{"id":76260,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-23T21:24:00","modified_gmt":"2017-02-23T15:54:00","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda<\/div>\n
 ,.   Qggyearsg\nS\/\"0 _VPa.Vtt'a.ppa';V __\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 27:11 DAY OF JANUARY, \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE .MANJU_4LAVVVCVi3,EVIV}LtJR  V VV\n\nAND\n\nTHE I-\"IONBLE MR. JUS'I'ICE_B. SVR}:ENIV\ufb02iSE ,(j{Ov\u00a7;'DA Vf .\n\nCriminal Appeal  V  0fV  \nCVIW _ ._ ., \n\ncal  9..i'.bif'2002\nInCr1.A.92[02._  'V V  V\n\nBetween:  \n\nCriminal VAV1';%p\n\nState 0f_I_\u00a7arnaVta};a VV   \n VV   . V  A19De1lant\n(By Sr1--,_ G, BhVaVi\u00bbian'i'Sirigh;--..SPP)\n\nAnd:\n\nPushsparaj ,\n\nV  e..Kesthu;%' Xfiiiage \n\n(Dy VSrVVi Dim. Shyamprasad, Adv. J\n\nChaniarajanagara District.\n\n,9 F?e$;>GndE\ufb01*C\u00ab\n\n  Vi  ..V5This Criminal Appeal \ufb01led under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C by the State praying to grant leave to file\n* appea} against the judgment. dated 29.09.2001 passed\n\n\n\nIN.)\n\nby the III Addl. S.J., Mysore in S.C. N0.112\/9'7,\nacquitting the respondent\/ accused for the offences' \"u\/ S.\n143, 144, 148, 341, 302 and 324 r\/W See. 149  \n\nIn Crl. A. 91 02\n\nBetween:   \n\nState of Karnataka\n\n[By Sri. G. Bhavani Singh, 'Sm\n\n   I\n\nAnd:\n\n1.\n\nSelva Veerendrakuzrnar. _  \n\nS \/ 0 Samuel. aged\ufb01bout.   \nN0win_jud_ie_ia1  '  I\n\nSadlfiii    \n\nAge 44_y=ez\u00a5iys, SI\/'0VSj*i\u00ab-- \n\nAge 45 ye;1r\":'3.,;'~. \"\n\nS \/ 0' .ja3'anand.\u00a71  I\n\n~  J\u00e9ryananda. VD___.as.,\n\nAge 74' years.\n\n   Devadasappa.\n\n.  Pfegiiaefaju @ Beliraj,\n Age_5--2 years,\n8 \/'10 Sri Gururathnappa,\n\n.  Sundharshan @ Sudharshan Devadas,\n' Age 49 years, S \/ 0 William Sadananda,\n\n\n\nLu.)\n\n \n\n7. Sajjan, Age 44 years,\nS\/o William Sadananda.\n\n8. Padmarajendra Das,\nAge 55 years,\nS\/o William Sadananda.\n\n9. Praveenkumar, age 27 years,  j; \nS \/ o Padmarajendra Das, \" 4 '\n\n10. William Sathyasena, Ad\n\nAge 24 years,  \nS \/ 0 Padmarajendra Das'; * \n\n11. Samuel, age 86 ye\"2.:rs,d'   3\nS \/ o Krishnadasai-ahgj '\n\n12. Robert     \nAge 630 yeafs.\"=. . \"     ;\nS\/9.Gsurtushanthtiatri '\n\n are   Kesthur\nViilage, Chaiiiarajaiaagar Dist.\n \" V' 2   ..Respondents\n\n  B.M. nS1*1'3fa1_ngl3rasad, Adv.)\n\n V   iiis\"CriU_1inal Appeal \ufb01led under Section 378(1) 8:\n [\"31\"  bfy_..the State praying to grant leave to file\nappeal against the judgment dated 29.09.2001 passed\nby\ufb02thg\u00e9' ' II} Add}. S.J., Mysore in S.C. No.34\/97.\naequittiirig the respondent\/accused for the offences u \/ s.\n .143, 14.4, 148, 341, 302 and 324 r\/W See. 149 and 109\n R\/{M302 of H36.\n\n These Appeals coming on for hearing, this day,\n 'MANJULA CHELLUR. J. delivered the following:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
These appeals are directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal on the file of the HI Addl. Sessions. <\/p>\n
Mysore in sc. No.112\/97 and _
\nrespectively, acquitting the respoilwdents,-‘ ~ it<\/p>\n
offences u\/s. 143, 144, 148, 341, 3132. :cE1IltZ3._.’3.l2:3i tr\/w._se,e:;<\/p>\n
149 and 109 R\/w 302 of 1PC;\u00ab-..__ _ pp\n<\/p>\n
2. s.c. No.1 12\/97 pxertair1us te’4C1\u00a7ip.iA. No.92\/O2<\/p>\n
and SC. No.34\/9’7 relates to  1\/02 in respect<\/p>\n
of A L ;1*–1;,gLnd\u00abj’.othe’r'”acctlsed. According to the
\nprosec1_1ti’or1 groups in Kesthur Village, of<\/p>\n
the then:dCha1″;1a1faj’a1iagar Taluk. In the year 1995 one<\/p>\n
  gr1:)::L}ip  headeldbyethe deceased Ravichandra and the<\/p>\n
   is headed by Megharaju and others.\n<\/p>\n
the prosecution a month earlier to the date<\/p>\n
 of the iriicident deceased Ravichandra took active part in<\/p>\n
“\u00abl:V’_A’d.e_te’cting misdeeds of A 14 i.e. deviating the ration
\n   H supplied to the fair price shop ofA\u00bb14, A–l4 along with
\n V, ._
\n ,2<\/p>\n
the goods was caught red handed and handed over to<\/p>\n
the concerned Tahsildar by Ravichandra <\/p>\n
supporters. This annoyed A 14 and his
\ngroup headed by one Mr. Meghara}’u.of  2 ‘<\/p>\n
In this connection there were siornlc-._ exchange, of’<\/p>\n
between the two groups as Weill,<\/p>\n
3. Accordingzjjt\u00e9’   onH1H9.1O.1995
\nat about 5.00  K\ufb01hamarajanagar
\nTaluk, the  into unlawful
\nassembly’ like Barji, stones
\netc.,  of murdering deceased
\nRavichandra   in filthy language<\/p>\n
qu.a.frellcd wivth—VhiHrng.’,During the course of such quarrel,<\/p>\n
 v  a.lAlegedf”that A 2, A 6 and A 13 brought deceased<\/p>\n
 the scene of offence from his house and<\/p>\n
 A  .ins_tigated A 1 to finish off Ravichandra, then<\/p>\n
A  accordingly A 1 stabbed Ravichandra on his stomach<\/p>\n
 with a dagger with much force. It is further alleged<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
that A 5 voluntarily caused hurt to one Thyaragaraj
\nwith a stone and also assaulted one ShiVar’aj”–.dWiVth<\/p>\n
stones by hittirlg him on the back and knee;  ‘d   ‘<\/p>\n
4. On the complaint of onepStel1arn’rna\u00bb.<\/p>\n
came to be registered ci\u00bb1’1-.__Crirne_ “No.}02-j\/945 Vt\/hichV”r.<\/p>\n
pertains to the present   referred to
\nabove. One Mahadettadi\ufb02aop  PW 30
\nproceeded to ittl3eJ:’inI;ormation given
\nby the Father?  Village, that a
\nquarrel” and he requested
\nhim go ‘i He immediately proceeded.\n<\/p>\n
to    sending message to his<\/p>\n
supserioi*’s.  ‘thvejqvpay to Kesthur he saw 2 \u00ab-~ 3 persons<\/p>\n
‘ conaing ‘in”a””b1_1llock cart and two of them were injured<\/p>\n
dandtdhe  to Kuderu hospital. Later he found<\/p>\n
out  the injured persons are one Megharaju and<\/p>\n
“Safn.ue1 and one of them was unconscious, while<\/p>\n
another one was semi conscious. The doctor of Kuderu<\/p>\n
hospital informed him to send them to KR. hospital,<\/p>\n
Mysore, for better treatment in view of the-_’<\/p>\n
condition of the patients. Therefore after..A4″s\u00abecnyring <\/p>\n
ambulance from Chamarajangar-he sen’t-Vfthern, to ‘<\/p>\n
Mysore and proceeded to :to1d’the~V<\/p>\n
offence. He saw a dead  of  One<\/p>\n
Stellamma informed  the pf the deceased and
\ngave a report, which at   for a
\nwatch over   a case in Crime
\nNo. 102\/  per EX. P 21, to the
\nconcerned’  yhasv\ufb02zalso sent information
\nthrou\u00e9ia.     superiors. Sri Muthuswarny<\/p>\n
Naidu, CPI  arrived at the spot and further<\/p>\n
‘ V.  inv*eAsttg’a.tiion was\ufb02tadken over by him and he completed<\/p>\n
A  the investigatj.on.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘During the course of the investigation<\/p>\n
 several persons were interrogated and statements of<\/p>\n
i  several eye witnesses including the injured witnesses<\/p>\n
\/\u00ab1V\u00b0\u00bb’Q.aii1~i.g>;n.ts..yA_andN5′ material objects.<\/p>\n
was recorded by the police. Ultimately, charge___ sheet<\/p>\n
came to be filed against 14 persons, out of <\/p>\n
Megharaju is dead. Therefore sessions <\/p>\n
against him. The case was’ \u00bb–proceedeidy the<\/p>\n
prosecution against other accused persons’.  ‘~ . \u00ab. ” K<\/p>\n
6. As the offences   triable by
\nthe court of sessionsfvle’a_rriVedailwiagiystrate committed the
\nmatter to the Sessions’  pleaded not
\nguilty to    the matter was<\/p>\n
taken iipyvfor.Vt’i”ia.1;,___ .,   A
\nljaririg ‘the “of trial 31 witnesses were
\nexarmned  the pfrosfecution apart from marking 27<\/p>\n
Only two<\/p>\n
do.cuniei*its fcarne to be marked for the defence i.e.<\/p>\n
por*!:ion__*ofstatement of PW 3, brother of the deceased<\/p>\n
Rayichandra at Ex. D l and D 2. The matter was
\n *1oo’sted for recording Statement under section 313 by<\/p>\n
 “confronting incriminating material. After recording 313<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
statement arguments of the learned Counsels___ were<\/p>\n
heard and the learned trial Judge on appraisal-i:.o\u00abf”‘the<\/p>\n
entire material ultimately concludedp’
\nprosecution has failed to establish\u00bb—the againsi;
\nthe accused persons and  <\/p>\n
prosecution did not come  the–tr_t_1eA”‘ge”nesis of’<\/p>\n
the entire case b\u20acC\u00a7’;U}’S\u20ac  “details of
\nconnected crirne No.  the murder of
\nMegharaju.  other words, the
\nlearned trial.’.l.he’:.\u20acdefence theory of group
\nc1ash:v’he’t’ween_V groripsyivand non explanation of
\ndeathvvofcase was considered as fatal<\/p>\n
to the case”  the prosecution. Ultimately the accused<\/p>\n
. V.we1*ea’c’qu’itted  the charges framed against them.<\/p>\n
   is directed challenging the acquittal<\/p>\n
of ‘the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
A  ‘7. The case of the prosecution would establish<\/p>\n
 the charges framed atleast against A I, A 2 and A 13<\/p>\n
‘x.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9. As against this, learned Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the accused persons took us through the<\/p>\n
relevant portion of evidence of PW 3. 4\u00bb, 5 and l4;e’TS.o far<\/p>\n
as eye Witnesses are concerned. they are relative-is<\/p>\n
close friends of deceased Ravichandra. H.eV_’also=:t’ook .0 <\/p>\n
through evidence of PW 30 1 <\/p>\n
Contention that both crime -Nos.  and”ll’l1jQl’3_v_g.Vof <\/p>\n
are case and counter case.l”‘Accordin’g._to’ the learned
\ndefence counsel thew_p’ros’~ecution–_’was__ not justified in<\/p>\n
concealing the\u00bb-:letail:s”‘of counter  pertaining to the<\/p>\n
deathtlll the trial Judge was
\njusti\ufb01leclgl in  accused persons in the<\/p>\n
absence the’  being placed before the Court<\/p>\n
 regard.ing”l’the case’ of the prosecution and also crime<\/p>\n
  also relied upon two judgments of the<\/p>\n
Apex  in the case of Padam Singh 1:. State of<\/p>\n
  0.  2000 SC 361} and Sudhir and Others I)
\n0′ ‘g_lSif.’.-1l’1lEe of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2001 so 826). The<\/p>\n
” ~-‘principle enunciated in the above two cases is to the<\/p>\n
\/;g<\/p>\n
effect that even if a counter case is not exclusively
\ntriable by a court of sessions, it was within the powers
\nof the sessions court to get the other case triable by the<\/p>\n
Magistrate to connect with the counter case which ._Was<\/p>\n
tried before the Sessions Court, in order to <\/p>\n
having regard to the facts and circumstaneesvjof <\/p>\n
the cases.\n<\/p>\n
10. He further contexldefd <\/p>\n
2000 SC 361 in the caseVfof:”:P>cld\u00a2Ati’ria__ “State ” i<\/p>\n
of U.P that if the pros.e_cuti’on’ isiufriable ‘to”‘e::<pV:1ain the<\/p>\n
injuries sust.ai1ie'd_4'iby*–__the' "accused or the persons<\/p>\n
belonging"e.._4to.vthe_'grotu\u00a7"' of the accused at about the<\/p>\n
 Q_ time-lof the occurrence or in the course of occurrence.<\/p>\n
 the"  –. draw the inference that the prosecution<\/p>\n
' \/<\/p>\n
hassuppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence<\/p>\n
'xuand therefore not presented the true version. It is<\/p>\n
A  held that if the injuries sustained by the<\/p>\n
accused are not explained. such fact would<\/p>\n
assume greater importance whiie adjudging the defence
\ntaken by the prosecution and as well as the defence.
\nWith these arguments in our mind we have to proceed<\/p>\n
to look into the appeals on hand before us.<\/p>\n
11. We have gone through the entire  <\/p>\n
also the judgment of the trial Court.’.Th.e’f.pdoi.nt._ <\/p>\n
would arise for our consideration is;._ A I ‘<\/p>\n
1) whether the judgment of acqui\u20ac.’taE.VA:Cif,  triad.   ><\/p>\n
Court warrants interference’?\n<\/p>\n
 . T’\\\/Vp.}iat3iordevrfi—-_’ M<\/p>\n
So “far” as __death of the deceased apart<\/p>\n
from thexcontents of_dii1~q:uest at Ex. P 5 which is spoken<\/p>\n
  as–\u00abt’he Witnesses of the inquest have<\/p>\n
_ t1.1r’I1ed~._ho’stiie, the evidence of the doctor Who<\/p>\n
 autopsy on the dead body i.e. PW 29,<\/p>\n
 there” ample evidence to show that the death of the
\ndeceased was homicidal one. Cross examination of this<\/p>\n
wdoctor does not indicate the cause of death being<\/p>\n
natural one or accidental one. On the other hand the
\nautopsy doctor has withstood the crosswexamination.
\nTherefore the prosecution was able to establish that the<\/p>\n
death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a of<\/p>\n
severing of left common iliac artery by a <\/p>\n
and the death had taken place 2.4 to <\/p>\n
1″-‘.M. examination.\n<\/p>\n
12. The question is,v.vhethler_lthis  <\/p>\n
amounts to murder and  actwlas’l’:done by the
\naccused persons after_.form’ing assenibly with a<\/p>\n
comrrio1’i~. ‘   eliminating the deceased<\/p>\n
RavichanC_l_ra._ it<\/p>\n
“13. ‘V80, as the motive is concerned, from the<\/p>\n
   kith and kin of the deceased, PW 3 step<\/p>\n
 ti;ie”‘deceased, PW 4 brother of the deceased,<\/p>\n
 5  of the deceased, PW 14 a close associate of<\/p>\n
2  the deceased Ravichandra, there were rival groups one<\/p>\n
‘headed by the deceased Ravichandra and another<\/p>\n
headed by deceased Megharaju. There used to be group
\nclashes in the village and one group would try to find<\/p>\n
fault with the other group. It has come on recoi?.dl’that<\/p>\n
a day prior to the date of the incident the stealtliy’ <\/p>\n
A 14 in diverting the fair price shop Wa3″bro:ught to ‘V<\/p>\n
notice of the Tahsildar by the d.ece_as.ed  ffi.en3.is<\/p>\n
after catching them red”:_h–aVnded’.v.  <\/p>\n
investigating agency hasp_….iViA0t_ =.exa1ni’ne,d  said
\nTahsildar and no   placed before<\/p>\n
the Court to shovv th’at”th:lere’ vvere  attempt on the<\/p>\n
part  being the cause to
\nplan  so  of the deceased. If really<\/p>\n
such .,caselu”ca’me.Ftol”be'””registered against A 14 by the<\/p>\n
” ‘~  Tgahlsiltiiarregardinglthe fair price shop it would not be<\/p>\n
  1.0. to bring such material on record.<\/p>\n
Ari-3; way  prosecution did not place such material<\/p>\n
  before”the Court except the evidence of the kith and kin<\/p>\n
l*of”the deceased regarding the reason for the incident<\/p>\n
 “‘~vvb.ich ignited animosity that already existed between<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
the two groups, it would be difficult to conclude that
\nthe fair price shop of A l4 was the genesis for the
\nincident in question. The fact remains that there..:were<\/p>\n
two groups in the Village.\n<\/p>\n
14. This according to the information’giiie:Ii*by_tl1e ‘* <\/p>\n
father of the church to PW 30 w’hen:”tw:0 <\/p>\n
loggerheads. it would be ‘ilif\ufb01cultxttoli c0ncli1Ad_e\u00ab–v..wh3o <\/p>\n
trying to implicate whom? Thei1__the motive_AAbAe;comes a
\ndouble edged weapondirii  the court could
\nconclude that4_a’1i_imos’ity’  two groups was<\/p>\n
the genesis  ‘in question and it is also<\/p>\n
possible to-.._4concl’ude_t’h  the animosity between the two<\/p>\n
 rivalg groups “w0i_:_i__1_d compel to implicate innocent<\/p>\n
 ‘pei’soris}..otheI’\\m’se in a case of direct evidence the<\/p>\n
motive goes, Vihto the background, unlike in the case of<\/p>\n
 circumstantial evidence. When the prosecution relies<\/p>\n
“upo”ri_. the circumstantial evidence, motive takes place of<\/p>\n
  a pivotal role to assess the case of the prosecution. In<\/p>\n
the present case the prosecution is relying upon the
\ndirect evidence of PW 3, 4 and 1-4\u00bb. Therefore we need<\/p>\n
not divulge much upon the question of motive for the<\/p>\n
murder of the deceased Ravichandra. On<\/p>\n
hand, we are convinced of the fact that the  <\/p>\n
the outcome of rivalry between th’lemtw’o gil*.ou.psl.V:”   V <\/p>\n
15. Then coming to the alcuiai incidentv, <\/p>\n
the prosecution tried their”~Jo’e-st to’  several it<\/p>\n
witnesses including ‘_injulred  regarding the
\novert act of A 1, 2, 6  the injured<\/p>\n
witnesses’. s’u.p’}5t’v’i*ted.ctl*ie’ease of the prosecution i.e. PW<\/p>\n
1 Francis”eRaj.Vandll3lN*V\u00e9lgxlayaprakash, According to the<\/p>\n
 , ‘ pro:55ecultir)n the’se__two witnesses were also injured in the<\/p>\n
 ‘i1iciden.tl’~in~_\u00abquestion but however these two injured<\/p>\n
wi.tnesses.l-Vliihave turned hostile. Apart from these two<\/p>\n
 injuredlgeve witnesses PW 7 Mattayappa, PW 10<\/p>\n
   ‘M <\/p>\n
Nirrriala, PW 11 Stellamma who is the complainant in<\/p>\n
it this case, PW 12 Naveen Prakash, PW 15 Devarathna,<\/p>\n
I8
\nPW 16 Sathyasheelappa and PW 20 Goregowda all
\nindependent witnesses relied upon by the prosecution
\nhave turned hostile. PW 11 Stellamma has gone to the
\nextent of denying even lodging the complaint Vito the
\npolice though she admits that she was Vice <\/p>\n
Village Panchayat at that point of time.     <\/p>\n
16. In the absence of ltheilsojj.\n<\/p>\n
consisting of close relatives’ and friends ofgdeeeasedg Ravi” ;<\/p>\n
Chandra, how much relia1ic’e\u00ab.VlgLcould llbeilplacefd on the
\nevidence of blood relVat.:ive_s of  “de*ceasged Ravi Chandra<\/p>\n
havmg rC.gg’fdyv.ity\u00a7fact -‘ there was already enmity
\nbetweerrtyhe tvvo_  and the supporting witnesses
\nbe,1L}l:ngi’i1_g to of deceased Ravi Chandra.<\/p>\n
   is well settled that there is no impediment<\/p>\n
it  evidence of the kith and kin of the
\n  Though they could be termed as interested
\n xvvitnyesses being relatives, they cannot be branded as<\/p>\n
suspicious witnesses. However, it is also well settled<\/p>\n
1′)<\/p>\n
now that the evidence of these witnesses has ___to be<\/p>\n
iooked into with care and caution having rega.rd.d:’t0d”the<\/p>\n
fact that they tend to exaggerate and
\nfactuai situation because of their-attachinent .to.’_t;he3’.r\u00ab
\n}oved one. Therefore, a duty  oi\u00e9i.\n<\/p>\n
assess the genuineness in the*~evide11ce’o_f ‘the-zviifitndessesd’<\/p>\n
cautiously.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. It has comeon’   father of the
\ndeceased   at the scene of
\noffence.  noticing galata near
\nthe    walking near the tank
\nbundvzofthed ‘\u00bbthe time he arrived at the spot<\/p>\n
he saw the”  It-iavi Chandra lying on the ground<\/p>\n
 with a”i’Awo:.ind onmthe stomach. Cr0ss–examination of<\/p>\n
  that he belongs to the group of deceased<\/p>\n
‘*’–‘rnother of deceased Ravi Chandra.<\/p>\n
Ravi  In other words, he was a supporter of<\/p>\n
 deceased Ravi Chandra. P.W.3 Dinakara is the younger<\/p>\n
“”.brother of deceased. P.W.4 Ratnamma is the step<\/p>\n
We have the<\/p>\n
evidence of these 3 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4 8: 14 to<\/p>\n
support the case of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
19. From the evidence of P.W.3 one1!”e.anf_.gathe;\u00a7_:
\nthat the bus stand circle is <\/p>\n
place of incident and if some -one s’tands onlthey katlgauof <\/p>\n
their house, they could see near
\nthe circle of the  iiiritness and
\nalso other  .?’11dgkii.’i5l’\u00a29le’a_sl\u00a7l\u00a7s”lldeceased was
\nhaving higg  residential house
\nwhere.theyltwere1–1   same roof. P.Ws.3,
\n4 and’v–.’5′– Ravi Chandra were<\/p>\n
living inulthxe sarnel On 19.10.1995 according to<\/p>\n
   and A–13 entered their house<\/p>\n
   in filthy language and dragged the<\/p>\n
.deceasvedV’Vls:i_oiirards bus stand circle. A-2, A-5, A–6 ES: A-<\/p>\n
-. 13 grappled his brother and A-1 stabbed him with a<\/p>\n
.’ ‘dagger on the stomach at the bus stand circle while the<\/p>\n
__\u00a7rerna1’nirig accused were present there holding stones.<\/p>\n
of fact by the Public Prosecutor. However, he did not<\/p>\n
give any details of any other incident subsequent<\/p>\n
incident of his brother. According to him  V’<\/p>\n
the dead body was at the sarne.-ipla-c.e ‘Was4.’.alsl’o<\/p>\n
present along with his motheriairidiin-A.others’ vvhen <\/p>\n
came to the spot making enquiries. He ‘l\\\/ll.O.l it<\/p>\n
as the dagger used  hisilbrother Ravi
\nChandra. During the c:ros’\u00a7:.@\u00a7;\u00a7aminat1on the
\ndefence tried to’    alleged incident
\nhas happein’ed.”‘–nfeai\u20ac__  circle where several
\nroads    persons would be
\n“at about 5.00 pm. in the<\/p>\n
evening. Th av also brou ht on record that rnarria es
\n1 ‘:5  v ” .\n<\/p>\n
 auspicious ceremonies are held in the church<\/p>\n
 i.g;lrV1t;l__as fact on that day marriage of daughter<\/p>\n
of one Prasahna Was being performed in the village.<\/p>\n
  It is not in dispute that the church is also<\/p>\n
  situated near the bus stand circle Where the incident<\/p>\n
has happened. If marriage of daughter of Prasanna was
\nbeing performed on that day, several persons not only
\nfrom Kastur Village but other Villages would also<\/p>\n
definitely be available near the church on that <\/p>\n
also not the case of the prosecution that   <\/p>\n
one else at the spot of incidentvotherg  if<\/p>\n
kin of deceased and the accused}   rnat.ter.of <\/p>\n
is the case of the prosecuti.o\\n..p>that thereseveralf<\/p>\n
persons near the bus:”stand.icircl.C.  perso’1’is’*’belonging
\nto the group of  also persons
\nbelonging   This witness fairly<\/p>\n
admitsvthe sugg.es;ti.on..g:tI1at if some one sits inside the<\/p>\n
house of deceased,  will not be able to watch What<\/p>\n
‘Was ‘happening near the circle. In the further cross-<\/p>\n
 e:-s:arninVationf’.’of~’ this Witness Exs. B-1 and D\u00bb~2 came to<\/p>\n
be”‘\u00ab\u00abmarked7 in the defence. On going through these<\/p>\n
 E2<s.D%'l:and D–2, nothing much assisting the case of<\/p>\n
'the 'defence is brought on record. However, We get some<\/p>\n
 "relevant information from the further cross–exa1nination<\/p>\n
of this witness. He admits having stated before the
\npolice that on 19.5.1995 at 5.00 pm. he came toknow<\/p>\n
about the accused forming a group and <\/p>\n
holding weapons like stones, barchi, etc.__  V'<\/p>\n
stand circle of their village  3<\/p>\n
informed him about the al.1eged inci'dent.1c~;%.cco'rding'ito'\u00bbVlg<\/p>\n
him, when he and his elder'V.hrvother–' 'were': inkithe shop
\nthey came to know  *'i.ncide-nt.  was not
\naware of the fact as the quarrel was<\/p>\n
taking   all :pr'es"en't at the spot in the<\/p>\n
said   fact that when the
\ndeceased "left "in the company of the said<\/p>\n
accused,  quarrel took place between the deceased<\/p>\n
   accused  a big gathering was near the circle<\/p>\n
 e\\,vi1fier1i-.\/fluids VAV.l'Vvi;irother reached the spot of incident.<\/p>\n
Ac'cord:ing"""to him when he went near the circle, the<\/p>\n
  *gr_oup"was still present at the circle. When a suggestion<\/p>\n
 made to the effect that deceased Ravi Shankar was<\/p>\n
'lholding a sickle (machu) he denies the said suggestion.<\/p>\n
In the further cross–eXamir1ation by other accused, he<\/p>\n
says on 19.5.1995 two murders had taken place' is<\/p>\n
the murder of his brother and
\nmurder of Meghraj. According\ufb01to -him heardllll
\nthe noise of the quarrel near  _<\/p>\n
enquire who was quarrellin-gL:'"with ivhoini 'fhVe"'qularreI"<\/p>\n
\ntook place for 15 — the   brother
\nreached the place  had gained
\nrxlornenturng    not see as to
\nwhether   eiierelinjured and fallen on
\nthe    reached the spot.\n<\/p>\n
Howetrer\u00e9 he  of Meghraj at the circle<\/p>\n
and accorldingto hirnlT:Meghraj was one of the person<\/p>\n
  his brother to the circle from the house. He<\/p>\n
1   suggestion of A~l2 Pushparaj @ Kurpi<\/p>\n
assau.iti11\u00a7’ on the right leg of Meghraj when they were<\/p>\n
 ntaiiing” Ravi Chandra from the house. If Meghraj and<\/p>\n
l Kurpi A~12 belonged to the same group it is difficult to<\/p>\n
  \/\/<\/p>\n
“understand Why A–12 would assault A-5 Meghraj. In all<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
probability there must be two Pushparajs @_…__K.urpi<\/p>\n
beionging to both the groups. However, theref.\ufb02’is.”vvno<\/p>\n
clari\ufb01cation to which Pushparaj the <\/p>\n
referring to. He admits cornrnevncementy of_.grou_pVci–ash”:—-<\/p>\n
i.e. between the group of accused  th\u00a2\u00a7g:o:.:p” <\/p>\n
complainant — i.e. the deceased. ‘According to him,<\/p>\n
except the assault  did”no’\u00a3 see any
\nother person being   clash. At
\nthat point of  :15 -~ 16 persons
\nbeiongingito’\ufb01ti’ie”‘ were present at<\/p>\n
the spot. a’ ” — ff.\n<\/p>\n
21.”*fi’he  through this witness tried to<\/p>\n
_ bring on rec0rd'”th__a_t.vin his presence deceased Megharaj<\/p>\n
 ‘and..Vother:’accused came to their house at about 5.00<\/p>\n
deceased Ravi Chandra and dragged him<\/p>\n
 to the shot of incident. However, no injury was caused<\/p>\n
it ‘CftoVat’i*’ie deceased or they did not even quarrel with the<\/p>\n
  deceased Ravi Chandra till they reached the circle. The<\/p>\n
coming home and dragging the deceased towards the<\/p>\n
question is whether this witness could follow Ravi
\nChandra at that point of time having regard to the fact<\/p>\n
of the big group near the bus stand. When the of<\/p>\n
deceased and the spot is situated at a
\nfrom one another, it would not-he   the’
\ninmates of the house of decea’sed–._dto <\/p>\n
galata near the circle invitingtheir”at.tentionV:”iffhere are<\/p>\n
no good or suspicious oei’rc’uinstances\u00e9”which would
\nsuggest that this   followed his<\/p>\n
brother at that \u00abpointiz of tirtie.”\u00ab.  .. <\/p>\n
1722;. ‘   whether this witness is
\nspeaking to the facts of the incident in<\/p>\n
 Thiisicould be gathered only after referring to<\/p>\n
‘  other two witnesses who have supported<\/p>\n
.the’icase’.of_’ti’1e prosecution, i.e. P.Ws. 4 & l\u00e9i.<\/p>\n
 ..  Ratnamma is the step mother of the<\/p>\n
 xdeceased. She does not speak about any of the accused<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
him. Then she sat near her son till police came and
\nthey gave the details of the incident to the _police.<\/p>\n
During the cross~exa_mination of this witnes3:.V:’d.efei2.ce<\/p>\n
was able to bring on record that
\nbetween this witness though :’a”mstep_–inother’\u00ab_y1tas7=very 9
\ncordial with the deceased and she lexfen coliapsed <\/p>\n
witness box while giving evidence a’s__s’heF remembered<\/p>\n
her deceased son  to this
\nWitness, on the date__o_fl’ was staying at<\/p>\n
home   day:  that a big group<\/p>\n
was    shvelllwent near the circie. She
\nalso admits  died on that day in their<\/p>\n
viilageg. further ‘admits the fact that quarrel took<\/p>\n
   groups, one belonging to Meghraj<\/p>\n
   anottie’r.–be1onging to her son Ravi Chandra, when<\/p>\n
she reached the circle, her son had fallen on the<\/p>\n
* g,1:oun’d. She volunteers that she saw the incident also.<\/p>\n
3 (“E<\/p>\n
24. By 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. after the death “of her<\/p>\n
son Ravi Chandra the group disappeared. <\/p>\n
defence tried to bring on record that ori—-<\/p>\n
rivalry between the brother ofVA*=”1\u00bb–.and:4′ ‘ g. <\/p>\n
this witness i.e. father of the deceased, there,Vv.za&:.:’son1e<\/p>\n
enmity when they W\u20acI”\u20ac._:.a”*JVO1’kiI1g. ‘   orest’<\/p>\n
Department but defence was   to dbringgon record
\nsuch animosity which was’  the life of
\nP.W.E3 even\u00a7~1riucIh   According to
\nher on   ‘enquired her regarding<\/p>\n
the  has given the details.\n<\/p>\n
 have the evidence of P.W.14 one Mr.<\/p>\n
 P1″asad__..___.eAccording to the prosecution, even<\/p>\n
‘   Prasad was there. P.W.3 speaks about<\/p>\n
‘the pre’se_n\u00e9e of this witness at the spot along with<\/p>\n
 Sathyag. Sheelappa. However, Sathya Sheelappa has<\/p>\n
  hostile. According to him, at about 5.30 pm. on<\/p>\n
the date of the incident he went to the shop of A-3 and<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
found deceased Ravi Chandra holding a chopper. A-l
\nand A-5 were also standing there and A~\u00ab5 was holding a<\/p>\n
dagger. A-1 and A-5 were inviting Ravi Cha1id1*a”g:’fo’:: a<\/p>\n
quarrel and they were making big noisei\u00e9it <\/p>\n
About 100 villagers had gathered at the   b<\/p>\n
standing at a distance of  from them.\n<\/p>\n
went towards A-1, A–13 helzgilthe of <\/p>\n
and grappled him, .  at”dthat:\/:tirh’e.gwas’standing near
\nRavi Chandra, Aw} staaaaaaavt  with a dagger<\/p>\n
on his stoaiaaaisavnacAthe’d\u00e9caaaeat_at\u00a3a11 down. At that<\/p>\n
 started pelting stories, therefore
\nhe panicked  from the spot. During the<\/p>\n
couise of c1’oss=exan1ination by Public Prosecutor much<\/p>\n
  be elicited from this witness. Even the cross-<\/p>\n
  the defence, it is brought on record that<\/p>\n
at”–the” tinile of quarrel near the circle there was a big<\/p>\n
 ~gr_ou1j'”of 100 people near the circle and by the time” he<\/p>\n
\ufb02reached the circle, quarrel had already started. When it<\/p>\n
‘\ufb02lwas suggested to him, he did not know between whom<\/p>\n
the quarrel was going on, he denied the said suggestion<\/p>\n
indicating that he knew who was quarre]lin_g’\u00ab\u00ab..C_iArith<\/p>\n
whom. According to him A-5 was inviting <\/p>\n
for a quarrel and Ravi Chandra*”w-sent  ‘.Meghi’aj<\/p>\n
with a long chopper. He denies\u00bbAithersiiggestion <\/p>\n
Chanera was holding a   C<\/p>\n
to him, as he was 10′ ..awa};””ire\u00abrri  groiip’-iheygcould see
\nwhat was happening    entire galata
\ntook place   According to
\nhim after’.  the group he did
\nnot   proceeding towards the
\n and Ravi Chandra was<\/p>\n
corning frointhhe opposite direction holding a chopper.<\/p>\n
  hinrihe followed Ravi Chandra after seeing<\/p>\n
 ._  was made that except Ravi Chandra<\/p>\n
no one else was injured in the gaiata. He admits the<\/p>\n
“C = :3arne;” ‘According to him, except the present gaiata, no<\/p>\n
other incident took place and he was at the circle for a<\/p>\n
 duration of 10 minutes. From the evidence of all these<\/p>\n
3 important witnesses examined for the prosecution, We
\nnote that P.’\/Vs. 3 <3: 4 are the kith and kin of deceased.
\nl3.W.14 seems to be a follower of deceased Ravi Chandra
\nor at least a supporter of Ravi ChandrapV.p.a'nc'i'.4 a<\/p>\n
neutral person.\n<\/p>\n
26. All these 3 witne’ssesj”acategorically?\ufb02adzrrit<\/p>\n
occurrence of only one inc’i.:1ent on that,_day\u00ab–v.near the”<\/p>\n
circle. Admittedly, Meghrajll:A”vand_\u00bb one” in the
\nopposite group also   HOWWEI’,<\/p>\n
Meghraj succ_u’mbed’AVto’ Frprn the evidence of<\/p>\n
these.’ 3,  that there were more than
\n100 persons,  at the spot of incident. It<\/p>\n
 of ‘sup_p_o.rters of Megharaj and supporters of<\/p>\n
‘ .:.lRavpi Both Ravi Chandra and Meghraj were
\n the said quarrel and subsequently
\nRavi jChandra died and Meghraj sustained fatal injuries
\n  succumbed to injuries. Certain answers elicited in<\/p>\n
l   the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 8: 14 though are simple but<\/p>\n
.\/if ‘~<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
have some serious bearing on the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. P.W.3 says deceased was aliypel\ufb02for 5<\/p>\n
minutes and he narrated the incident to__i*ii’s\u00ab<\/p>\n
P.W.4 says deceased was alive for one_-n’*2ir1_it:t.e”‘~ar1d  <\/p>\n
asked him what had happened.  <\/p>\n
\ntold him who stabbed whorn. if  <\/p>\n
present and noticedwhat  was no
\nreason why P.Ws. 3′  again what
\nhad happenedjto’    indicates that
\nwhen    deceased with
\n   had happened and
\ndeceased” happened to him and who<\/p>\n
stabbed    quite possible that these two<\/p>\n
  could follow the deceased Ravi<\/p>\n
   circle, there is nothing on record to<\/p>\n
sh–ow\u00bb__’that’ they had entered the inner side of the circle<\/p>\n
 ~ alongwith deceased Ravi Chandra. Where exactly they
\nd”-were standing, whether it was possible for them to note<\/p>\n
“all the details that happened at the place of incident is<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
his hand and was proceeding towards Meghraj. At one<\/p>\n
stage he says deceased was proceeding towards”?\/iegiiraj<\/p>\n
and at another breath he says he  <\/p>\n
towards A-1. If he could see at-1′”this, he could grist), see ‘<\/p>\n
who assaulted Meghraj and  2<\/p>\n
says except the incident ‘*Ravi” not<\/p>\n
aware of any other  evidence of these
\n3 witnesses thoughi\u00e9iitheiirt’ the spot of
\nincident -be   they are not
\nconsistent’  regarding the actual
\n   they were withholding
\ncertain”ot’ner  to the injuries caused to
\nthegwsuppo\u00e9rtersgofd’ or accused no.5 Meghraj.<\/p>\n
.   Investigating Officers who were examined<\/p>\n
 i”3i also come out with the statement that<\/p>\n
there .:g;\ufb01as’:””a group clash on that day in which Ravi<\/p>\n
V.   Chandra and Meghraj died. in order to accept the case<\/p>\n
the prosecution that the incident of Ravi Chandra<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
T was totally different from the incident in which Meghraj<\/p>\n
died, it was the duty of the prosecution to  on<\/p>\n
record the facts that led to the death__;’_’ofg_<\/p>\n
belonging to the group of the accused_~i1’i ‘I17 <\/p>\n
according to the Investigating    and<\/p>\n
counter case, it was the  of the prosteciitian to get,”<\/p>\n
these two matters tried  together so
\nthat entire facts  ltiavfe::.’.loeei:.:’gfV:p1aced before the
\nCourt in ordergto’   quarrel, who
\nwas the  -.asg;’;1uiteci”‘whom and whether
\n  first and injuries to
\nMeghra_\u00a7_vvere’  The material on record on<\/p>\n
thegotherfftf hvand’ wouid indicate that deceased Ravi<\/p>\n
 jvffeven proceeded towards Meghraj holding a<\/p>\n
   hand. Therefore, presence of Meghraj at<\/p>\n
the spot isfnot ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
 The evidence of P.W.30 would indicate that<\/p>\n
“rafter receiving the information from father of the Kestur<\/p>\n
Church when he was proceeding towards Kestur he
\nnoticed 2 — 3 persons in a bullock cart and one was
\nMeghraj and the other Samuel. Meghraj was<\/p>\n
unconscious and Samuel was serni–conscious. “i.s~not<\/p>\n
in dispute that subsequently, Meghraj  <\/p>\n
the injuries and Samuel sunriV_ed.l.ltl1e” <\/p>\n
prosecution was able to place    <\/p>\n
case of Meghraj on record in-op4″s1.ispic’ion woL1ld’..have”:been’V V<\/p>\n
left in the mind of the t1’ial.l-Golurt ‘1=e.ga1*ding. the genesis<\/p>\n
and the actual incidenf:”whicl1 wasgtli-e case and the<\/p>\n
coun\u00a7\ufb01ermlc’asel_V  phrosecution was expected to
\nbring all  and they did not place<\/p>\n
such-vfactsllon recorcl, the consequences are fatal to the<\/p>\n
  :’th:”e~.prosec’ution. Therefore, the learned Judge of<\/p>\n
 lithe  having regard to all these facts has<\/p>\n
rig’ht1y:j”sa.i\u00a7i the prosecution not having placed the entire<\/p>\n
  agseneslisllleading to the death of deceased Ravi Chandra<\/p>\n
 in the absence of explaining how this Meghraj and<\/p>\n
it “”lSarnuel sustained injuries, the only inference that can<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009 Author: Manjula Chellur Gowda ,. Qggyearsg S\/”0 _VPa.Vtt’a.ppa’;V __ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27:11 DAY OF JANUARY, PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE .MANJU_4LAVVVCVi3,EVIV}LtJR V VV AND THE I-“IONBLE MR. JUS’I’ICE_B. SVR}:ENIV\ufb02iSE ,(j{Ov\u00a7;’DA Vf . Criminal Appeal […]<\/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-76260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\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 Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-23T15:54:00+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=\"25 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-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T15:54:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4666,\"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-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T15:54:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 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":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-23T15:54:00+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T15:54:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":4666,"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-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T15:54:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-pushparaj-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Pushparaj on 27 January, 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\/76260","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=76260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}