\u20ac.1E;a;i_44_\" A   3 %\n\n(By Sm T- M~     \n\nAnd:\n\n1.\n   ..... \n<\/pre>\n
Sarxfiiiaosh $a1:\u00ab;;ra:;:> $h.”\u00a3I:()Shi,<\/p>\n
” R!\/9′ \\fa:i\u00e9ci:1eJ_ Depot Read,<\/p>\n
V’  I  Bgalgaum.<\/p>\n
\n\n ;vfi\u00a7niTiap;3a Smmshi,\nAg\u00e9: majoazj\n\n~ ~    Resident of Rajarampwri,\nV' ' -   V. E{ai11apur.\n\n..  \"Szi1t.A Mangala,\n\nW\/0 Babnrao Shiroshi,\n\n'  \"Age: major,\n\nResident sf Rajarampuri,\nKoihapur.\n\n\n\n(\"Q\n\n4. Smt. Surekha,\n\nW \/ 0 Sudinath Shankargouda,\nAge: major,\n\nResident of near Raiiway Gate,\nTilakwadi,\n\nBelguam.\n\n ..iaespeaaenm\n<\/pre>\n
(By Sri S.D.Bemchan11avar,,”‘A:1v. For ”  :4  ‘A ”
\nSri RB. Deshpande, Ad’v..} _   *<\/p>\n
This criminal 15sppea}”fi1f\u00a7d u:1″c\u00a5.e2* Se(\u00a7t’;'{\u20ac>:1 378(1) &
\n(3) of the Code of”  P:’aCed1;i”e”‘\u00a30__Hgt’ant leave to
\nappeal against t_he’-j411dgz:1e:1t __a’1:s.g1 0*r\u00e9;c:r cf acquittal dated\n<\/p>\n
19. 1.2002 p-as\u00e9:\u00abed.;: ‘by ‘*f};1c9″T.’.’j3\/ee;:3:1sd, “Sessions Judge,
\nBeiguam in   ta.._s;:t..5aside the aforesaid
\njudgmam: ahd cirdscr am ,to.._ conviczt and sentence the
\naccused-respendeats”fix:’i;h\u00e9’\u00bbQfZ’enCe with which they Ezad
\nbaen c:harged’i:1 ‘\u00e9\ufb01Bwv’G(:(;);TK\ufb02a..:!i\u00a7.c’\u20acV’\u00a51L’?.’.%.$:}?LV.’1a’E’Y etc.<\/p>\n
‘\u00a3’}t1is, ‘    for hearing, this day,
\nB{a.NNUI\u00a7\u00a3vl{AT}\u00a3.J , de7ii*.r.t,.?_;*cc:i the following:<\/p>\n
“\u00a2 gjfJ6nGMERT<\/p>\n
 filed by the State being aggieved by<\/p>\n
-j_.’_\u00a7h\u00a2”judgne1\u00a71_i’:. of acquittal dated 191231 January, 2032<\/p>\n
   the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum in<\/p>\n
.  Case No.20\/93 filed against 4 accused in<\/p>\n
 4. Vc0:r3mission of the offence: chalged.<\/p>\n
Brief facts as per the prosecu\ufb01an case are as foliowsz<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\nAccording to the prosecution case after these two<\/p>\n
marriage cenemony, one in the Jain Temple and <\/p>\n
after registration under the Registration of   <\/p>\n
accused No.1 and the deceased   it  it<\/p>\n
dui1n.g’ the course of their stay, not only  if<\/p>\n
his parents and sisters _ dei;t3a_iid.i;urig_A
\nornaments etc., to be brought   her
\nparents. It is also the   that another<\/p>\n
reason for demand was  to establish<\/p>\n
a factory  and in this regard
\nhe was    bring money from her
\nparents. V_ _V  forthcoming from the
\ne\\}idence.j   witnesses is that the parents<\/p>\n
of in an accident after the marriage of<\/p>\n
the   the accused and the accused insisted<\/p>\n
_ _ to get her legitimate share in the property of<\/p>\n
 which they wanted to be transferred in the<\/p>\n
 ina,,a_1e._of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
6*’<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nIt is the case of the prosecution that as the deceased<\/p>\n
did not meet the demands of the accused, they <\/p>\n
with it and they started treating the deceased   <\/p>\n
and harassment. Unable to bear the  it;  <\/p>\n
that 01118.3. 1992, the deceased Tcconsiifniedii  <\/p>\n
died. On the very next day PW  “of:\n<\/p>\n
gave first information
\nintimating the parents of cf his sister
\nand his suspiciori’  cf according to
\nhim she  her inability to bear
\nany furt11e1A”‘de:;’:tia:”‘1ci=   by the accused. On<\/p>\n
receipt   as per Ex. 1?. 6 the jurisdictional<\/p>\n
in in Cri1:}:1e No.33\/92 initially against<\/p>\n
 acctiaeti._VNe’;’iaet11er of accused No.1 (mot11er–‘m—-1aw<\/p>\n
 cfthe  and accused No.4 sister of accused No.1<\/p>\n
.1   of the deceased).\n<\/p>\n
T  ”  “After reg\ufb01straticn of the case, inquest was conducted<\/p>\n
iitifxder Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the Taiuk Executive<\/p>\n
Magstrate. Statements of the reiatives of the deceased,<\/p>\n
statements of the neighbours, both of the accused a <\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\ndeceased were recorded; the dead body was subjected to<\/p>\n
autopsy, PW 12, Assistant Surgeon and PW 13 another<\/p>\n
Medical O\ufb01icer had performed autopsy and gage ..<\/p>\n
morte-In zeport. It was noticed during the autopsjfjtlzati =  <\/p>\n
deceased was carrying female foetusjaad’ ‘itwias;   <\/p>\n
eid. According to the doctors the  of ‘~  <\/p>\n
shock, asphyxia as a resu1t”‘Jof. co\ufb01saj_ne:’g
\nphosphorus insecticide. ittto “mat ; 2*} who
\nwas medica} ef\ufb01eer at 13.8   has stated<\/p>\n
that it   the deceased to
\nthe hespitaii’   consumed poison. On
\ne;;aminat;io11t.}1e”4i’o’tVz1ici tiie deceased had already died
\n    in. the MLC register (brought<\/p>\n
dead},_  of the deceased was sent to<\/p>\n
  the foreiisie-..i:1aboratory, was required mahazar like spot<\/p>\n
 seiaure of clothes etc. were conducted. After<\/p>\n
 eam\ufb01letiea of the investigation and after receipt of the<\/p>\n
 V  reeords, charge sheet is \ufb02ied against the present 4<\/p>\n
 Vaccused. L\u00a7;.:.\/<\/p>\n
After committal, case was registered in SC  ” <\/p>\n
On the basis of the charge sheet, materials, acctgs-ed’  3<\/p>\n
charged for the offence under Sec\ufb01o\ufb01 4\u00a7\u00a73TA:, ‘3[0v?!\u00a5_B-:oi’.I_ <\/p>\n
and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dow_t’y Pi’eldi’bitior;.  V.<\/p>\n
accused denied the charges and  tc’-   and
\nhence they were tried in  e _ H V
\nIn order to tiae   accused, the<\/p>\n
prosecution reiied  fjie. e\u00e9idezice  38 witnesses got<\/p>\n
marked Ex.  1′–to  as__1\\\u00a5iOs 1 to 3. The accused
\nnot only denied_VVthex’presec1;ii:ien case and the evidence
\nwhen  12zider.._Section 318 Cr.P.C., but accused<\/p>\n
Ne.’ 31 has’ ‘f;}.ed::”i1is Written statement inter alia stating<\/p>\n
  he  15% with the deceased prior to marriage<\/p>\n
 orderttf) avoid the wrath from the parents of the<\/p>\n
  they were not liking the marriage because of<\/p>\n
  of community they elcped and got the mania’ ge<\/p>\n
‘:  at a temple and thereafter registered the marriage<\/p>\n
 iii the office of the Regstrar of Marriages. According to<\/p>\n
accused No.1 on 13.3.1992 he went to his factory and<\/p>\n
g%<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
when returned around 9.30 p.m. he saw his wife<\/p>\n
struggling and rolling on the gound and poison bot:*1_’e._<\/p>\n
lying near her. He took her immediately to the:” <\/p>\n
but she was declared dead.\n<\/p>\n
on earlier eeeasion the deceased
\nsuicide immediately after the    ‘es
\nsuch she was depressed. it is  t}*1;=s1t”VEas5 the
\nbrothers ef the deceased  to her of her<\/p>\n
legitimate share in  forcing her to<\/p>\n
sign the   because of that she<\/p>\n
might have eexin
\nOn goingtlzafough ‘t1je..e*aidence, the trial Court gving<\/p>\n
:.4.E;;e\ufb01:1e\ufb01t_’:(:\u00a7?f  eequitted all the accused.
\n  \u00abehaneegrlgme judment of acquittal the State has<\/p>\n
\ufb01led  ‘I’.lVI. Gayathri, learned Additional<\/p>\n
 lvstate l~*11bl.ie’ ‘}”d’osecut0r apmared for the State, after<\/p>\n
ausy” through the evidence and the judment<\/p>\n
 ttehettieiitly contended that the impugned judgment of<\/p>\n
\u00a7'””\n<\/p>\n
   ‘seetablishes the <\/p>\n
  prosecution these accused were responsibie
\n ‘4″_’:\u00a770_I__”–\u00ab:9ik:2ii”\u00a7oiz’1};y the death by suicide by the deceased unable
\n [f—_tc” the demand and harassment and cruelty fer not<\/p>\n
 {meeting the same. The second question would be as<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\nAt the outset, the fact {fiat accused No.1 married the<\/p>\n
deceased on or around 8. 11.1990 and died on
\nas consequence of the C0}.’lS111’3].p’\u20aci01′}. of organo  i”
\ninsecticide is not much in dispute. It__is to
\neven if at the initiai stage the defence\u00e9Vwe,s”  is
\nnever mamied the deceased
\naffairs, but as the defencesstofy-~~~eeif’ee1s_   the
\nWritten statement of accuseci   of them
\nwere married. ‘I’i1:s:Lf\u00a2_’aLct  met with
\nutliixamral  The fact that
\nshe consumed  cause of death was cine<\/p>\n
to this consuxtip\ufb01oiz of phosphorus insecticide is
\neijsg\ufb01lot diisptiie. AA V\u00a5;’vei1’Vothenvise, the evidence of the<\/p>\n
autVo_;:\u00a7sj;\u00abl ”  the post mortem report ciearly<\/p>\n
g Howe1{e’r.AVtx%hat is required to be seen is Whether as<\/p>\n
g’<\/p>\n
of  feppreciatien of evidence and the judgment<\/p>\n
iiiiiiiviveven iffherfe  eltemate View possible, at the appellate
\n .tl41s..t”a:lone would net give the jurisdiction or the<\/p>\n
   :5 the appellate court to reverse the \ufb01nclieg
\nVi espeeialiy of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial<\/p>\n
 \u00e9eurt unless the court is satis\ufb01ed, on going through the<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
admittedly the death of the Smt. Vidya has taken place
\nwithin 7 years of marriage and since there are allegatietxsi\u00e9
\nef dowry demand and cruelty, Whether the  ”
\nguilty ef the offence under ‘A2
\nthis substantive issue it is also
\naccused are guilty of the offence  6<\/p>\n
of the Downy Prohibition Act as,  ettempti by the<\/p>\n
prosecution to lead evidence  <\/p>\n
Befcrfe   .t;1e_1’i_t, since this is an appeal
\nagainst the .sacq11\u00a7t11\u00e9tl;*:.’A’we’ kept in mind the well<\/p>\n
settled priizciples’-\u00bbel”‘iew sown by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
  it is new fairly well settled that<\/p>\n
evidence as Well as the impugned judgment that the<\/p>\n
5%<\/p>\n
14<\/span>
\nreasons putforth by the prosecution we \ufb01nd that none<\/p>\n
them are consistent with one another. ThoughT <\/p>\n
witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely:  M<\/p>\n
in the sense they are brothers, cousin.-s;”‘ 1nate:ma1:\ufb01u:1_clesi’.V <\/p>\n
and aunts, their versions differ fromveachl other to  ”<\/p>\n
alleged dowry demand and  The
\nmade by the accused a\ufb02egecl to made* at the
\ntime of marriage is high’  ‘V  with the<\/p>\n
prosecution case. ffiiisv:jma.eriage’..’adxiiittedljgffwas between<\/p>\n
two persona   community, the
\ndeceased beloag to “commuxoity whereas the
\naccused   community and there was<\/p>\n
f\u00e9corzeent  the parents or relatives of the<\/p>\n
 dece:a;eed’___ar1il4 and that is the reason Why the<\/p>\n
VV3-AtlVec9,ased””‘–elo3\u00a7e<i.l' Afrom Bombay and landed initially at<\/p>\n
 arid'. then at Belgaum wherein she lead the<\/p>\n
 life with accused No. 1. Though all the relevant<\/p>\n
  especially witnesses like E-'W 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15,<\/p>\n
 18, 19, 29 and 34 have admitted that the marriage<\/p>\n
between accused No.1 and the deceased was in fact love<\/p>\n
5"'<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
over not meeting the demand. After careful  <\/p>\n
the entire material, We \ufb01nd    “‘ ‘V<\/p>\n
utterly failed to link accused Nose tca’_”=’\u00a7~ <\/p>\n
charges. As such at  <\/p>\n
judment of acquittal  far    A are
\nconcerned by the   any stretch
\nof imagnation eazxed   or even
\nirregular.    1;rvuqg\u00a2kk%has considered<\/p>\n
the eviden\u00a2:e—-~7Ln’VAV'(i L  swede I\ufb01aotvw\ufb01alici any in\ufb01rmity to
\ninterfere    ”  h<\/p>\n
   tI 1′-e  of accused No.1. As<\/p>\n
 an arranged II1aI’I’1ag’ e. As it<\/p>\n
 tfie pmsecution evidence itself, they had<\/p>\n
  here and as they belonged to di\ufb01erent<\/p>\n
  to escape \ufb01om the raths of their parents,<\/p>\n
 cg    got married in a temple at Stavanidhi in<\/p>\n
 \ufb01elgaum District. The secrecy of this marr1a’ ge is<\/p>\n
‘\ufb02<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
apparent \ufb01*om the prosecution evidence itse}j’;”~ ii” <\/p>\n
look into the evidence of the poojg;-ies — 9.ws.24and Z     <\/p>\n
25, who performed the   is <\/p>\n
possibly following requinemei_1ts__of  <\/p>\n
then they staxmd    many
\ndays, the parents  ._t_he dmsed
\ndiscovered tl1ie_::azspec\u00a7;”‘  evidence of
\nP.W.8 —   that while
\nliving at  the deceased and
\nP.W.8 had  is the movement of<\/p>\n
the deceased engi  that she was having<\/p>\n
511:  ea boy””of..ar.;otl1er community and infact<\/p>\n
 iz)\u00a7_”*\u00bb:i:c1e:”e.*-Laziiiriation-in~c11ief itself that their<\/p>\n
  deceased not to have relationship<\/p>\n
 boy  No. 1) since both community to<\/p>\n
  respectiv’ ely belong, will not meept the<\/p>\n
it   thereafter, the deceased was sent to Mumbai<\/p>\n
 with P.W.8. He has also admitted that after<\/p>\n
 Q&\u00a7<\/p>\n
 j.hdepe13deht  have supported the prosecution
\n.    neighbours of the accused, some<\/p>\n
 elosely related w the deceased family have
\n “.’i;mf.j:”st1:i1;f>ported the prosecution in this regand and as<\/p>\n
 we had to consider only the evidence of the<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
going to Mumbai, they started get\ufb01ng phone.
\none fine morning in July  me Q =
\ndisappeared from the house and
\nsearch for her and
\ntime the marriage
\nhad taken place.   eempipmised
\nwith the siulafifmy   ‘parents and
\nrelatives of    that the
\n   to Jainism and<\/p>\n
at that  ‘–   45 tholas of gold,<\/p>\n
silver articles – and other wearing<\/p>\n
eppgyrel\u00e9j   as demand of dowry is<\/p>\n
  as already neted none of the<\/p>\n
.9-””-‘<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
demand is either imagnary or an after
\nbackground of the ease of attachment   ”
\nwith accused belonging to other
\nevery possibility of the relatives of    *
\nan opportunity of the it  the
\ndeceased and tried  No.1 with the
\ndowry harassment    case. This
\neoneiusionef  by the very
\nfact of    to 4, who have
\nnothing    tnarriage of accused No.1<\/p>\n
and the’ ie’or’.’:’the alleged demand of dowzy.<\/p>\n
     were staying separately \ufb01mn their<\/p>\n
 I  because of the disparity between<\/p>\n
  and as such, the bene\ufb01t of doubt<\/p>\n
expixesilsitdior given by the trial Court in this regard<\/p>\n
A “ii  be said to be either irrational or illegal one. In<\/p>\n
t’    View, the neighbours would have been the best<\/p>\n
witnesses to substantiate the claim of the prosecution<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
as to the repeated or possibly every day  or<\/p>\n
cruelty to the deceased by the accused. <\/p>\n
absence of such material, even the are .. <\/p>\n
haphazardic, and   <\/p>\n
entire evidence, in our’.,_vieW,._Vdoes;i*:et:4′<\/p>\n
con\ufb01dmiee in our mind    of the
\nentire evidence, we    an attempt of<\/p>\n
improvement of    to stage,<\/p>\n
   siii V1VaVV1:1onV\u00bb’ and hence, we \ufb01nd
\nthat mg,  failed to bring home<\/p>\n
the ~g1e’lt   haceneed. The careful scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
.    as well as the reasons, in our<\/p>\n
   ~ held as either illegal or perverse one.<\/p>\n
   the trial Court has considemd the entire<\/p>\n
   ..aepeet-‘end evidence in correct prospective and as there<\/p>\n
A’   doubt, it has gven the bene\ufb01t of doubt to<\/p>\n
   “the accused. We find no Imson to disbelieve with this<\/p>\n
\ufb01nding and henee, the appeal is devoid of merits and<\/p>\n
E’<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
the same is rejected upholding the
\nacquittal of this accused.   V. u<\/p>\n
 ,  .\n<\/p>\n
Nsufl\u00e9-22.   V , J<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 Author: S.R.Bannurmath & Gowda 3 IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CECUIT BENCH THE E-I()N’BLE MR. JUSTICE AIN. vgnjpgaopp.-331% \u00a3:@\\’x,\u00a5::>A% V’: % Criminal Amm No.121a;%%or2 m__’_2_;;x%%% 7 AT DHARWA9 DATED THIS THE 77*’ DAY OF JULY, 2008 i3RESEN’I’ mm HON’BLf3 MR. […]<\/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-38268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-08T11:16:20+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\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-08T11:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2074,\"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\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-08T11:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-08T11:16:20+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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-08T11:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008"},"wordCount":2074,"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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-08T11:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-santhosh-baburao-shiroshi-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Santhosh Baburao Shiroshi on 7 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/38268","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=38268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}