{"id":41234,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-28T06:20:25","modified_gmt":"2017-10-28T00:50:25","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.V.Pinto<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS '1'HE3 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, \n\nPRESENT\n\n'1'HE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE ::,sREEnHA:iIRAo:  _  ll\n\nAND\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. ..\u00bbjU,S_'1'1c\ufb01:\u00bbB\u00a7:V,P1:\\:'1*Q  if\n\nCRLA. NO. 1o:\u00a7'2.():?. V2004  ' ''\nBE'\"I'WEEN:--   --.   \n\nState of Karnataka, ;  F  _ \nBy Vidyaranyapura Police. Station,  ' \nBangalore. A l  \ufb01l l  \n\n  .    \"  Appellant\n{By Sri P.M.; i\\Ia'L\"e.xzai:;...-;+:'--3d(:1l.,_S_P\u00a3?_)   \n\n1. V'enl{ataran\"{\u00e91-~,.A ll   '-\nS \/0. Venka_tesl\ufb011'a 'DI3?1-l. '' \" \nAge\u00e9lA27 years, ' \n\n,C0olie.\u00b0 ._  \n\n. Ba'1.::>.\n\nfor the State----_praying\" that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased\nto grant--. leave to file an appeal against the judgment and\n\n V._order of acquittal dated 09.03.2004 passed by the 34\"' Addl.\n\n &\"'S.J. <3: Spl. Court, Central Prison. Bangalore in\n\n "a":3,C.N_o.70\/2002 thereby acquitting the Respondents-\n\n }'.._cc'used of the offences punishable U\/Ss.l43, 148. 364,\n\n " 3176, 392, 397 r\/W. Sec.14\u00a39 of IPC. The Appellant--State\n -prays that the above order may be set aside.\n\n\n\n \n\nThis appeal coming for hearing on this day, PII\\T'E5(:.5';\u00bb..\ndelivered the following:   \n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This appeal is \ufb01led by the State. cha1lengi”ng._’:th’e’ o_rg1erV_g <\/p>\n
dated 09.03.2004 passed in S.C.l\\’.–‘4o.’7’_g'(_)\/’A’.’\u00ab.i'()(&)’i’.?.._l  <\/p>\n
Acldl. City Civil and Session:%iV_JI.i.dge,”‘-Bangalcreffaevqttitting <\/p>\n
the respondents of the offences4_l:”U,:\/_ss:143;’  364, 376,
\n392, 397 1’\/W. Sec.1-49 etjkc.  1;” ‘\n<\/p>\n
2. T he case of vt.he.e.I_j1fosect1etionv_as”‘re\\realed from the<\/p>\n
papers is   8:9.1\u20ac9_\u00a79  7.30 p.n1. the<\/p>\n
complainant’ his wife by name
\nLakshntamniztvaged-~.,abeodt__:4;5’years to give advance to the<\/p>\n
new house,” has their.  asked them to vacate the house<\/p>\n
 where: they were–..pr_esently staying. While she was going<\/p>\n
 alone, the coconut garden belonging to one Nagaraj of<\/p>\n
 village, it is alleged that the Wife of the<\/p>\n
comup!ai1v1Van’\u00e9;’Lakshmarnma was subjected to forcible sexual<\/p>\n
,linter_.couVr’se and thereafter she was done to death by the<\/p>\n
 e.__’accused by means of knife, rod and club. Thereby, they are<\/p>\n
  aileged to have committed the offences mentioned above. A<\/p>\n
case is registered on the complaint of Hanumanthappa ~\u00bb~<\/p>\n
husband of t.l1<:* deceased.\n<\/p>\n
3. A3″t,e1* securing the accused persons ‘<\/p>\n
Court, the prosecution in order to\u00bb. prove they-1case._has._V V<\/p>\n
examined in all 14 witnesses and.&gotl’rhari:ed<\/p>\n
Ex.P18 and produced E\\\/1.0.1  V:’l’h.e_  “of; the r L’<\/p>\n
accused was one of total denia1_.____Ti:ere.after.learued_iSessions
\nJudge after hearing Vboth’ sides 3  passed the order
\nacquitting the respoI1dents\u00bb.of’all=th.e_  levelled against<\/p>\n
them. HenceT_tl1e  <\/p>\n
    \u00a7{ar1tl1a_raju has stated that on
\n09.09.1999 “him as panch witness near the<\/p>\n
coconut far1\ufb01”o._f one Na-garaju at Ramachandrapura. He is a<\/p>\n
‘l V’ :,to the iluluvelsltdvproceedings on the dead body of the<\/p>\n
 ._dee,easevd>__~4 -\u00a7ivo_r1″1’_a11 aged about 40 years. He has further<\/p>\n
stated th.at were bloodstains on the mud and empty<\/p>\n
‘*._whisky’ bottle and one bra and a pair of chappals were found<\/p>\n
“rv3ar””the dead body. The police seized the articles and also<\/p>\n
  conducted the mahazar, which is marked as E;-c.P1.<\/p>\n
\/\/”~<\/p>\n
5. l”\\’V:2 M Purushathama is a witness to.l”‘\u00bbthe<\/p>\n
panehanama 1-cagaarding the Inquest. He has s.i;ated’*t’natV.<\/p>\n
during 1999 he was summoned by the police tobe  V’ <\/p>\n
for the inquest proceedings on the deacl. poydy.;\u00abofy”a._wo1nan”1<\/p>\n
aged about 40 years. He has stated__ that th.e’Ve;..-.’.s.; “were<\/p>\n
injuries on the chest and laceiated woundonfheiiiorehead V<\/p>\n
and her breasts were bitten.  signed ‘Ex.-P.V}V.’ He has
\nalso signed Ex.P2. whiehlis\n<\/p>\n
6. i’W3-if-.l~lanurnantliap\u00a75a.._is’  eomplainant and<\/p>\n
the h’usband”loll”_i;h;eV- ~cll<_;<:.ea:s.s'=_,_(1\/\/,1';~~_Hex_haVs stated that himself and
\nhis  were   livelihood by doing collection of
\nwaste papers   were living in a rented house at<\/p>\n
Nanjappa (L;ii'c._I:e,'Vidyaralnyapura. They used to leave the<\/p>\n
     return back by 12.00 noon and after<\/p>\n
  to go for work and return in the evening. He<\/p>\n
has__lllfurt:.l1.t%~p\ufb02stated that on the date of incident, his Wife<\/p>\n
lV._Lakshm_a5:nn1a had not returned from the work. On the next<\/p>\n
,,l"day"a_t about 9.00 a.m.. one lady who Was doing vegetable<\/p>\n
l  vending told that a dead body of a female was found near the<\/p>\n
F-\n<\/p>\n
\/\/<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
eoeonut garden of one Nagaraj. Accordingly, when he Went to<\/p>\n
the coconut farm. he found that his wife had been..’do:iare’~it.Vo<\/p>\n
death and she was molested. Later <\/p>\n
Vidyaranyapura Police and informedwthem arid”*a:’_C,ofnp’1air;it <\/p>\n
is lodged as per E3x.P.3. He has stated tlfiatihis.jOvife”:x}as:”use:d’i<\/p>\n
to wear golden earrings and silver ankiets andei’ati.the_VVtiIIie of <\/p>\n
his seeing the dead body. said ourhiarnentsi  fmisjsing and
\nhe can ideiit.ify’ the   ih_a\u00bbs'”fs_irtherAAstated that
\nfour months afteijthe iriQiC1tent* him to the
\npolice station   ‘es.rrings and a pair of
\nsilver anklels.   same as per M.O.6 and
\nM.O.7   . i<\/p>\n
7  i’\\i\\I4  conducted the Post Mortem<\/p>\n
Examination: I:-ilevii\u00e9is stated that there were injuries on the<\/p>\n
 body oftiie x’C”14~j'(‘,(‘.(:1S\u20acvCv’lH’\u00e9.’S stated below:-<\/p>\n
“~iio:1:t1Lision 6 ems x 4 ems with bite marks
\n\u00ab \u00ab ”v’~:\u00a7j;1′}’i’:il.1I1C1 the right nipple.
\n  .’iE1o1it.usion 5 ems X 3 ems with bite marks over
\nEeft nipple.\n<\/p>\n
 Abrasion 7 ems x 3 ems over left side of the face.<\/p>\n
Laceratlon 2 ems X 1 cm over left forehead just<\/p>\n
above the eyebrows.\n<\/p>\n
A spindle shaped on the front of <\/p>\n
midline 12 cms below the supra–sternal”notch.’~<\/p>\n
measuring 5 ems X 3 ems.\n<\/p>\n
On dissection it has cut  ster*num.a”tlt_1fiellevel?<\/p>\n
at 4″” and 4″‘ rib and”.co:s_tall cai\ufb01lage <\/p>\n
l.ei’t.si.de. It has  lower  lung <\/p>\n
rig}-‘tt ventricle, leftllllveritricalll  ‘has’. made a
\nNike in the” 8}” thoracic’ vertebral.'”F}1ewP16pth of
\nthe wound directed backwards
\ndownwards  to the  l V  ~ <\/p>\n
Coviietttslion on tghev~’right”si’d.e__Q_f abdomen of chest.<\/p>\n
 of the face.\n<\/p>\n
He Vi.7:fm\u00a7:il\u00a2r  that the injuries were ante<\/p>\n
mortemlin ‘:1_;1t:urela;r’idl’t~he*rleath is due to stab injury. He<\/p>\n
has iss_ued l5lV’EV_:l\u00a7.Xa,fi’1lfit1tlli.)l1 report as per EX.P4:.<\/p>\n
 lll’}1?\\_7\\J5 Qllllariman has stated that A5 sold about<\/p>\n
  and silver articles to him. He has further<\/p>\n
stated that:fi–f3ll’e11ongg with police came to h.is shop and asked<\/p>\n
Hhirn to. f;\u00bbrod1,1cte all the gold and silver articles sold by<\/p>\n
l”l:ll_’Ae_elt’1″sed No.5. Accordingly, he produced gold and silver<\/p>\n
 articles unc:ler mahazar, which he has attested. He has<\/p>\n
further sated that he has identified the articles marked at<\/p>\n
l\\\/1.0.6 as the one sold by Accused No.5.<\/p>\n
9. PW6 – Chinararn is a dealer in steel.u’iitens1ls”‘.’Pie ‘<\/p>\n
has stated that PW5 was running _a~~s.hop  by<\/p>\n
and style Mangalcieep Jewellers at:”:.Hoisko’te.’l'{tEe” <\/p>\n
that he accompanied the p0li_ce~._to the   a 2 L’<\/p>\n
Witness to the recovery mahaz_a:r”ir_1 which’ itis discovered
\nthat Accused No.5 sold aI?.l\u00bbd’v.N1?’;.Q.6″f.Q PW5. However,
\nsubsequently he..has  Vlaosrtile”v_to””.:vthe case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. H _<\/p>\n
IO. AI5V’.f”Z_?T 7 Venltatalramaiah is a Head Constable who
\nhas visited” the ._scejn.e ‘”oiicurrence and witnessed the<\/p>\n
inquest proceedings conducted by Police Inspector.<\/p>\n
 he carried the dead body to M.S.Ran1aiah<\/p>\n
Aiil\u00e9tllded over the same to the relatives after<\/p>\n
exaifhinatiori .\n<\/p>\n
‘1_1.’1. PW8 –~ Karnal Basha — leaves merchant has<\/p>\n
‘j”_si’ateEt._l that he is a signatory to EX.P6 mahazar drawn on<\/p>\n
07.01.2000. But, he has stated that he does not know the<\/p>\n
contents of the same. Hence, he has been treated as .\u00abi_’i’os_ti_le”.–_<\/p>\n
12. PW9 W K.G. Babu is another xvitness  0′<\/p>\n
signed Ex.P6 W mahazar. He has also  ll<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
13. PW} 0 W Chandrasheltarb is  aecctritjx  livho ll<\/p>\n
has witnessed the 1’ec0.–Very oef-“lihifelllallegedlto have been
\nhidden in the bushes. tlihicllvoli-lntVari.ly produced by<\/p>\n
Accused No.2 —  notice. I9ic;.has identified the<\/p>\n
weapon as l\\__\/I\u00ab;’Cl)’; l   ”\n<\/p>\n
13;. * PW   Kataria is another jeweller and<\/p>\n
he has statedltliiatl No.2 sold to him some gold and<\/p>\n
 silve;\ufb01prnaz1ie11ts”and one BPL Tape recorder. Sometime after<\/p>\n
 ..incidc;1t..\u00a2Vl’i;E’i1._e police came to his shop, Accused No.2<\/p>\n
lreqt\u00a7estedll_t’o__pigoduce the articles and he has produced the<\/p>\n
_ sarrie’ alohg’\\m?it:l’i two golden n0se–stud, a pair of silver anklet.<\/p>\n
   (onegolden chain having two lines, one golden chain of single<\/p>\n
  Iine’ahd other 2:1rtic:les. He has identified the silver anklets as<\/p>\n
  “per M.O.7. wlaich was handed over by Accused No.2 to him.<\/p>\n
15. PWi2 — Muniswarny is a \ufb02ower mercharit;–,THe<\/p>\n
has stated that he is a witness to Ex.P9 — 3<\/p>\n
recovery of knife alleged to have been made   <\/p>\n
No.4 ~–~ Munikrishna and shown 13yMAhi’r11\u00ab yo&lun\u00abtaV1′”ily’ ito-.:the”;<\/p>\n
police. His signature is at Ex.l?9(a}. Al-‘Ee has further iden<\/p>\n
the weapon before the Court. V<\/p>\n
16. PW13 — Cl1’a1~a_pat_hiMisno-ifit\u00e9f’Police llnsliector. He
\nhas registered a case in  sent the FIR
\nto the Court.  has arrested the<\/p>\n
accused   statements of the<\/p>\n
accused an\u00e9ii’7I[aft’e1%.V recovery of the articies and after
\ncompleting; the ‘in\\fe.stigfati_onr”has \ufb01led charge sheet in this
\ncase agaiilst accused \ufb01ersons.\n<\/p>\n
 RPW14 v:’\u00abAjjanna is the Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
  ll}JiVdya1*anyapura Police Station during the<\/p>\n
rele-V_ant.~pv2_;9i’od. He has stated that he has registered a case<\/p>\n
  No.108\/99 and submitted the FIR to the<\/p>\n
 .,J’Lt1_’isdictioI1al Magistrate. He has also conducted the inquest<\/p>\n
 oi’: the dead body of the deceased Lakshmamrna and also<\/p>\n
v-\n<\/p>\n
\/\/\/7<\/p>\n
seized articles lVI.O.l to M.O.5 during the course of inquest.
\nAfter completion of the investigation he has subriiitte.d’~\u00bb.a<\/p>\n
charge sheet against the accused persons.<\/p>\n
1.8. It is from these Inaterialsp  lVear_ried_ <\/p>\n
Sessions Judge has found that the  iiot~c_b~een–:<\/p>\n
able to prove the case agaidnstgthe caccuseds,\/V respondents = L’<\/p>\n
beyond reasonable doubt. and hasxjacquittedh theaccuised.\n<\/p>\n
19. On periisalqfriai Court. the
\nlearned Sessions ‘J udge has  as  —\n<\/p>\n
  r’ejst_pof_th-ii’ evidence on record will also<\/p>\n
ntoi:”Vconi:e_toc7the of prosecution to prove the
\naecu–sation”a’gainst’=th’e accused. As stated above, the
\nlearneclii  Prosecutor submitted that
\n:.t.he1’e “4fs._:i1ov.evid’ence regarding rape alleged to have
\n“}”:~b$__ACV:I’l ,(_:oni1un’iIted–\u00abon deceased Lakshmarnrna. According
\n  to  postmortem report veginal swab and smear
\n ‘5%.\u00a7;}.()W the evidence of spermatozoa.<\/p>\n
d V  On appreciation of evidence on record, I<\/p>\n
it hold that the prosecution has failed to establish nexus
\nbvetvveen the accused and the offences alleged against
\nthem. Nothing incriminating is found in the
\nstatements of the accused recorded under section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Thus. I hold that the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
prove that Al to A6 forming themselves into an<\/p>\n
unlawful assembly, with common object, conjiraitted<\/p>\n
rape on deceased Laxinamma and the.1:.e.afte’r-“;~i\u00bbn’ V.<\/p>\n
furtherance of their common object,-1.’:.”con1initted’7 it<\/p>\n
murder of deceased Laxammai\ufb02by ass:in1t’ing” .her with <\/p>\n
MOS 11. to 13 and committed dacToij;tv..fro:i1~._h’er’qjody j<\/p>\n
MOS 6 and 7. Accordingly, I re’c_ord_.findings”on’~ <\/p>\n
2 and 3 in the negative.”\n<\/p>\n
20. Heard Sri Add1′.”sP”p and s;-1
\nT.K. Mohandas for the  perused the<\/p>\n
materials on re~c’c’:r._r,i._’–\n<\/p>\n
 Aftei’ nffoper~.reapprec’iation of the evidence in
\nthis case, vi\/e f1;IlCIV[}.’i\u00a3::t1′.VJti}9\u00a7i!i;\u20ac.,’i’S.~I1O direct evidence with regard<\/p>\n
to the in\\ro1v’eni\u20acrit’v-3f Ait–he’~~adccused in the crime in question.<\/p>\n
   as t.he’vrap’e, there is absolutely no material<\/p>\n
 ‘produce:d:'”hdy.Ardthe prosecution. In so far as the offence<\/p>\n
[}’,fs.302  is concerned, there is no link between the<\/p>\n
 recoveryxoi’ weapons and the offence committed in this case,<\/p>\n
it  there is no Serologisfs Report in respect of the<\/p>\n
 hloodstains found on the weapon. It is seen that in the<\/p>\n
dwcomplaint -\u00bb Ex.P.’1 the complainant has not stated the<\/p>\n
missing of articles from the dead body, although the case is
\nbased only on identification of the articles recovered through<\/p>\n
voluntary statement of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
22. Under the circumstances, we find thatpthe<\/p>\n
reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is;”souf:d._:and <\/p>\n
proper. We do not see any reason to distinguishvVf1?o’m._ the  <\/p>\n
reason given by the trial Court. I1i.pAthat..4gVie\\}a_,p <\/p>\n
opinion that this appeal clesen’\/es to loerejected;u–Aceordingly; V  -‘<\/p>\n
the appeai is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Sri T.K. Mohan  Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
The fee of   fmeei at Rs.7,ooo\/–. The State<\/p>\n
shall pay txh’eppfee.,:”  V.\n<\/p>\n
sara<\/p>\n
 Z  …..\n<\/p>\n
S\ufb01fe
\nigage<\/p>\n
it V   Gpes*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010 Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.V.Pinto IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS ‘1’HE3 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, PRESENT ‘1’HE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE ::,sREEnHA:iIRAo: _ ll AND THE HONBLE MR. ..\u00bbjU,S_’1’1c\ufb01:\u00bbB\u00a7:V,P1:\\:’1*Q if CRLA. NO. 1o:\u00a7’2.():?. V2004 ‘ ” BE'”I’WEEN:– –. State of […]<\/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-41234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\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 Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-28T00:50:25+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-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-28T00:50:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2021,\"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-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-28T00:50:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 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:\\\/\\\/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 Venkatarama on 15 September, 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-28T00:50:25+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-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-28T00:50:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":2021,"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-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-28T00:50:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-venkatarama-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Venkatarama on 15 September, 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:\/\/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\/41234","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=41234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}