{"id":77082,"date":"2009-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-20T06:09:18","modified_gmt":"2016-01-20T00:39:18","slug":"sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
\" \"(Ev  Pawn, \u00e915Pj\"\"'\u00b0\n\nM113 : T_ \"V\n\n%  s\/o D1%.SAl\u00a7?A3'AKA\n\n' ~ -\u00ab  ' ~ . __o'-arc: TENEZIER COCONUTBUSINESS\n ' i\u00a7iAYA'1{A BY CASTE\n AGERA VILLAGE, YALANDUR TALUK\n__c;H;~..MA'1-EAJANAGAEA DISTRICT  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
‘T ‘: ‘(E\u00bbY~–SRI DHARMAPAL, ADVQCATE)
\n _ (SR1. as. CHANDRAMOULI 85 SE1. HASHMATH PASHA,
\n‘ ‘AMICUS CURIAE)<\/p>\n
-1-<\/span><\/p>\n
IN THE HIGH comm 012′ KARNATAKA AT EANGALQEEVE’:  I  ~ <\/p>\n
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF :\u00ab*E”EI<uA_Ey   _
\nPRESENT  _:m_  T _  I 'E
\nTHE HONBLE MR.JusT1(3:i; 'sV..1\u00a7. BArz1gUE_:\u00a74'Ej4f;1.,;""
\n AND  V' ..  T' N;\n<\/p>\n
THE HONBLE MRs;\u00a7iIsT1ELE  \u00a7}ARATHNA<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL  N~g’.’13:*’_o5s
\nC\/W” CI\u20ac\u00a7.B;i’IvNA:I4AAE\u00a7F\ufb01AL’ ‘N.\u00a7>’.1Sev..z\u00e90os
\nCriminal   K   ‘<\/p>\n
HIGH co1i”R_’I”‘<):I3' 'KAVI??\u00a7ATAi{1\u00a7'EA–.  "  .
\nREPRESENTED BY R'EGiS'i'R.AR_C:ENERAL<\/p>\n
HIGH COURT BUILDING
\nBANGALQRE-1 '   '-  PETITIONER<\/p>\n
EAMADASA \u00a7vz\u00a7Y.A\u00a3{A<\/p>\n
AGED A}-3-..O{1T 36 YEARS,<\/p>\n
.. 5 _.\n<\/p>\n
day, in the morning, the deceased had visited her paxents<\/p>\n
and had brought certain sweet articles and after thatjshe<\/p>\n
left the house to go to P.W.4, who had coconut ~ V.<\/p>\n
was sell1ng’ coconuts. Aoooztling to the pmseeu\ufb01on,jV’a:e’ ‘<\/p>\n
the custom prevalent, P.Ws.1 and  <\/p>\n
begging for aims on that day and  <\/p>\n
their house. While they .3. sheet
\nStreet, they heard the cries of:   were
\nfamiliar with the voice of  foul play,
\nwhen went    they saw
\nthe    her tu\ufb01 in
\none   –chopper used for
\nshelling eustomers to provide tender<\/p>\n
coconut wiaztehr;   and undeniahkz from the<\/p>\n
V  “report;   es; the photograph that not only he<\/p>\n
 [ t;E2if,I._BSSaI1H\ufb01d her with the sharp-edged we@m,<\/p>\n
 ” Neelamma and as if it was not<\/p>\n
2  _enoi1gh,  the severed lewd along with him and<\/p>\n
h’  it :at some distance. After wimessing this ghastly<\/p>\n
gv<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
incident, people nearby including the other rehtives <\/p>\n
the spot and thema\ufb01er, Within 45 minutes or  V.<\/p>\n
a Written coznpiajnt to the  ” ” eaxe. “‘ V<\/p>\n
Cl1a1nara]:-mag’ arpolicc stam\ufb02 – <\/p>\n
On receipt of the first infolm\u00e9tiaga,   in
\nCum’ c No.38] 2006 against the ” _for’t.het(_>\u00a7’ene}e under<\/p>\n
Section 302 we and   _<\/p>\n
3. nugjng; the .. nlazztdatory
\nprocedures  I’mq%u\u00a2s\u00a7,_  Section 174 of
\nCr.P.C.,  the dead body
\nfor aute”psy’– eloihes of the deceased, take<\/p>\n
placc in the. mahazar witnesses.<\/p>\n
  ‘for then’ is carried out. P.W.16, Poiice<\/p>\n
V.   the accused and produces before the<\/p>\n
_ . The accused is ax-mated and his<\/p>\n
V Vv _  \u00abelothes are seized. After iatermgation and on<\/p>\n
  Veinfofnasa\ufb01on furnished by the accused, the wemn<\/p>\n
  by the accused in a bush, is aise seized.<\/p>\n
(6%\/~<\/p>\n
-3-<\/span><\/p>\n
-Bloodstained ckothes of the accused along with A’ <\/p>\n
the deceased and the weapon is sent to <\/p>\n
Laboratory. Statements of the  _T
\nafter completion of the inves1jgation an d._  00f   ‘V<\/p>\n
reports,charge sheetis\ufb01led.  .\n<\/p>\n
4. After    placed<\/p>\n
before the learned SessVi(5n.eeI\ufb01c;g\u00a7;;A:.0ii–Vi\u00a7;:e:baVsis of charge-<\/p>\n
sheet material, be under
\nScc\ufb01on 302      the charges and
\nclaimed tg ye  in:  100\/ 2006.\n<\/p>\n
  the guilt of the accused, the
\npmsecutive3n,VV_  ‘evidence of as many as \u00a38<\/p>\n
witn see. ‘evidence -Ex.P.1 to 13.36. It also<\/p>\n
 V’  the  Objects 1 to 9. In the statement<\/p>\n
  Cr.P.C., the accused dii not dispute the<\/p>\n
 him and the \u00e9eoeased, the earlier<\/p>\n
  later settlement of the same, but dispgjae<\/p>\n
-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
hzvolvemant in any way in the crime in    ‘ <\/p>\n
disputed the fact that the land in quv:’:J:ifir’>”1’1w.-sis <\/p>\n
the mother of the d\ufb01cd. Acco_   hen <\/p>\n
had purchased the mu m  -or
\nHowever, it is relevant  \u00a5idt”‘sp\u00a3>lcen or
\nstated anything as to whc; his wife<\/p>\n
6. _ ____  on mcom\u00e9, the
\ntna1′    of the o\ufb02irnoe under<\/p>\n
Sec\ufb01on    considering the various<\/p>\n
  guidc\ufb01zgxbs issued’   me Apcx Court, the ma] Court found<\/p>\n
  puni\u00e9,1’2mc3;:t’  accused. Hence, the aforesaid reference<\/p>\n
”  the  1 1by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Sri Dharmapal, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
   ihc accused and Sri S B Pav\ufb01n, learned SPF ap\ufb01ea\ufb01ng for the<\/p>\n
fa’<\/p>\n
-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsei, absoiutely there was no material  ~<\/p>\n
Show that the accused had any   In ‘4 <\/p>\n
fact it is contended that even after  is” if<\/p>\n
accused who took back the     VA<\/p>\n
separate house for her nearby  the  between
\nthe accused  the      such,
\nin the absence of any   not have
\nheld that the   aspect. in the
\nalternative, it\u20ac.i.gV.=.V   \ufb01le absence of any
\nmotive  plan etc, the
\ntrial  not  the maximum death<\/p>\n
puma’ hment  ._ the  Relying upon vane’ us<\/p>\n
 Vjimndnncements of  as well as the Apex Court, it is<\/p>\n
 not one of the rarest of rare cases  as<\/p>\n
   sueh,.__ even  Court holds the accused guilty of the<\/p>\n
VTT”‘-,., <'2\ufb01'enoe  Section 302 IPC, a minimum sentence of iife<\/p>\n
   should be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
  5}<\/p>\n
-12..\n<\/p>\n
9. On the other hand. the learned  V’<\/p>\n
support of the prosecution evidence ;1n’\u00a3i*the    u<\/p>\n
trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
10. We have heard    at
\nlength and perused the   ..  _V<\/p>\n
11.    that there is no
\ndispute as   on 28.8.2006 being
\nhoiaitzidail iI1–__V”i_I:iq1}t:I3f, photographs of the dead<\/p>\n
body and “.tTl#}1’EV  fthe autopsy report clearly<\/p>\n
 indica;\u00ab:s” that \ufb01ne.  was assaurtcd brutally with a<\/p>\n
   gxicsgpon like chopper practically severing the<\/p>\n
5$.t’Tth%:’ There are also injmics on the Wrist,<\/p>\n
  \ufb01nger. chin. According to the doctor, the cause of<\/p>\n
 Zduc to shock as a IYBSUII of massive’ external<\/p>\n
   and stoppage of blood cimuia\ufb01on to brain.<\/p>\n
  ‘..Hcr;ce, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased<\/p>\n
 * –. Tneeiamma met with homicidal death.<\/p>\n
5,.\u00bb<\/p>\n
.. 13 –\n<\/p>\n
12. This takes us to the most important question as<\/p>\n
to Whether the prosecution has succeeded in showing  it<\/p>\n
was the accused who committed the brutai murder ef<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
13. It is to be noted that out~’of.the <\/p>\n
examm ed by the prosecution, P.W’s.1  7-:<\/p>\n
the father of the deceased are
\nan “independent person inffront
\ntook place, has also spoke\ufb01  pmseeution
\nhas also relied upon’  the mother,
\nP.W.6, 213:    of the accused
\nmgaxdi\ufb01g   and P.w.12,
\nelders of.:   1  participated in earlier
\npanchayat A]’:)’u:tL\\l4i?t’-\u00a3311′   the deceased. P.Ws.3, 9<\/p>\n
and 15  the  witnesses and P.W.10 is the<\/p>\n
 the autopsy and has given the<\/p>\n
 The remaining witnesses P.Ws.1 1, 13,<\/p>\n
  14  :9.  the members of the investigation <\/p>\n
 \u00a33′ me.     face of the registered document<\/p>\n
  was the  the deceased, to see the welfare of the
\n  her children, had purchased the hand ’51 her
\n  f1,e’\u00abatt,,% ~,\u00a2,].:t is this land in the name of the amass which is<\/p>\n
‘   to be an eyesore for the accused. According gym<\/p>\n
..  ..\n<\/p>\n
14. Though this is a case where direct
\nin the form of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are availabke and   ‘
\nmotive aspect is not necessary    \u00e9
\notherwise, ifmm the evidence of the  7-I:
\nthe evidence of P.W.S and Ex.P.3V1_v:,”‘~itV_is   VA<\/p>\n
see that the marital life of the  tlte  goes<\/p>\n
smoothly in spite of the  11;\u00a2;g;u1\u00a7s,A:t’ep,w.s, just two<\/p>\n
months prior to   agicultural<\/p>\n
land to an    the Vti:au2:zie”‘of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P.31,     this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
Though  tnetie by the accused while
\n in 313 statement to the<\/p>\n
eifect that t it  _  purchased the land in the<\/p>\n
einct in’ etgf’eg\u00a2tign\u00a7und of the earlier dispute, in our view’ , it<\/p>\n
-15..\n<\/p>\n
prosecution, he was harassing the deceased to eitP-$’ ” <\/p>\n
loan on this Iand or to transfer it in his name foxj  T’  ‘<\/p>\n
of generating more income by    _ <\/p>\n
pump set etc., in the land. The .1’-‘.Ws.\u00a7’.V Q2\u00bb  ”<\/p>\n
and the daughter -1:>.w.5 is and
\nregard. Apart from the  quenfei
\nthe accused and the    on record
\nthrough the  :23;  that it was
\nthe deceased  fate by staying
\nwith the   she and her ch\ufb02dmn
\nshould  4a gafcnts. This aspect spoken<\/p>\n
to by the  remained unchallenged.<\/p>\n
4… As  i1oted,V”e3ceept tine futile attempt on the part of the<\/p>\n
  is produced to show that it was in fact<\/p>\n
he the land in the name of the deceased.<\/p>\n
V V In  we \ufb01nd that there was some ill—wiil or ill<\/p>\n
.. , ‘; 4A”‘f3eILng\u00a7  the accused and he was often qnarrelling with<\/p>\n
 and on the iiateful day, he brutally attacked the<\/p>\n
VT deceased and k\ufb02 led ‘her. Hence pmbabk: motive is also<\/p>\n
520″\n<\/p>\n
-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
gave indiscriminating biows on the deceased, but  A4 <\/p>\n
holding the tuft of the deceased,   <\/p>\n
after falling of the trunk portion,   <\/p>\n
and kept it at a distance. ‘I’}1is’3.tvs7_v\u00e9s.aV Isonpainz-.a’. <\/p>\n
by an independent Witness   is to
\nbe noted that he is   in the
\nsense, neither he    ‘stewards the
\ndeceased nor   ofgenmity with the
\naccused.    house is almost
\nopposite    as\ufb02such, at the outs\ufb01t, his<\/p>\n
presence in .._ti1e  not been much in dispute.<\/p>\n
According _to   The was in the house around<\/p>\n
 .1\ufb011′.Q’  mOvIV’\ufb021’\u00ab8, attracted by the shouts on the<\/p>\n
  e out, he saw the accused eanym g the<\/p>\n
  severe~:i__V  deceased in one hand along with the<\/p>\n
” ehopper “an&i proceeding ahead. No doubt, the entire<\/p>\n
  ofth1s’ witness to some extent and’ 1e’ ates that he is<\/p>\n
V.  eyewitness to the actual assault, but the fact remam’ s<\/p>\n
 he has seen the trunk portion ofthe deceased lying on<\/p>\n
6.}<\/p>\n
 oo\ufb02sis”tetit3h’as”t’been  accepted by the trial Court as an<\/p>\n
   in  \ufb01ndings of the trial Court in appreciation of
\n_,  ‘c\ufb01iidence. ”  on independent reassessment of the entire
\n  e11.eeA_\u00abof these witnesses, We \ufb01nd that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
n  in showing that in the moming around 11 or<\/p>\n
…. 19 ..\n<\/p>\n
requires corroboration. In fact, as observed by
\nCourt in the case of smmmz nmnmcrmxn   *-
\nsnrm of MAHARASHTRA supra, a vfitaoeos   t
\nbe interested when he derives    7.:
\nCOI1ViCtii)l1 of the accused. On    VA
\nthat the Witness even if is Fa Ielatiyzeitaviltot.   and
\nthere is possibility ofhis  pf crime, then
\nhis evidence cannot be  interested<\/p>\n
witness. MOI\u20ac9\u00a2er,  hovei    that even if<\/p>\n
these  they would not
\nfalsely    by suppressing the
\nidentity of thetu1e  this hackgrouncl, we \ufb01nd
\nthat  ‘evidettec.:Vofvtheee tatimesses which is cogent and<\/p>\n
 We do not \ufb01nd any illegality or<\/p>\n
5*”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-22..\n<\/p>\n
his wife deceased Neekamnza. We \ufb01nd that the   V’<\/p>\n
has considered all these aspects at      <\/p>\n
to the conclusion that the accused is   if<\/p>\n
offence under Section 302 IPC.  <\/p>\n
of the trial Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n18. This   m to the\nsentence.     Court has, on\n<\/pre>\n
cons\ufb02exa\ufb01qg; ‘Of that this is one
\nof the rafest the capital punishment<\/p>\n
and as suc’}\u00ab1;–    No.1\/2008.<\/p>\n
 kcpe  the pmaouncemcnts of the<\/p>\n
 ‘H_enV’Ali\u00a7ie_  in zespect of imposition of capitai<\/p>\n
 case of BAQLAIC amen -vs\u00bb sum or<\/p>\n
 %  emm  in ma 1980 se 39% nwcnux amen vs.<\/p>\n
  ismirrm\u00e9oii PUHJAB reported in 1983 (3) we we and the<\/p>\n
 H pronouncement in the case of SHAH!<\/p>\n
 ‘eegi\u00e9iinannaxannn @ mm\u00bb: mnomn mama vs.<\/p>\n
g”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
—to be V_t&i;ce;r;;A’s1ote o”f”‘<:ha1;,_he is not a habitual killer or even<\/p>\n
 o_\ufb02I:.1V;1tie1f.   = '<\/p>\n
 '<oirc%2m_sta11f:os, in our view, the case on hand cannot be<\/p>\n
 said to be falling under the catcgoxy of 'Rarest of<\/p>\n
..  _<\/p>\n
hand, it appcaxs from the cixcu\ufb01ustamzces indioateo;
\naccused was torn in his mental attitude and    Z  "  '
\nhad to look after two
\nchildren. Possibly because of
\ntender coconut water, he want,ed"Vto:&a:u\u00a7nociit.:l:i&is  ioy
\ntaking a loan raised on    ' ma
\nfor the admitted purpose   set to be
\ninstalled in the 'toe income. It
\nappears to  of the deceased to
\neither  in the name of the
\naccused \u00a30;   Aaocuscd io-st his cool and<\/p>\n
assauited  Neclamma. It is also<\/p>\n
\ufb01o. v:o;:m\u00a7ide:ing all these aggravating and mitigating<\/p>\n
-25..\n<\/p>\n
21. in the result and for the masons stated above, the<\/p>\n
Criminal Reference bitaring No.’ 1\/2008 is rejected <\/p>\n
death punishment imposed by    ”<\/p>\n
modi\ufb01ed by imposing imp\ufb01s\ufb01nrrsff\u00e9nt {oi  ‘ or
\nRs.1,0;)0]- carrying   r\u00e9orous
\nimprisonment f\ufb01r 3 mo:ifh%.”    Appeal No.
\n607\/2008 \ufb01led b3~’ ‘i’3:.l!_E=  is also
\n  L
\n %%%%    \u00ab  Sd[__
\n _      . J Image<\/p>\n
      wig
\n  _____ .. v E\ufb01\u00e9g\u00e9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009 Author: S.R.Bannurmath & B.V.Nagarathna ” “(Ev Pawn, \u00e915Pj””‘\u00b0 M113 : T_ “V % s\/o D1%.SAl\u00a7?A3’AKA ‘ ~ -\u00ab ‘ ~ . __o’-arc: TENEZIER COCONUTBUSINESS ‘ i\u00a7iAYA’1{A BY CASTE AGERA VILLAGE, YALANDUR TALUK __c;H;~..MA’1-EAJANAGAEA DISTRICT RESPONDENT ‘T ‘: ‘(E\u00bbY~–SRI DHARMAPAL, ADVQCATE) […]<\/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-77082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 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\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-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=\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-20T00:39:18+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T00:39:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1964,\"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\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T00:39:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 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":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 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\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-20T00:39:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T00:39:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009"},"wordCount":1964,"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\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009","name":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T00:39:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramadas-nayaka-vs-state-by-mamballi-police-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Ramadas Nayaka vs State By Mamballi Police on 27 February, 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\/77082","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=77082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}