{"id":54503,"date":"2006-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006"},"modified":"2019-03-26T17:41:17","modified_gmt":"2019-03-26T12:11:17","slug":"b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  404 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nB. K. Channappa\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nA. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
W I T H
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2004
\nKaribasappa @ Mallakanahalli
\nKaribasappa & Ors.   \t                  \t   …..       Appellants
\nVersus
\nState of Karnataka\t\t                           …..     Respondent
\nW I T H
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2004<\/p>\n
Marulasidappa\t\t\t                  \t   …..       Appellant
\nVersus
\nState of Karnataka\t\t                           …..     Respondent<\/p>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above-said three appeals relate to single incident
\nand are directed against common judgment and order dated
\n10.09.2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in
\nCriminal Appeal No.104 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.384
\nof 2000, they are heard together and shall stand disposed of
\nby this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tCriminal Appeal No. 404\/2004 has been filed by B.K.
\nChannappa (A-1) and Criminal Appeal No.580\/2004 has been
\nfiled by Marulsidappa (A-15) against their conviction and
\nsentence recorded by the High Court under Section 302 of the
\nIndian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)  in Criminal Appeal No.384
\nof 2000 filed by the State of Karnataka against the order of
\nacquittal passed by the trial court .\n<\/p>\n
\tCriminal Appeal No. 566\/2004 has been filed by
\nKaribasappa (A-2), Halanaika (A-3), B.K. Manjunatha (A-17),
\nB.K. Parmeshwarappa (A-19) and B.K. Shivrajappa (A-20)
\nagainst the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
\nupholding their conviction and sentence under Section 302
\nIPC read with Section 149 IPC and conviction of B.K.
\nManjunatha (A-17) and  B.K. Shivrajappa (A-20) under Section
\n324 IPC and B.K. Parmeshwarappa (A-19) under Section 326
\nIPC respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn all, 23 accused persons were tried by the learned
\nSessions Judge, Chitradurga in Sessions Case No. 111\/1995
\nfor the offences under Sections 143, 148, 302 IPC read with
\nSection 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 324
\nread with Section 149, Section 448 read with Section 149 and
\nSection 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
\n\tThe trial court, after examining the prosecution evidence,
\ncame to the conclusion that A-2, A-3, A-10, A-11, A-13, A-14,
\nA-17 to A-22 had formed an unlawful assembly to cause the
\ndeath of B.G. Basavarajaiah (Basavarajappa) and in
\nprosecution of the same, they murdered B. G. Basavarajaiah
\nand caused grievous injuries to B.G. Chandrashekaraiah (PW-\n<\/p>\n
1), Shekharappa (PW-2), B.G. Shivamurthaiah (PW-3) and
\nB.G. Prakashaiah (PW-4).  The trial court  held A-2, A-3, A-10,
\nA-11, A-13, A-14, A-17 to A-22 guilty of the offence under
\nSection 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and sentenced them to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
\nRs.5,000\/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for one year.   A-17, A-18 and A-20
\nwere also held guilty under Section 324, IPC and were
\nsentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
\nto pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each, and in default thereof, to suffer
\nsimple imprisonment for two months.  A-19 was further
\nconvicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
\nRs.1,000\/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
\nsimple imprisonment for six months .\n<\/p>\n
\tFeeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned
\ntrial court, Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2000 came to be filed by
\nall the accused persons whereas Criminal Appeal No.384 of
\n2000 was filed by the State against the acquittal of some of the
\naccused persons.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court convicted A-1 and A-15 under Section
\n302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.
\nThe conviction of A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20 recorded by
\nthe trial court and sentence imposed on them were affirmed on
\nall counts.  The conviction of A-10, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-18, A-
\n21 and A-22 was set aside by the High Court and they were,
\naccordingly, acquitted.   Both the appeals were decided by the
\nHigh Court by a common judgment, which is impugned by the
\nappellants herein by way of these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts relevant and necessary for the decision of these
\nappeals are that in the year 1995, A-1 had contested election
\nagainst one Shivamurthappa to become a member of the Zila
\nPanchayat.  A-2 to A-23 supported A-1 in the said election.
\nB.G. Chandrashekaraiah (PW-1), Shekarappa (PW-2), B.G.
\nShivamurthaiah (PW-3), B.G. Prakashaiah (PW-4),
\nMaheshwarappa (PW-5) and B.G. Revanasiddappa (PW-8), B.
\nC. Basavarajaiah (PW-9) and Basavarajappa (PW-10) were the
\nfollowers of Shivamurthappa.  B. Parmeshwarappa (A-19) is a
\ndumb person, who, at the relevant time, was working as a
\nservant of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the prosecution case, because of the defeat
\nof A-1 in the Zila Panchayat election, he suspected that
\nBasavarajaiah had played major and vital role in getting A-1
\ndefeated in the election and as a result thereof, A-1 had
\nentertained ill-will and grudge against Basavarajaiah.
\n\tThe occurrence in question, took place on 05.07.1995 at
\nabout 10.00 a.m. at Lingadahalli Road (Basavanahalu village)
\nwhen the deceased Basavarajaiah had left his village on his
\nmotorcycle to look after his land situated hardly 600 metres
\nfrom the village Basavanahalu.  According to the prosecution,
\nsensing the arrival of Basavarajaiah, the appellants and other
\nacquitted accused persons armed with deadly weapons like,
\nchoppers, axes, sickle, clubs and stones were hiding in an
\nambush near the land of Basavarajaiah and surrounded him
\non his arrival at the scene of occurrence.  Basavarajaiah was
\ngiven a number of blows with the aid of weapons resulting in
\nhis fall on the ground.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-19, a deaf and dumb person, at the relevant time was
\nworking in the field of the deceased along with PW-7.  On
\nseeing the appellants and other accused inflicting blows on the
\nperson of Basavarajaiah, he rushed to the scene of occurrence
\nto rescue the victim, but PW-7 and PW-19 too were assaulted
\nby some of the accused persons.  PW-1, a relative of the
\ndeceased, was on the road near the village and on hearing the
\ncry of Basavarajaiah, he went to the place of occurrence along
\nwith Maheshwaraiah (PW-5) and found Basavarajaiah lying
\ndown on the ground with a number of bleeding injuries on his
\nperson and all the accused were surrounding the victim armed
\nwith deadly weapons.  PW-1 was also given threats by the
\naccused to resist himself from intervening in the incident and
\nin fact, A-17 and A-18 alleged to have pierced on his chest
\nwith a chopper, fortunately for PW-1 the same did not cause
\nany serious injury to him.  Seeing the large mob of the
\naccused persons gathered with deadly weapons as well as the
\ncondition of victim Basavarajaiah, PW-1 immediately sent PW-
\n5 to get some help from the village.  According to the
\nprosecution, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 thereafter rushed to
\nthe spot in a tractor and on their arrival they too were
\nassaulted by some of the accused persons.  The aforesaid
\nwitnesses ran away towards their village to save themselves
\nfrom further assault by the accused persons.  Further, it was
\nalleged that some of the accused persons assaulted other
\nvillagers including PW-8 to PW-11.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn receipt of a cryptic telephone message that there was
\nsome galata going on near village Basavanahalu, Rajanna
\n(PW-42), ASI, Davanagere Rural Police Station, recorded the
\nmessage and informed his superior Officer Mallikarjunappa
\n(PW-43) CPI, who at the relevant time was present in the Police
\nStation.  PW-43 along with PW-42 and other police officials
\nrushed to the scene of occurrence.  On their arrival at the
\nscene of occurrence, they found Basavarajaiah lying dead.
\nThe Investigating Officer went to the village and recorded the
\nstatement of PW-1, on the basis of which the case in Crime
\nNo.263\/95 came to be registered on 05.07.1995 at about
\n12.30 noon for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
\n144, 147, 148, 307, 302, 324 and 427 read with Section 149
\nIPC against 15 named and other (unknown) persons.  PW-1,
\nPW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, the injured witnesses, were sent to the
\nhospital for treatment.  The dead-body of Basavarajaiah,
\ndeceased herein was sent for autopsy.  Dr. R. Deverajan (PW-\n<\/p>\n
32), medical expert, conducted the post mortem on the dead-
\nbody of the deceased and opined that the death was due to
\nhypovolaemic and neurogenic shock.   Dr. Anita B. (PW-33),
\nmedically examined PW-5 and found injuries on his person,
\nwhereas Dr. Prahalada Reddy (PW-34) had given medical
\ntreatment to PW-19 who had suffered grievous injuries.  The
\nInvestigating Officer prepared mahazars on the spot and
\nrecorded the statements of the witnesses on the day of the
\noccurrence and some of the witnesses were examined on the
\nfollowing day.  The accused were arrested on different dates.
\nAfter completion of the entire investigation and on receipt of
\nthe medical reports of the injured witnesses, the post mortem
\nreport of the deceased and reports from Forensic Science
\nLaboratory as well as from the Chemical Analyst, charge-sheet
\ncame to be filed against 23 accused persons.
\n\tThe trial court has found prima facie case against all the
\naccused persons and they were tried accordingly for the
\naforesaid offences.  The prosecution, in support of its case,
\nexamined 43 witnesses and got marked documents Exhibits
\nP1 to P73 in support of the oral evidence.  The accused in their
\nstatements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C., denied the
\nallegations of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent.
\nThey pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the
\npresent case due to political rivalry between the complainant
\nparty and the accused party.  However, no oral defence
\nevidence has been led by the accused, except placing reliance
\non certain contradictions and omissions appearing in the
\nstatements of some witnesses recorded by the Police during
\ninvestigation.  As noted above, the trial court  found A-2, A-3,
\nA-10, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-17 to A-22 guilty of various offences
\nand accordingly sentenced them.  However, A-1, A-4 to A-9, A-
\n12, A-15, A-16 and A-23 were given benefit of doubt.
\n\tThe appeals of the convicts and the State were decided by
\nthe High Court by a common impugned judgment and order.
\nHence, these three separate appeals by the appellants.
\n\tThe learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 404\/2004 stated at the Bar that B. K. Channappa (A-1)
\ndied during the pendency of this appeal.  Be it noted that one
\nletter dated 20.09.2006 written by Mr. Javed M. Rao,
\nAdvocate, Supreme Court, to the Registrar of this Court is
\nplaced on record informing this Court that appellant B. K.
\nChannappa (A-1) died on 07.07.2005.  Along with the said
\nletter, a Death Certificate of B.K. Channappa, issued by the
\nChief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Government of
\nKarnataka, has also been enclosed.  This appeal of A-1 thus
\nstands abetted.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.566 of
\n2004, Shri N. P. Midha, learned counsel, contended that the
\ntrial court  as also the High Court have wrongly appreciated
\nthe evidence of the injured witnesses as well as the
\neyewitnesses for holding the appellants guilty of the offences.
\nHe also contended that, noticing the contradictions and
\nimprovements in the ocular evidence of the injured witnesses
\nand the eyewitnesses, namely, PWs-6, 7 and 19, in their
\nstatements before the Police and the trial court , the testimony
\nof these witnesses do not inspire confidence to connect the
\nappellants with the commission of the alleged offences and,
\ntherefore, their testimony cannot be accepted.  He next
\ncontended that the oral evidence of the witnesses was not
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, the
\nprosecution case is highly unreliable and doubtful about the
\ntime of the death of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Sanjay R. Hedge, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent-State, however, supported the judgment of the
\nHigh Court concerning the conviction of A-2, A-3, A-15, A-17,
\nA-18, A-19 and A-20 by contending that there was no reason
\nwhy the evidence of the injured witnesses and the
\neyewitnesses corroborated by the medical evidence should be
\nrejected.  It was his argument that the High Court, as a first
\nCourt of Appeal, has a duty to reconsider the evidence and
\ncorrect the error committed by the trial court.  He, however,
\nfairly and in our view, rightly stated that though the name of
\nMarulsiddappa (A-15) finds mention in the FIR recorded at the
\ninstance of PW-1, yet from the evidence on record led by the
\nprosecution, his participation in the commission of the crime
\nis not proved beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have independently scrutinized the evidence of the
\nmaterial witnesses in the teeth of the rival contentions of the
\nparties.  On reprisal and scrutiny of the evidence of the
\ninjured witnesses Shekharappa (PW-2), B.G. Shivamurthaiah
\n(PW-3) and B.G. Prakashaiah (PW-4), they have fully
\nestablished the case of the prosecution against A-2, A-3, A-17,
\nA-19 and A-20, although there were certain discrepancies in
\ntheir testimony and in comparison to the versions of PW-6,
\nPW-7 and PW-19, the eyewitnesses, in regard to the weapons
\nof offence individually used by A-1, A-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20
\nfor inflicting injuries on the person of each of injured witness
\nas also on the person of the deceased.   The discrepancies, as
\npointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are
\nminor and insignificant.  The occurrence took place on
\n05.07.1995 and the witnesses were examined in the court
\nafter about a gap of almost five years.  The evidence on record
\nfurther shows that the injured witnesses had been subjected
\nto searching lengthy cross-examination and in such type of
\ncross-examination, some improvements, contradictions, and
\nomissions are bound to occur in their evidence, which cannot
\nbe treated very serious, vital and significant so as to disbelieve
\nand discard the substratum of the prosecution case.  The
\nevidence of the injured witnesses and other eyewitnesses has
\nbeen rightly re-appreciated and accepted by the High Court
\nand we find no cogent and sound reason to differ from the
\nwell-reasoned judgment upholding the order of the trial court.
\nThere is, therefore, no merit in the argument of the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants that the evidence of the injured
\nwitnesses and other eyewitnesses should be labelled as the
\nevidence of the interested witnesses.  On the other hand, we
\nfind that the evidence of all the eyewitnesses including injured
\npersons is quite natural, convincing and trust-worthy.  There
\nis no material on record from which an inference can be drawn
\nthat the material witnesses have implicated the appellants
\nKaribasappa (A-2), Halanaika (A-3), B. K. Manjunathaa (A-17),
\nB. K. Parmeshwarappa (A-19) and B. K. Shivarajappa (A-20) in
\na false case.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving given our careful consideration to the
\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we
\nare of the opinion that the judgment and order of the High
\nCourt holding Karibasappa (A-2), Halanaika (A-3), B. K.
\nManjunatha (A-17), B. K. Parmeshwarappa (A-19) and B. K.
\nShivarajappa (A-20) guilty of assaulting the injured witnesses
\nand causing fatal injuries to the deceased cannot be found
\nfaulty on any ground.  The evidence of the injured witnesses
\nand eyewitnesses finds corroboration from the medical
\nevidence.  On close scrutiny of the evidence of Dr. R.
\nDeverajan (PW-32), it is clear that none of the injuries inflicted
\non the person of the deceased was found on any of the vital
\npart of his body.  As per the opinion of the Doctor, the
\ndeceased died due to hypovolaemic and neurogenic shock.  On
\nperusal of the medical report prepared by Dr. R. Deverajan
\n(PW-32), large crush injury or lacerated injuries were found
\neither on the chin, right leg, left knee, left wrist, right
\nshoulder, right forearm, etc. on the body of the deceased,
\nexcept two lacerated injuries above right lateral mallalous and
\non right medial mallalous.  It is true that as many as 18
\ninjuries found on the dead-body of the deceased, were noticed
\nbut the prosecution has not established on record that the
\nsaid injuries were inflicted by the appellants with the intention
\nto cause the death of the deceased.  Considering the nature of
\nthe injuries having been found not on the vital part of the
\nbody, we are of the view that the conviction of A-2, A-3, A-17,
\nA-19 and A-20 as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by
\nthe High Court under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained.
\nWe alter the conviction of A-2, A-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20 from
\nSection 302 IPC read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part-II
\nread with Section 149 IPC.  However, taking into consideration
\nthe time lag of more than eleven years from the date of the
\nincident till the date of disposal of these appeals by this Court
\nduring which period the appellants have suffered physically,
\nmentally and financially, we impose a sentence of eight years
\non each appellant and a fine of Rs.2,000\/- each which, in our
\nview, would meet the ends of justice in the present case.  In
\ndefault of fine, each of the appellants shall further undergo
\nsimple imprisonment for three months.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe conviction of A-17 and A-20 under Section 324 IPC
\nand the sentence imposed on them including fine and
\nsentence in default shall remain intact.  The conviction of A-19
\nunder Section 326 IPC and sentence imposed on him by the
\ntrial court  and affirmed by the High Court do not call for any
\ninterference in this appeal.  All the sentences imposed on A-2,
\nA-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20 shall run concurrently.
\n\tThis appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above-said
\nobservations and findings.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2004, the appellant
\nMarulasidappa (A-15) has challenged his conviction and
\nsentence imposed by the High Court under Section 302 IPC.
\nThe appellant (A-15) has been acquitted by the trial court
\nalong with A-1 (deceased) and other accused persons, out of
\nthe total 23 accused who faced trial court before the learned
\nSessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have examined the entire evidence on record.  Though
\nthe name of Marulasidappa (A-15) finds mention in the FIR
\nbut no injured witness or eyewitness has mentioned his name
\nin the statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure connecting him with the
\ncommission of the offence.  The High Court has not given any
\nspecific finding that Marulasidappa A-15 was a member of the
\nunlawful assembly along with the other accused persons.  PW-
\n7, a servant of the deceased, who was produced as an
\neyewitness of the incident, has categorically stated that when
\nhe along with other injured witnesses and eyewitnesses
\nreached on the spot, A-15 had kept the right leg of the
\ndeceased Basavarajaiah on his left leg.  No eyewitness or
\ninjured witness has named A-15 in their testimony that A-15
\nhad participated in inflicting injuries on the body of the
\ndeceased.  The trial court  has recorded a specific finding that
\nthe prosecution has not proved on record beyond reasonable
\ndoubts that A-15 along with A-1 (since deceased), A-4 to A-9,
\nA-12, A-16 and A-23 had inflicted any blow on the body of the
\ndeceased, with the weapons stated to have been held by them
\nneither any weapon of offence was recovered from A-15 or at
\nhis instance.  However, the evidence proved does not permit
\nany inference to be drawn regarding participation of
\nMarulasidappa (A-15) in the commission of the offence.  We,
\ntherefore, cannot sustain the conviction of Marulasidappa (A-\n<\/p>\n
15) recorded by the High Court as it is based on the inference
\ndrawn regarding his participation and existence of common
\nintention on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The
\njudgment of the High Court, therefore, convicting A-15 under
\nSection 302, IPC, and sentencing him for life imprisonment is
\nset aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed.
\nMarulasidappa (A-15) is stated to be in jail undergoing
\nimprisonment in this case.  He shall be released forthwith by
\nthe jail authorities, if not required in any other case.  Fine, if
\npaid by Marulasidappa (A-15) in terms of the judgment and
\norder of the High Court, shall be refunded to him without any
\ndelay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 Author: L S Panta Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 404 of 2004 PETITIONER: B. K. Channappa RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2006 BENCH: A. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-26T12:11:17+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T12:11:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3228,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\",\"name\":\"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T12:11:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-26T12:11:17+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T12:11:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006"},"wordCount":3228,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006","name":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T12:11:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-channappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. K. Channappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/54503","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=54503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}