{"id":39724,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-18T21:29:57","modified_gmt":"2015-12-18T15:59:57","slug":"m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
-1 1 :~\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\n \n\nDATED THIS THE IVWDAY OF sEPTEMBEP&..2'O:Q\u00e9\"I;'.1\"-. V.\nPRESENT : % '\ufb01 is'\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JusT:IcEI:.G'.   \nAND      L. ..  \n\nTHE HON' BLE MR. IUSTIOBVBS.NA;\"sATYA-ISAEIIAYANA \" A\nCRIMINAL.'APPEA\u00a3:..i$\u00a7OI4O'1\/\ufb01'OO'?'-A \n\nBETWEEN\nMAKRIs_H'AIAIA:-4| _ _  \nS\/O ANNAPPA   \"\nAGED\"5'?_YER;TS,\"     A\nRETIREO TEACHE_R,.f= A_  \nR,\/O cIv:.IkM--AGAL.u  '\n\n%  APPELLANT\n(By Sri: A 'PrI,B+4.AcV';PA_\\\/tA%,r\\eT',  )\n\n. \" -.S'TA\"i'\"E3OFEKARNATAKA\n' ._BY RLIRAL POLICE\n'CHICKAMAGALUR\n REPRESENTED BY THE\n A .-STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nA I HIGH COURT BUILDING,\nBANGALORE.\n\n    ..,-RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
  ,*(By Sri s.B. PAVIN, SPP., )<\/p>\n
-262-<\/span>
\nburn injuries. In the complaint filed as per Ex.Pr5,_>PW.1<\/p>\n
has further alleged that: the accused, who was <\/p>\n
Head Master in the School called her to  <\/p>\n
asked her to sit by his side and toid\u00bb–\u00abher her. d<\/p>\n
When the complainant protester}, .,pi.ill\u20aclid~..,t’he,V<\/p>\n
hands of the complainant andthe compla–i.,nant*slappVed on’<\/p>\n
the cheek of the accused.  th-e.’accus’ed threatened
\nthe complainant statin”gV:t_hat* and brought
\nthe acid b0tt’\u00a2.T”9_m  acid on her
\nwith the   as a result, the
\ncompla_inan’t~..fsulstained.’  her body and face.
\nFurther,  threatened by the accused
\nthat if sh’e.:_’_we,rex”t,o'”tevealabout the incident to anybody,<\/p>\n
she._iryould be he would tell that she was having<\/p>\n
 _rel.atio’nship with him. Therefore, in the said<\/p>\n
“clrc’uVms’taVn~c_es,,'”she did not reveal the incident before<\/p>\n
 _ anybody.’  the basis of the said complaint, PW.9 \u00ab T.<\/p>\n
,El\\llageshv””Shet:ty included the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
 ..__1Secti’ons 307 read with 354 of the IPC and prepared the<\/p>\n
if ‘*F;iR and sought permission to include the offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC as per<\/p>\n
vi’<\/p>\n
–:7:–\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P6. On 14.03.1999 at about 7:15 p.ni,—._ the<\/p>\n
complainant produced saree, bra and blouse
\nthem under panchanama as per M.O. Nos.2l::to
\nmahazar Ex.P3 in the presence o\u00a7””PVv’s.S
\nto the place of the incident on
\npillow and a broom stick.\u00bb=vv’nich   the’
\ncomplainant. They were als.o””iaijg_rnt”here and there. He
\nseized them by conductin_g  per Ex.P4 in
\nthe Presence  4. He has
\nsigned the  *.9.e_r”\u00ab’iS>t._:i34V.(‘d). He has recorded
\nthe staytemelntsl o1f:;.:Pw.;_j2:yvei\u00e9warnalgowri, Vasanthakumari
\n(PW.3) and He received injury
\ncertificate on  iEx.P5 from Joidai Nursing
\nHorne.  the V’a’rticle_s.i’or chemical examination. He
\n___on 24.09.1998 as per Ex.P7. He g
\n receiv’edV”.bVacl{  a.:rti.cles sent for chemical examination.
\n .Vcom;9.l”etio–nJ  the investigation, he has filed the\n<\/p>\n
44.l\u00e9.ch4a’rg..ess\u00a71eetagainst the accused of having committed the %<\/p>\n
 ‘punishable under Section 354 and 307 of the IPC.
\n‘  ‘ i.s\u00abi,2\u00a7<\/p>\n
~282-\n<\/p>\n
2.2 Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed’\u00ab..to be<\/p>\n
tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1
\nmarked Exs.P1 to P7(a) and also got
\nto 6. On behalf of the accused;”‘t–he’
\naccused under Section 313
\ndefence of the accused is onle.y:\u00a7’f~~d}eniaf case oil’
\nthe accused that when their–corrui*plainant\u00e9’w’e-nt-‘hear the
\ncupboard, the acid  on her and she
\nhas sustained” irij’u_ry.  Dws.1 to
\n4 were   got marked.\n<\/p>\n
 The by judgement dated
\n27.02.2007; held  prosecution has proved beyond
\nv4._.reason.aig’leidoeubtl accused used criminal force
\n  the modesty of the complainant
\n   proved beyond reasonabie doubt
\n that thleaecculsed, with an intention of causing the death of
\n complavilnant, threw acid on her and caused her burn
\n ‘arid if the injuries had caused the death of the
\nit fcom’piainant, the accused would have been guifty of the<\/p>\n
4′”<.'.oi'fence of murder and thereby, he has committed the
\n\u00b0 'x-moi<\/p>\n
\u00ab:9\u00bb
\noffences punishabie under Sections 354 and 30\u00ab7–._IPC.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the learned triai Judge has <\/p>\n
accused is guilty of having committed <\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 354 ;:in'd"~30'7f_of_:vith'e'._I\u00e9C–7and.<\/p>\n
after hearing the learned cou\u00b0nsel.A_l "f1lorl'"t.he* . accuised';~.u<\/p>\n
sentenced the accused as ref.erregd to above};  being'<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the said jud-genfrenlt-\u00bbt,_of co'n~viction and
\nsentence passed  Court ~ II,
\nChikmagalur, in  emits\/2ooo dated
\n27.02.2002,-'the_  vprefeirred this appeal.<\/p>\n
 ._  learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appepllantVand'.the.:_l.earned State Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
 appeari'ng~ for the '~res_p_ondent – State.<\/p>\n
 counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
V . hasuss through the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and<\/p>\n
 to"4 ad the contents of the documents Exs.P1 to P7<\/p>\n
.3 and Exs.D1 to D23 and submitted that the prosecution<\/p>\n
3  has miserably failed to prove that the appellant – accused<\/p>\n
3. has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354<\/p>\n
–: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
regard to the fact that the prosecution has proved beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt that the appellant has <\/p>\n
offences punishable under Sections 354 <\/p>\n
and having regard to the fact thatthe”app-ellanty”bei.ng:V”tVhe\u00ab<\/p>\n
Head Master of the school had  hisyposvition=;.a’ndVF.g<\/p>\n
caused injury to the complain:a’n.t  swith
\nthe intention of killing,-her, undelf’their..circu\u00e9rn’sta’n:ces, the
\ntrial court has rightly’\ufb01__h’eld..i;’thatg:.l’ithez_jappellant has
\nattempted to cause.  Therefore,<\/p>\n
the sentenced” appellant by the trial<\/p>\n
Court forr.the”‘o_ffei’it::es p.uniVshabier~ under Sections 354 and I<\/p>\n
307 IPVCL, ‘-is  same does not call for<\/p>\n
inte rfe rence  th  a p’pea!
\nA  fa.  ‘\u00ab.pria’vin_g regard to the above said pleadings, the<\/p>\n
p\u00a5le~s.h’ts.th’etharis’e.’ier determination in this appeal are:~<\/p>\n
\u00e9 ‘ 1. Whether the finding of the trial
\nV”i-Court that the prosecution has proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt that the accused — appellant
\nherein has committed the offences punishable<\/p>\n
“-.v\\”\/I’;-\/\\\u00a7__r>\u00bbx–3s<\/p>\n
bcontentions of the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
–: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC., is justified”-~._
\nor calls for interference in this appeal ? .’<\/p>\n
2. Whether the sentence_.,._irnp.osed ._
\nupon the accused for the oifen’ces punisha\u00abb’ie_”*’V”
\nundersecuons354anui3o7gr:?c;isgusaneaj\u00bbh’<\/p>\n
or calls for interference\u00bb’in___this apbleai   <\/p>\n
We answer the above points fo-i*”d.\u00e9_terini.nation”as”follows :<\/p>\n
PointiVo.1 : ‘The \ufb01rm\ufb01ng oi the i\ufb01ai cougt that the
\nproseci.ition  ljproved   reasonable .
\ndoubt tuhait”‘i;:he.’lappeii.\u00e9in:t:’herein – accused has
\n  jloffencesvlpyunishable under
\nsecnaas 354 and 30? grxpcresjusu\ufb01ed and
\nthe’hsarnedo’e.s\u00b0n’oticaii for interference in this<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
:. g<\/p>\n
.-g
\ns
\nE<\/p>\n
iapDeaL’__c~*<\/p>\n
Poinlt-~.No~.V2′ ” V.:_:’i’i5tiEi::sentence imiilosed by the trial Court<\/p>\n
 VA’.’~..agVain’s’t–:theappellant – accused is liable to be<\/p>\n
“~.mo–dified’ as per the final order for the
\nfoiioiiving:\n<\/p>\n
REA\u00a7QNS<\/p>\n
 _l3gigL_ig9._\u00a7 We have considered the<\/p>\n
\\\u00a7~*<\/p>\n
w:16:–\n<\/p>\n
parties with reference to the material on recorciaand<\/p>\n
scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence_”:aVd’dlucedu<\/p>\n
before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
8. PW.1 \u00ab D. Vasanthakuiri_a:i*iis the_-icomplaixnant’3<\/p>\n
in this case. PW.2 \u00ab Swja”rnagowr.i.’a.ncl:  H<\/p>\n
Vasanthakumari were i\u00ab–working”‘ a;<i;:':'l'fe'a.cher\u00e9s"i'r1 the same
\nSchool, wherein the"4"appe'irla.\u00a7nt' a%:\u00a2u'sed and the
\ncomplainant   they have gone to
\nthe spot of theif'i\u00bbn_cid:e'nt'ii.:eVg~;__  of the appellant –
\naccused;~–wH5A'iAiia;':"7il9.rki-llglilvas H'ea~:i'\u00a7 Master of the School
\nimmediately of the complainant (PW.1).<\/p>\n
PW.4 – Man}n_J.na.thag_ovsicl'a'\u00abhad come to the School on the<\/p>\n
 date..4iaf'vvt'heV incide-nt_.__a.lvong with one Mariyappa, whose<\/p>\n
(_','!'!aV'l1'dVVSOl\ufb01l"W\u20ac2.S""I'lOt permitted to attend the school -on the<\/p>\n
  not attend the school regularly and he<\/p>\n
–has also. t_V;.one.Vto the spot immediately on hearing the cry
\nif””4’\ufb02:o:f”the._cornplainant —- PW.1 and he is also a witness to the\n<\/p>\n
 – Exs.P2 and P4, wherein M.O. No.1 and MD.
\n“‘–e:iKlos.5 and 6 respectively were seized. PW\/5 – Dr. 3.P.<\/p>\n
Krishnegowda is the Medical Officer, who treated the<\/p>\n
\u00ab. gav\u00e9<\/p>\n
–:17:–\n<\/p>\n
compiainant and issued the wound certificate as per.g’Ex.P5.<\/p>\n
PW.6 is a witness to the mahazar — Ex.P3. But,_.h_’_if <\/p>\n
supported the case of the prosecution. How4e_yerj,*-in <\/p>\n
cross–examination by the iearneid””P’ub.Iic’._Prosecutor;tithe”.<\/p>\n
has stated that he has signed  –= <\/p>\n
after reading its contents, wi:vi_cii..gaccordigngdto yvere
\ntrue. He has identifivedvM.Q..””i~iti_S:.i}”a~3 PW.7 –
\nLokeshraj Urs is a witune\ufb01ss   under Ex.P3
\nunder which,    “seized. PW.8 —\n<\/p>\n
Paiakshappctjlivagesh Shetty are the<\/p>\n
investig_atiio.n_ifoffiicets\u00bb. Th.e’i.r’evid’~ence is already referred to<\/p>\n
while narrating~thVe.fac:ts.\n<\/p>\n
 DVW.’i””-‘\u00ab..!\\1.agaraj was working as Education<\/p>\n
  office, Chikmagalur and he has<\/p>\n
a’ccorn.paVniedj.the DDPI., to Joidal Nursing Home on<\/p>\n
V –V26.G244.’19\u00a79.”‘fDW.2 — H.N. Gangadhar was working as<\/p>\n
., “‘;{eadi–.i\u00a74aster in Kabbigere Higher Primary Schooi and he<\/p>\n
 sipoiken to about his visit to the Magadi Higher Primary<\/p>\n
T u:fSchooi as custodian of examination on 16.03.1999. DW.3<\/p>\n
‘4 x– M.S. Nirvanasiddappa is a resident of Magadi and he was<\/p>\n
\\\/QVJZ.\n<\/p>\n
~I  Z~
\nafter abusing her and trying to outrage her modesty and<\/p>\n
according to the appeiiant ~ accused, there’:V:v.;a:’3g:”‘van<\/p>\n
accidentai fail of the acid from the bottie’ <\/p>\n
compiainant went near the cupbo’a’rd–,. gwijyereiiintajciwd bT0tti–e <\/p>\n
had been kept. It is weii settied’.th:a_t  <\/p>\n
prosecution to prove beyond’~v.5easo’na_bi’e_d’ou’bt””i’ts”:case”<\/p>\n
against the accused and buirdVen.~.o’F-.tAproof’required to be
\ndischarged by the accused defence is not
\none beyond” 4re:as_ona;b’ie”gcdoujjb\ufb01f.V_piiVt,~:preponderance of
\nprobability”   to appreciate the
\nevidence.Vsiaiidwitnesses in the light of the<\/p>\n
docurvhAen’ts got”:rn.arkedVu._:t’hrough them to find out as to<\/p>\n
whether”th.e  has proved beyond reasonable _<\/p>\n
dou5btthat it .t._h\u00a2.vBCCused who abused the compiainant<\/p>\n
i ;an\u00ab:lVo=.1_t’rag.\u00e9ij’v her modesty and tried to cause her murder<\/p>\n
‘bgy”trhrowAi”n:g acid on her and caused her burn injuries or as<\/p>\n
to \u00e9whether\u00e9i the accused — appeiiant has been successfui in<\/p>\n
 Asubstavntiating his defence that the injuries that were<\/p>\n
iiisuistained by the complainant was due to accidentai fail of<\/p>\n
it “acid from the bottie while the complainant went near the<\/p>\n
cu p boa rd.\n<\/p>\n
tang\/\u00bbV,Q><\/p>\n
-: 20 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
11. The prosecution in order to bring home the<\/p>\n
guiit of the appeiiant ~ accused is refying mainly upon
\nevidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 8 and 9 and the documents –.  <\/p>\n
Exs.P1 to P7(a).\n<\/p>\n
12. PW.l ~ D. Vasanthakun\u00a7ar:i:’,’~~the.vco.h\u00a7piaViihaVnty’H”V
\nhas deposed in her examinati.or:–in~ch’iet’i_:beiferge the”triai’V\u00a7
\nCourt on 09.10.2006 that she  she
\nwas working as Teacher in x’VF”rimary
\nSchoof from 04.02..19307′:g%;t’~,,ggMagaath-.  was her_first %
\nappointment.  Head? Master of the<\/p>\n
Schooi.   appointed, he used to can<\/p>\n
her to attendVV”a_,f.itheV’  saying that she shoufd<\/p>\n
ieyarn th.at,anid sheV’u’s’eii_?_Q,attend the said work. She used
\nsitting on the right side of his tabfe in<\/p>\n
 his offiicheu  year, accused did not troubfe her,
\n tmt, after grit; year, he started giving her troubie. PW.1
\n‘i.fhas:s..’,:furtherdeposed that the accused started to iook at
\n manner and he used to teii her that he was
\n  io.v’in’g’her very much and that she too should love him and<\/p>\n
 saying 50, he used to give her torture. Due to such
\n.. ,9′ g<\/p>\n
~: 34 :-\n<\/p>\n
on the date of her cross–examination, she was working’.-in<\/p>\n
Magadi School.\n<\/p>\n
13. PW.2 — Swarnagowri has”\u00bbdepo–“sedhin]_ <\/p>\n
examination-in–chief that PW.1 was her7′.AcoileaguAe.~_ <\/p>\n
was working as Assistant Teacherifrom 3199.8 “at:
\nMagadi School. In the year 1999-,VVV..the”accosed”was the
\nHead Master of the saidu”s\u00e9cl-1oo.l_.f ;i5MV’a$a~nthakumari
\n(PW.1) was also wvorking  school at
\nthat time. retained PW.1 in
\nhis office in of the students<\/p>\n
— Harish and  She went back to her<\/p>\n
ciass. Her”Q;_ass.V  the side of the office of the<\/p>\n
  3:45 pm., she heard about the
\n office of the Head Master. So, she went
\nS to  lying by the side of the chair, which<\/p>\n
if was ltiheregpy\u00e9llllthe side of the tabie of the Head Master
\nififef”Vs.ayi:~iig4_.Aaiootit the burning sensation as “Uri Uri”. At that
\n accused and PW.1 were the oniy persons present<\/p>\n
if :\ufb02in””the said room. She asked PW.1 as to what had<\/p>\n
“happened. But, PW.1 was not in a position to speak.<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
%W”.”.””‘<\/p>\n
-: 38 :9<\/p>\n
force of the accused, they have given such statement. It,
\nis not true to suggest that the accused did not force.A.th:e’mi’g:’~.r2<\/p>\n
to give such statement. Poiice did not enquire ah.ojut,tii:er-ii’ <\/p>\n
incident either on 02.03.1999 or o3.o3>;1\u00ab999.rii” orig
\ntrue to Suggest that she became HeadiViist’ress'”‘a.’nd<\/p>\n
has secreted time tabie and notes.._vof~._iessoiis. ‘  iVs–Tn’o’t <\/p>\n
true to suggest that she has\u00a7ecre.t-eciV:A’\u00a7hera9__i\/vithavieiiv to
\nsuppress the truth. It isiiiitrue  B.E.O.,
\nA.E.O., Kreedadhilfarig’ and  the School.\n<\/p>\n
She is a resident    PW.3 was<\/p>\n
residing neari.Anj’a~.nev’\u00e9::r:,Tem pieiai Vij a.y’apura. Kana ka raj,<\/p>\n
brother–in–iaw of  wasviuaifsojVreside’nt__’of Vijayapura at ‘<\/p>\n
that time. It is not true_4_to.,su’gg’Ves_t’  herself and PW.3
\ndid not __i.nsist   the to the Government
\ni-iospitalz.'”fi’he”e’cVcu.sediohjected for taking the victim to
\nthe\ufb01\ufb01overnment.’-H’osp:iVtag:!–f  is not true to suggest PW.2,<\/p>\n
PW.3V7ia_nd~VKanai\u20acara\u00a7,Vwere the residents of Vijayapura.<\/p>\n
‘:9   ivoiVun.tariiyr~-admitted PW.1 to Joidai Nursing Home.<\/p>\n
9, Police did not make enquiry about the<\/p>\n
 It is not true to suggest that the Teachers<\/p>\n
Ass.o’c.iatio’n instigated her to give faise statement against<\/p>\n
‘x;i.\u00bbc\ufb01*<\/p>\n
…………w..~_,i……_.n_..u_i,”s_..\\m,….i .. _ .   1’   K ., ,. i. V  ._._, ‘\u00abV~4;ulIvIvIIiV Al<\/p>\n
f.. V__<\/p>\n
-; 39 ;-\n<\/p>\n
the aocused and they told her that in the event of<\/p>\n
suspension of the accused, she would become Head<\/p>\n
Mistress.\n<\/p>\n
14. PW.3 – Vasanthakumari was  as , <\/p>\n
Physical Instructor in Magadi School.
\nand 2. They were her colleagues. She knsows.’the”accuse’d\u00bb-,
\nand he was the Head Master of the”a’sai__ci’
\ndeposed that on 23.o2.199s,arte;ir’ii 1
\npm. to 1-45 p.m.,   and
\nwarned them not  he calls
\nanybody”… “to their respective classes.
\nAccused retainevd  office in respect of writing
\n T.c.7y.”s.iE.o. iiise.y.,sh_ey.was there in the office and at 3:45
\n shouting of PW.1. PW.1 was crying as
\n‘lA~mrna,  By that time, she came out of the class.
\nV –VPW.2.'”‘w..eh.:t. tovgthe office. She also went to the office and
\n ‘struggling by the side of the table of the Head
\n on the ground. Her body and clothes were
\nit :’–.:V’VVb’u”rning. Accused told them that the acid bottle fell down<\/p>\n
3 on PW.1. But, it was not so. PW.1 was not in a position<\/p>\n
\\9\u00bb\\\u00a7>’<\/p>\n
-22-<\/span>
\naccused did not give opportunity to speak anythingggwith<\/p>\n
the B.E.O. It is not true to suggest that <\/p>\n
keeping all the Teachers outside and by caiiing_:::oi1jei..by”o’n’e_A\u00a7V’ <\/p>\n
inside, recorded their statements.” ‘*Acc’usec.’.:Vt’hr_ea’te’neci.<\/p>\n
them to write on 26.02.1999.  :i’sV_xnot2.i;_zfuei~<\/p>\n
accused did not threaten  a.’mafnnVe;f.””W’ On 2′<\/p>\n
24.02.1999, the acc.useqVAv…..g’\u00e9:t ‘statement of
\nSwarnagowri (PW.2).  signature on<\/p>\n
the statement’_ijy’i.._forg:e’.”:”_’c3n\u00a7\u00a2ffg.fgai’n;\u00a7’ the accused got<\/p>\n
separate sta’tein__e’n>ts_V’fro.m.__thei’n_ 26.02.1999. PW.3 has ,<\/p>\n
again sr.ated\u00b0th.at’*h.er  Ex.D1 is given by her
\non 27:V;.Q2..1’999’u”Mien came. She does not<\/p>\n
remember’i._wheth”e.r2’she:..’i’has given any statement on<\/p>\n
 26.0.2.J.9i99.  i’s–vnot_gti’ue to suggest that the accused did<\/p>\n
 noi\u00ab.ask.,>vA_ainyioody to give cow dung and he did not ask<\/p>\n
t’heVn5..v.to’V Vasanthakumari (PW.1) to drink cow<\/p>\n
2 2 dung””vva’ter..’ It is not true to suggest that herseif and<\/p>\n
it2″”\ufb02v.9vvarnagVowri (PW.2) did not insist the accused to admit<\/p>\n
 to Government Hospital. The accused refused for<\/p>\n
2  same and insisted them to admit PW.1 to private<\/p>\n
nursing Home. Accused came on a separate vehicle to<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
‘ \u00a7L\/\\V,>r3s<\/p>\n
~: 45 :-\n<\/p>\n
were present in the office room. It is true that Pwgt. was<\/p>\n
science teacher and she was teaching 5″‘ and G\ufb01clfasses.<\/p>\n
It is not true to suggest that she was taking-.y’:\u00a7'””V  <\/p>\n
Pankaja was taking the said cl.ass\u00bb..a’s  <\/p>\n
She was also taking 3″‘ and 4″‘ iciasses. it  not <\/p>\n
suggest that it is when PW.’t._vo’eened”‘ith_e to’5l<eep" '<\/p>\n
notes of lessons, acidhad fa–!leg'ri\u00ab_o'n..gAher' and that herself<\/p>\n
and Swarnagowri. (PW".2a)g–rhadvthe same. It is<\/p>\n
not true to s4ugg_est;'t'hat::'on"the three higher I<\/p>\n
officers open'ed  -.and  acid bottle, cap
\nof   thsereiiwas fall of acid inside of
\nthe door of  they saw the same and went
\naway ands:_'_'theyV"haye=  reported the same to higher<\/p>\n
auth;oritii.es. iieryryelation with the said three officers are<\/p>\n
  It is not true to suggest that when B.E.O.,<\/p>\n
cahae to:"Vt'h.e'f5c'hool, the betterment Committee Chairman<\/p>\n
~ li'evan:as'rd.dappa was also present . It is true that on<\/p>\n
23.02.1999, Revanasiddappa was getting the bore well<\/p>\n
if  "'r.e_pa'iA'red in the School. It is not true to suggest that the<\/p>\n
 ""accused was objecting for her work as the same was not<\/p>\n
satisfactory. It is not true to suggest that PW.1, herself<\/p>\n
Ks twin<\/p>\n
'\\\/'<\/p>\n
–: 46 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and Swarnagowri (PW.2) are friends and they were-_not in<\/p>\n
good terms with the accused. It is not true trids-ugg.gest<\/p>\n
that she was deposing falsely due to the
\ntrue that B.E.O., has made allegation’agiainstherllper
\nEx.D3. It is true that she was  <\/p>\n
volunteered that she was  wit’h.ou’t  any”<\/p>\n
enquiry. She did not act V_a-da’ma’n.t_iy before.-veeranna.<\/p>\n
But, he made allegationsherfasyper Ex.D4. It is<\/p>\n
further eiicited’_in,__theicro’s’s:{:e~x:ar\ufb01ination”of PW.3 that she ‘<\/p>\n
admits her4–sjig4n\u00e9;tii’;re”o:n_A__lE\u00bbx.DSilasper Ex.D5(a) and the
\nsignatureoFV.S’wa:;riagojvv’.ri’ (“P’W..2)5as per Ex.D5(b). But,
\nshe does’ not  of the said statement. It<\/p>\n
is not truextol  they have voluntarily given<\/p>\n
 theirgstatement’ a–syQ_er.Ex.D6. It is further eiicited that<\/p>\n
 acco.rdm_g:.to.:h–er, the said statement was taken under<\/p>\n
 complained to their higher authorities<\/p>\n
it .Vabout”‘taking'”those statements by force. But, they have
\n giverrthe same in writing. It is further elicited in her
\n‘r__~_crt:.ss’–e”><amination that from the Joldal Nursing Home,<\/p>\n
it :'.i:V"t'h'ey did not try to take the victim to Government Hospital.<\/p>\n
"Witness has volunteered that the accused was looking<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
-1472-<\/span>
\nafter the victim. It is not true tosuggest that she has filed<\/p>\n
the compiaint faiseiy against the accused. The oiigfiinaiior<\/p>\n
Ex.D14 was shown to PW.3 and it was marked  <\/p>\n
and the witness has volunteered” that 7_it  ‘aT.fu’lii<\/p>\n
statement. It is not true to sugdestcthat  .Vbott!le’~.feii._VV<\/p>\n
on the body of Vasantha l'<tIffi'a_l'F (Ai5\\."J__.1).V_w!jen:"'s'h'e'V'wast'<\/p>\n
present in the office room. VAIt—'ifs':no'i:.._true "tosurgjgest that
\nshe has given statementto. "effect that it was
\nan accidental faii pf  isfurther elicited
\nthat it is  'isVu:g'gesi:" a view to give<\/p>\n
harassment"to:'thle;,aVccuseci; sriewcis cieposing faisely.<\/p>\n
15. A  x–”  ivlanjunathagowda has deposed in<\/p>\n
 his examicnationl\u00e9inaicvhief that he knows PWs.1 to 3 and the<\/p>\n
 a:ccu_s:ed.i ~Ai\u00a7iis:’w.ife was teacher in Shishuvihara at Magadi<\/p>\n
a’bo{;lt__8   before the date of his deposition. So,<\/p>\n
 _they”weria.re’siding at Magadi. At that time, he was a<\/p>\n
agent. Accused was Head Master at that time.<\/p>\n
 years next before the date of his deposition, he<\/p>\n
if –:’..:’we’nt to the School along with one Mariyappa, whose<\/p>\n
if ” “grand son was not permitted to attend the School on the<\/p>\n
Wxg<\/p>\n
‘ -: 48 :\u00ab
\nground that he did not attend the Schooi regu!ariyV..-~___PW.1<\/p>\n
was there in the School and the accused was asking-.h’eer’t_.o<\/p>\n
write a report against the said boy to<\/p>\n
intervened and asked the accusedto-.excijsevithe]_sVai’di1\u00abbo;{<\/p>\n
and toid him that in future, sutij 7t.iji”rigsii”-woiiiodi. <\/p>\n
repeated. At about 4 or  he._hea,Vrd’v_:th’e’sound oft”<\/p>\n
shouting from the Schooi an.d~~~ch”i’idren weretseavrching for _<\/p>\n
cow dung. Immediateiij\/,’\u00e9’h’e Cow dung
\nwas Dasted on_the_Vwas shifted in an
\nAuto. Atroom, there were
\nstains Aithetabie, chair and on the
\nground,  near the cupboard. He went<\/p>\n
to the hospitiaf  not in a position to speak.<\/p>\n
_ Firsti: the spo’t”‘–.pa\u00a7_n_chanama was conducted and then,<\/p>\n
 .’th’i\u00abng’;Vs .we.re’:seized and he acted as a pancha to the said<\/p>\n
i”‘paAn.chaVnaar\ufb01a  Exs.P2 and P4. He has identified his<\/p>\n
 signator*eAs”as per Exs.P2(b) and P4(c) and has aiso<\/p>\n
 M.O. i\\ios.1, S and 6 which were seized under<\/p>\n
.’   and P4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-2 49 :–\n<\/p>\n
15.1 It is elicited in the cross—examination o\u00a7___PW.4<\/p>\n
that it is not true to suggest that he used to blackV:rna’ilg:’tvhe<\/p>\n
public by stating that he was a paper <\/p>\n
reporter. It is not true to suggest \u00bbthat’4whivle’, he<\/p>\n
was accompanying the Police when<\/p>\n
is true that himself and Gowra’in_ma were’the:o’nivVy”‘p’e’rsons”‘<\/p>\n
residing at Magadi. Itis  tosuggest. that he did
\nnot go to School along respect of his
\ngrand son. He\u00e9doegs  the grand son
\nof Mariyap.p–a\u00a7”rvdidi.Ilireyceiya\ufb02arnegrrio  the School to the
\neffectVythat_Ahe::”w:aIs:A_the School properly. He
\ndoes not  Mariyappa and his son did<\/p>\n
give applrcatiovnxto School. Mariyappa was requesting<\/p>\n
D. Mgiasanthakwumayri ____ M(i>W.1) to entertain his grand son. I<\/p>\n
  stated that Mariyappa was requesting the<\/p>\n
l”‘acVcused’ and n;o’t”D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1). It is not true<\/p>\n
thalt”‘he”–did’ not talk to the accused in respect of the grand V<\/p>\n
 Mlariyappa. It is not true to suggest that he did not<\/p>\n
.’  uh-ea’r”the sound at about 4 to 4:30 pm. and that children<\/p>\n
 “were not searing for cow dung and that he did not go to<\/p>\n
the School. He does not know as to whether the<\/p>\n
9: 50 :-\n<\/p>\n
neighbouring residents were present or not at that_–time.<\/p>\n
Poiice did record his statement in the School by <\/p>\n
name. His statement may have been –sf’\u00e9covrd.e’d\u00b0ion’a ”<\/p>\n
15.03.1999. Among the Police, he-“does at<\/p>\n
to who recorded his statement. or<\/p>\n
Poiice at that time. He  rern_em1)ie:  xjwho ”<\/p>\n
were the persons present atVA.thua.t_:-tiirne. ‘i–ie”h.adv:\u00a7gone to
\nJoldal Nursing Home in”t’iie.’e\\’ke_nii\u00bbn.g teil the
\nactual time at  the hospitai,
\nthe son of{._ were there in
\nadditionto It is not true to
\nsuggest,tha’t   Vasanthakumari and her<\/p>\n
parents werei present. “ai.’:}that time. According to him,<\/p>\n
 there5\u00e9:.wa’s iabeI”on____the bottle ~ M.O. No.1. He does not<\/p>\n
  a,s’\u00abto\u00ab.,:wh_ether the chit bearing his signature was<\/p>\n
  It is not true to suggest that M.().\n<\/p>\n
V -V No.t”is ‘not.’the bottle which was seized on that day. He<\/p>\n
‘”‘v.’u.,\u00a2anin.ot Vvwsay the contents of the mahazar. E3.<\/p>\n
9 \\\/asanthakumari (PW.i) toid on the said day that there<\/p>\n
 was acid on the chair, piilow and broom stick.<\/p>\n
\\\/’<\/p>\n
-151:\u00bb\n<\/p>\n
16. PWs.5 to 9 have not spoken to about the<\/p>\n
incident. PW.5 — Dr. ;i.P. Krishnegowda is the Medical<\/p>\n
Officer who treated the compiainant at JoldalVV.i\\i.uE’s_ing<\/p>\n
Horne. PW.6 — Dayananda has turned hostiie;;””‘Acco\u00a7jdi:;frg\u00ab _<\/p>\n
to the prosecution, PW.6 was a  <\/p>\n
panchanama – E> Vitsokesha is a pancha witness for panchanarna –<\/p>\n
 which M.O. Nos.2 to 4 were seized and he<\/p>\n
 V  P  identified his signature as per Ex..P3(c) and MD. Nos.2<\/p>\n
 4. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
9  ” “present.\n<\/p>\n
-; 53 :-\n<\/p>\n
There was acid fall on the right side of the face,-.___right<\/p>\n
shoulder, right arm and right side of cheek. There\ufb02wevre<\/p>\n
10 to 150\/o burn injuries. He treated her  ”
\nfurther, she was admitted in their.:Hospitai_” 9′
\nthere up to 26.02.1999 as indoor;”ipVat7ient. lli’~;~.t,_V;_%\u00ab;,s;1.<\/p>\n
to his opinion, the said injiiirtes we”re__ dI.iVe’-.:to”~.it\ufb01e ‘Vacldf<\/p>\n
Accordingly, he has issued vth–eV.g’i.*.tound certificatie as per
\nEx.P5, which bears hisVi\u00e9lsignattireltlliastheir.’Ex.P5(a). He
\nasked the compiai,nant;”to”corne  on aiternative
\nday for    _r-otwlcome.<\/p>\n
  cross–examination of PW.5
\nthat it    when the complainant was<\/p>\n
adrni%tted~to the ihospgigtal, her generai condition was good<\/p>\n
 ?i3urn”‘~-.injuries were getting healed up when she
\n and even at that time, her general<\/p>\n
V’ .V con’d’iti.on:Jwa.s good. It is not true to suggest that when
\n4Aitin’pwtiaeiiacornolainant was admitted to their hospitai, her<\/p>\n
_’  husbalnd, her brother~in~law and father~–in~Eaw were aiso<\/p>\n
V: 54:-\n<\/p>\n
18. It is clear from the scrutiny of the above said<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that the evidence of PW.5;._”wi.hy–ich..A\u00a7s<\/p>\n
relied upon by the learned counsel appea’ring..l.:’t’o.r”i<\/p>\n
Appellant to the effect that at theirearlie’stWpo’int of.4.’ti,m”e.. it<\/p>\n
when the complainant was taken’\u00abfor’.A_AtreatW~eAntto <\/p>\n
Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda in 3oida’l’~w..r\u00a7iursi.rig__ Honda,V”sh’e”i’nerself”‘V<\/p>\n
has stated before himfthat sh.e–VVs’ust’a–i..nedhlbllurn.injuries due
\nto accidental fall of acigytancj. was responsible
\nfor the same and the said  not treated as
\nhostile and   the fact that the
\nin3urY,S1.iSfaVl’rl\u00e9U;l4’Z’i\u00a5 to accidental fall of acid
\nand   “i that two colleagues of the
\ncomplainant,  in the hospital also told<\/p>\n
him\u00a7that~ the b’urnVi__nju.:*y sustained by the complainant was<\/p>\n
.clue_to__accidental fall of acid. However, on close scrutiny<\/p>\n
 of PW.5, it is clear that PW.5 has no<\/p>\n
reo’ard”.truth. His evidence would show that the<\/p>\n
 had come to the hospital and met the Doctor<\/p>\n
  prior to the arrival of the injured complainant<\/p>\n
“”(“PW.1) and he informed PW.5 that his colleague had<\/p>\n
sustained injury and was weeping. Though PW.5 contends<\/p>\n
xxvbyg<\/p>\n
–: 56 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
had poured acid on her and that she herself was”
\nresponsible for the injury and to that extent, the evidence’-.._,l_l’~._v<\/p>\n
of PW.S, which is not truthful and reliable, cannot at ‘V’ <\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant that the e;v.i’de:’ncre’ <\/p>\n
helpful to the appellant – accu’s_e’d_VtolAprove_ tlhatusmg <\/p>\n
prosecution has filed a false case..l:VVajg,,r_ai’n.st the\u00abi.a_ccu\u00a7sed
\ncannot at all be accepted. clea’r\u00a7.,fArori'{tithe -evidence of
\nPWs.1 to 3 that the tfUt_lf1 took place
\nhas not been stated or”;PW.3 prior to<\/p>\n
the inforrnation,   was discharged<\/p>\n
.==…,~, \u00bb , T.” ,\u00ab .,.. ,,,,,l,_:. ..<\/p>\n
The contention of the_learned””coufnsleilVB, <\/p>\n
from lj.old–a’l  ‘run by PW.5 and her family<\/p>\n
rnernbers”compeileldtherlftotell the truth and the complaint<\/p>\n
 waog\ufb01iecl on ‘lo2.p3.1999. It was only after 16.03.1999
\n\u00bb that’ PWs.2 and 3 about the actual incident that<\/p>\n
  and the cause of her injury and that the<\/p>\n
said in’juri”e”s were caused due to pouring of acid on her by<\/p>\n
 “‘Lhe,_.AapVpel|ant – accused and only then, PWs.2 and 3 came
\n know that it was the accused, who threw acid on the<\/p>\n
it “complainant and caused injury to her and that the injuries<\/p>\n
‘\\.\u00bb\u00b0vx,?.\n<\/p>\n
‘””..  ~.\n<\/p>\n
W: 59 .\u00bb<\/p>\n
there is ring of truth in her evidence as to how the in–cident<\/p>\n
took place. The contradictions got marked in the”evigjeg:nce<\/p>\n
of the complainant — PW.1, would not in any v-ray  <\/p>\n
truthful and reliable evidence of'”PW..A1,ffwhxichl\ufb01islwl be<\/p>\n
accepted having regard to the facts <\/p>\n
examination and the circumstances under.VVAw’hiciiiV”‘she has ”<\/p>\n
explained as to why shecouldi.–no.tg_:na’rrAate ‘the’t.rue’\u00a7 incident
\nwhen the complaint  Therefore,
\nthere is no merit’ in tl\u00e9\u00e9llllearned counsel
\nfor the  of PW.1 is
\nnot truvthfulgglanfd A’t’hat.e\u00a7vidence of PWs.2 and 3
\ndoes not  of PW.1. Appreciation of<\/p>\n
the eviden’c4eliJy Vt’li_e4Vtria!:Court is justified and the learned<\/p>\n
_ trialjudge ha’s”v–.rig__htAly relied upon the evidence of the<\/p>\n
 :compiai.TrI\u00e9.\ufb01t:\u00a5*~-PW.1 as truthful and reliable. Therefore,<\/p>\n
lhavli-nig the above said evidence of the<\/p>\n
V . com’.plaina.n’t”.V~ PW.1, it is clear that the same is truthful<\/p>\n
“V”V–.and.__reliable and her evidence cannot be discarded as<\/p>\n
u’nreI’iable or as suffering from inconsistency and<\/p>\n
T ‘contradiction as to make the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
fl doubtful. The evidence of the complainant — PW.1 has to<\/p>\n
t
\nb\/52″”)<\/p>\n
-: 63 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
discharged by the appellant – accused for proving the<\/p>\n
defence is not one beyond reasonable doubt-;._H:’in’j_t’ize<\/p>\n
present case, the accused has miserably  ”<\/p>\n
substantiate his defence and appreciationj”ofihthie. if<\/p>\n
of DWs.1 to 4 would clearly show thyattheir fevidelncye<\/p>\n
truthful and reliable. It is-_c’l’ear from ‘the’-.:e’vidernce of”?<\/p>\n
PWs.1 to 3, who were,yvorkin.g-hasTeachers’in. the School
\nat Magadi that the  as Head
\nMaster of the_::’s_choo’lVV’Vliha\u00e9jV_:thtreatenedV”them of dire
\nconsequ  of r disclosing truth and
\nunder compelled to give
\nstaterrients’  “truth, before the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer ~ “DW’.4V wV’an.d*.’.wh:’e.refore, much importance cannot<\/p>\n
 be .a:ijtacihed to the_s_tatements given by PWs.1 to 3 before<\/p>\n
  _iivh.o’.co~nducted enquiry regarding the incident. The<\/p>\n
‘.defe.ri’ce’ ex’\/j’\u00bbi–de’nce adduced in the present case is not at all<\/p>\n
helpful “to the accused to substantiate the defence taken<\/p>\n
“”3″‘V.\u00ab._:b’y.’–.t.r1\u20acvVH’aCCUSed that the complainant – PW1 sustained<\/p>\n
.’  igjury due to accidental fall of acid bottle from the cup<\/p>\n
   “board.\n<\/p>\n
~: 64 :-\n<\/p>\n
21. Having regard to the above said reasoni-~n_g, it<\/p>\n
is clear that the prosecution has proved<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt that the appellant —  ”<\/p>\n
outraged the modesty of PW.1 and ithatgheg\u00e9f  a’cidf.oVn..A<\/p>\n
the complainant — PW.1 and caused  <\/p>\n
an intention of causing her  and thereby b\ufb01fi\ufb01rraitted f’<\/p>\n
the offences punishable. underi.Sectio’n~sg.35.4and. 357 of the
\nIPC. The Triai Courtffiahftefrthe oral and
\ndocumentary 7 come to the
\nconclusion :_.  ”   proved beyond
\nreasonable’ _A’V\u00e9io:ubVt1:,:{  \u00ab–:gp_p’:ellant ~ accused has
\ncommitted:  under Sections 354<\/p>\n
and 307t,he” regard to the above<\/p>\n
 reas.0\u00a7ning~,. it isfnlclrearth,-at the said finding of the trial Court<\/p>\n
 is:j\u00abustifived.%anci–does not suffer from any error or illegality<\/p>\n
as.:to.,cal’l’\u00e9f.ogr. inhtferference in this appeal. Accordingly, we<\/p>\n
V –V ansvlier pointfNo.1 by hoiding that the finding of the trial<\/p>\n
 the prosecution has proved beyond reasonabie<\/p>\n
that the accused has committed the offences<\/p>\n
T “punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC is<\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-: 66 2*<\/p>\n
has further ordered that out of the fine amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,10,000\/–, Rs.2,00,000\/– shall be paid to.\u00ab..theV”-vji’cti’vm<\/p>\n
(PW.1) as compensation. Having <\/p>\n
circumstances under which the””–offe”nce.’fiiadV:been<\/p>\n
committed by the appeiiant — acctiysedA’anci’h.av~ing <\/p>\n
to the facts of the case andthe”~~punisV’fim.en.tVprescribed ford’<\/p>\n
the offence under Section  is”ciea~r’V\u00a7that the
\nsentence imposed accused by the
\ntriai Court to for two years
\nand to pay:-a  tT1_fld. inmdefault of payment
\nof finey,…to im\u00abpri.s’onment for six months,
\ncannot*~,at”aii excessive as to cail for<\/p>\n
interference and th_erefore’, the sentence imposed upon the<\/p>\n
 appe\u00a7:i.iavn’t j acc’us.ed___t”or having committed the offence<\/p>\n
 ip:u’niysiia_bie=.und_er Section 354 of IPC is entitled to be<\/p>\n
con fi.rmed\u00e9{Jf –.  if<\/p>\n
 ” 22.1 However, having regard to the facts of the<\/p>\n
—  case\ufb02iand the circumstances under which the offence has<\/p>\n
been committed by the appellant – accused and the<\/p>\n
punishment prescribed for the offence of attempt to cause<\/p>\n
‘i,<\/p>\n
-3″)<\/p>\n
*~\u00bbm,m,_,,_<\/p>\n
\u00ab: 71 :-\n<\/p>\n
concurrentiy and the appellant shall be entitled to{“3’eTt~off<\/p>\n
for the period of detention already undergo.n.e”\u00bbVb’3af~him\u00e9<\/p>\n
against the sentence now imposed, under Sectioin’~?i42’8i’oi!<\/p>\n
the Criminal Procedure Code. :A’ccordi_n”giy;.’ of<\/p>\n
sentence passed by the triai Cour3t’.a<_:;'aV_i.nst th_eAa'ppe'iian'ti <\/p>\n
accused is modified and tiie.'V"judgen1en't.iofdcoini\/iction<\/p>\n
passed by the trial Coort ien""ai!ni.:'othet res;\u00a7Ve'cts"V remains<\/p>\n
unaitered.\n<\/p>\n
~ _.3_”‘:.=maV <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana -1 1 :~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE IVWDAY OF sEPTEMBEP&..2’O:Q\u00e9”I;’.1″-. V. PRESENT : % ‘\ufb01 is’ THE HON’BLE MR. JusT:IcEI:.G’. AND L. .. THE HON’ BLE MR. IUSTIOBVBS.NA;”sATYA-ISAEIIAYANA ” A […]<\/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-39724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-18T15:59:57+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-18T15:59:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5438,\"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\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-18T15:59:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-18T15:59:57+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-18T15:59:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":5438,"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\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009","name":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-18T15:59:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-a-krishnaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M A Krishnaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/39724","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=39724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}