{"id":89111,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2"},"modified":"2014-05-05T01:32:25","modified_gmt":"2014-05-04T20:02:25","slug":"prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF' Aucusjij .\nBEFORE 0 0 0 0\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUST'ItC''L?.\u00abI\\f.2:1NI!\u00a7c'\\TIV\u00a7A' 0:} I  \nCRIMINAL APPEAL M11825\/2003 - = 0'  \nBETWEEN: A  '0 V' \nPrakasha Naik @ Prakash  \nS\/o.Govindanaik \" _   v  \nAged about 39 years V V\nOcc:Agricu}ture.   --   \nR\/ 0.Sadashivap_1i_'ra T':anda~' \"\n\nShika\ufb01pura. ~  _    .\nShimoga   .     ...APPELLANT\n\n[By s;~I0eI;-Ia-4543:',   \u00a3oI--jsrI fEt:IV3\"II')eshpa1'1de, Adv.)\nAND: V  0 'T 0\n\nThe State at I5_{0am.ata1<a'."': ...RESPONDEN'I'\n\n V'  . 0S1-iiJ'Vijay Kuniafdit\/iaj age, HCGP)\n\n "K(;'r.Ig;+3I is \ufb02ied under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C\nagainst the judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the\n\nP.O.,__, Fast) Track Court, Shimoga in S.C.No.89\/98\nconvicting the appellantwaccused for the offence\n\n--\u00ab 1e under Section 304(2) IPC and sentencing\n A ..\ufb01.hirn\u00ab.._to undergo R1 for 4 years and to pay \ufb01ne of\n _ ' --Rs..]..0,000\/- I.D., to undergo R.I. for 6 months.\n\nThis appeal coming on for hearing this day, the\n\n04 \" I . \"Court deiivered the following:\n\n\n\n... 2 ...\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appellant–accused was tried for an offence
\npunishable under Section 304 Part II of
\nS.C.No.89\/1998 on the file of the Fast
\nShimoga and he was convicted “for   Tl”<\/p>\n
Therefore, he is before this Court;  A it<\/p>\n
2. I have heard Sri  leai<3'ie'd:.VCot1:risel for
\naccused and learned'~~..Go\\%err1hie\u00a7:1ti'-Advocatedn for the<\/p>\n
State.\n<\/p>\n
 The  of the prosecution are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
 PTyV–  Basavaraja Naik, deceased Hanumatha Naik<\/p>\n
  Naik are direct brothers and they<\/p>\n
 of one Govinda Naik. PW–6 I-Ialibaj was the<\/p>\n
 ofdiieceased. They are natives of Sadashivapura<\/p>\n
A    Shikaripura Taluk. They had; divided their joint<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
VT   ..,_fdmily properties. They were living in different portions<\/p>\n
V of the same house. In one of the joint family properties.<\/p>\n
accused and deceased had dug a borewell under Ganga<\/p>\n
d\\)-  mw-<\u00a3\\r .\n<\/p>\n
_ 3 _
\nKalyana Yojane. There was a clear understanding that<\/p>\n
they should equally share water from the borewe-11g to<\/p>\n
irrigate their lands.  \u00bb ,   ” ..\n<\/p>\n
4. On 25.7.1998, at about 9.30 p.m-;;._ <\/p>\n
Hanumantha Naik had returned; from S-hVik’a.ripui’a\u00a7_’ if<\/p>\n
that time, accused was <\/p>\n
The deceased told accused_V:'”tQ_ leave water”‘:..from'” the ” if<\/p>\n
borewell to enable him to  ism, dkccused<\/p>\n
refused and therefore; ‘t\u00a5.”1ere__was “afj quarrel. Accused<\/p>\n
‘~went inside v.._house:f’a.11(j*\u00ab…bIQugi;1t’V a sickle and<\/p>\n
assauit.ed*–“deceased. Deceased fell down<\/p>\n
and there wast’  from his neck. Deceased<\/p>\n
 suec-iumbed to”injL1_1fi.es, when he was being shifted to<\/p>\n
  The first information relating to occurrence was<\/p>\n
I_1odged  PW-1 Basavaraj Naik. The Investigating<\/p>\n
if  held inquest and subjected the body to Post<\/p>\n
i  Mortem examination. The Post Mortem Examination<\/p>\n
 was conducted by Dr.PW~’15 Rajashekar, who opined<\/p>\n
that deceased had suffered a stab injury below the left<\/p>\n
wt CLJ\\z”-‘1’\/’-‘\\”:\u00a3\u00ab\\,<\/p>\n
clavicle and left sub clavicle artery was cut. There was<\/p>\n
accumulation of 200 ml of dark \ufb02uid blood in<\/p>\n
cavity. PW– 15 opined that death was due  _<\/p>\n
result of hemorrhage due to inju_:y..t_o leftHstibiiclavicalarp ll”<\/p>\n
artery and upper lobe of left cavity.  A ‘ll<\/p>\n
6. The Investigating  recorded svtatements of ” V L’<\/p>\n
witnesses, arrested accused..-a-.n.d–.seized sicitlefrom the
\nplace of occurrence. aOr_:” co\ufb01:1\u00a7,letion.VVlofV investigation,<\/p>\n
charge sheet was s_ubi_nitted. again-s_t accused.<\/p>\n
 PWs.1 to 15 were
\nexamined! ‘arld  as per Ex.P1 to 21 Were<\/p>\n
marked   In-aterial objects were marked as<\/p>\n
1?””tOl” lrimorder to bring home the gum; of<\/p>\n
I t~–acct1sed’,”\u00ab\u00bbthe V”pr’osecution relied on the direct evidence of<\/p>\n
pvlv~—.1 eeasagzafag Naik. PW-3 Somla Naik, PW–4 Shankar<\/p>\n
 Pris Halibai and PW-7 Nagaraj Naik and medical<\/p>\n
  evidelnce of PW~15 Dr\ufb02ajashekar.<\/p>\n
The Wife of deceased and other Witnesses have
\nconsistently deposed motive for the occurrence. The<\/p>\n
accused and deceased had jointly sunk a borewell with<\/p>\n
.. 5 _
\nan understanding that they should equally share the
\nwater from borewell on turnwise basis. Howeverfthere<\/p>\n
were some disputes between accused and_…._giecea;;s.ed.p<\/p>\n
regarding payment of electricity charges_..V__%1’h.e’  _ <\/p>\n
had not allowed deceased to]  Water’ <\/p>\n
borewell.\n<\/p>\n
8. PW–l Basavaraj Nai”l:..’:W–as   the<\/p>\n
occurrence. He lodged first”inforrfration.”Hoxyever, he
\nhas not whole–heartedly”V  case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution.  on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence  deceased was lying in<\/p>\n
injured cc.ndi,tion in ” of his house and he was<\/p>\n
 ‘_   thelnlhospitai in a bullock cart. PW–1 and PW-<\/p>\n
 ‘and otlrteiztfillagers had gone to lodge first information.<\/p>\n
He was dc”cla\u00a7’ed as hostile witness and cross examined<\/p>\n
 by   Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
 V Vb”-..pDuring cross examination, he has stuck to his<\/p>\n
‘  Version. PW–1 is the younger brother of deceased and<\/p>\n
.4 elder brother of accused. It appears, he was interested<\/p>\n
in saving deceased. Therefore, he has resailed from<\/p>\n
,w\u00a3a-a~~4.\n<\/p>\n
V 5 M
\ncontents of first information lodged by him. Yet, the
\nevidence of PW–1 Basavaraj Naik to the extent thatp he<\/p>\n
had seen deceased in injured condition <\/p>\n
shifted to hospital after the occurrence_.””vsf:ou1d<\/p>\n
support to the case of the <\/p>\n
had been assaulted at thepoVp1ace”ai1’d time7′-puvtforthtbyl”g<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
9. PW~3 Somla”V-._Na_iAl.<W_ a resident of
\nSadashivapura 'VI'anda.__ that on the
\ndate of   deceased had gone to
\nShikaripu-ra — returned to their village at<\/p>\n
about  they came near the house of<\/p>\n
 acc\u00bbu'sedA,' there '*w,a_s_\u00bba quarrel between accused arid<\/p>\n
 'c1:eceas-eVd~r regarding sharing of borewell water. The<\/p>\n
accusedibi-ecaine Wild, brought a sickle from his house<\/p>\n
and assaulted on the neck of deceased. PW–3 has<\/p>\n
A '~:tf"iden'ti\ufb01ed the weapon of assault. At the time of<\/p>\n
  occurrence, street iamp was burning. PW3 has deposed<\/p>\n
 that one Hanurnantha Naik, Rama Naik, Jaya Naik,<\/p>\n
Karibasayya Naik and Shankar Naik were present near<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence. PVV3 has deposed that PW–1<\/p>\n
am).\n<\/p>\n
‘T7 7 ‘T7
\nsnatched sickle from the hands of accused. Accused<\/p>\n
fied away from that place. They shifted deceased<\/p>\n
Hanumantha Naik in a bullock cart. On <\/p>\n
hospital, he succumbed to injuries.<\/p>\n
During cross examinatiori;  had’ _rei.tevrated.<\/p>\n
the version given in exarn_in~ation\u00a5’in~chief. *PVv’3 “has ” V<\/p>\n
deposed that occurrence ‘preeeded”‘o},r. all quarrel
\nbetween accused and  deposed that
\naccused dealt solitary    deceased with
\na sickle. tia..g1nn1;:~.”:3;il’._the’instance of Halibai,<\/p>\n
he hasgiven false ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
, -1.03  iirisna  is an independent witness.<\/p>\n
 ‘He”was?not’t’enmicalto accused nor he was a close friend<\/p>\n
 had no reasons to falsely implicate<\/p>\n
accused; ‘  evidence that accused dealt a blow on the<\/p>\n
 J’11.ec1< of-'deceased finds corroboration from the medical<\/p>\n
  evidence. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect the<\/p>\n
  -“evidence of PW–3.\n<\/p>\n
ll. PW–4 Shankar Naik has given evidence, which<\/p>\n
is more or less similar to the evidence of PW–3. PW–4<\/p>\n
ALJ\\ 8 lL4\\
\nhas deposed that the occurrence was preceded by a<\/p>\n
brief quarrel between accused and deceased. The
\naccused was demanding deceased to give him <\/p>\n
Rs. 1,000\/– which he spent for digging a bore’vv–ell4,:lT:’ ~<\/p>\n
the quarre} was going on, accused wentVl4″itn.side.the.. 2<\/p>\n
house and brought a sickle
\nof deceased. After the   ‘lwas ”
\nsnatched from the hands  bv’P’\u00bb 7- 1;} When
\naccused assaulted  saw the<\/p>\n
occurrence in  lamp. They<\/p>\n
shiftedV’lVldeceas;3(1\u00ab cart. On the way, he
\nsuccunibed’ to  ” -. ” = <\/p>\n
, During cross”e2ta_nii.nation, PW4 has admitted that<\/p>\n
. lll”thC””tlutiie*re’igstarteldw’between accused and deceased.<\/p>\n
 a sickle from his house. But PWs.3<\/p>\n
 v\u00a7.f*e’1’eA\u00ab:’~not able to prevent the accused. Accused<\/p>\n
Jdealet aslolitary blow on the neck of deceased with a<\/p>\n
  Thereafter, he ran away from that place. PW–4<\/p>\n
  -has deposed that he was cordial with deceased, so also<\/p>\n
he was cordial with accused. PW–4~ is an independent<\/p>\n
witness. He had no reasons to give false evidence<\/p>\n
N w(i–ML.\n<\/p>\n
against accused. His evidence lends corroboration to<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW~3.\n<\/p>\n
12. The evidence given V jay P.’\u00a3’v”>’5\u00ab:’1]_Mala’tesh’ * <\/p>\n
M.Kuribar relates to the land jointly ..1i1elc1_1 <\/p>\n
and deceased.\n<\/p>\n
13. PW–6 Halibaj is jgotgnldeceased. Jhhe has
\ndeposed that accused   sunk a
\nborewell  had agreed
\nto use water’ “:\u00a3\u00a7v’h’el accused had spent
\nthe   and in that regard, a
\npanchagfat\ufb01h’  was decided that deceased<\/p>\n
shall give a Rsl;4;.0.00\/– to accused. The deceased<\/p>\n
‘l V.  ciofv-J  gaxfelllaccused a sum of Rs.-4,000\/-. But
\n  not satis\ufb01ed. He was again demanding<\/p>\n
  _ deceased’ ‘to:’give a sum of Rs.I,500\/~. On the date of
\nH.”44”–d_occu.rrer1’ce, deceased had gone to Shikaripura and
\ng’..’_\u00e9’retu;”ried home at about 9.00 pm. At that time,<\/p>\n
ll  “accused started abusing deceased. There was a quarrel<\/p>\n
A between accused and deceased. The accused Went<\/p>\n
inside his house and brought a sickle and assaulted on<\/p>\n
‘V7 6  -9-x -\u00ab~01-A<\/p>\n
A  A
\nthe neck of deceased, as a result. deceased fell down.<\/p>\n
PWs.1 and 6 and other witnesses shifted deceased in a<\/p>\n
buliock cart. On the way, deceased succumhedi~.,to<\/p>\n
injuries.\n<\/p>\n
During cross~examination,___PW_–6 has””dfexiied”.th\u00bbe ll”<\/p>\n
suggestion that her husband was.AaI:_’_’aleoholi’e.:l’ <\/p>\n
denied the suggestion that’l.d”er,:ease’d was l’coA1’itii*:L1ously’~.l’<\/p>\n
abusing accused. She has….de\u00bbpo’s_ed tha\ufb01occurrence
\ntook place in the clo;dimo..r_1_ of houses of
\naccused and deiceasecild   that when the<\/p>\n
accused brouginfapl ‘sick-1e'”‘fro1’n his house, the witnesses<\/p>\n
did not iIVi’te.1’v’enle{.l’Sliedias deposed that the Witnesses<\/p>\n
 p_ did\u00bb’i1ot__xanticip’at\u20acIlflat accused would assault deceased<\/p>\n
7 ‘ wi’t’h. a  .” .._<\/p>\n
 2 the wife of deceased. Her presence near<\/p>\n
thehllplaeel of: occurrence cannot be suspected. Being the<\/p>\n
  of deceased, she would be least disposed to<\/p>\n
 Aiijxiplicate accused, leaving aside the real assailant.<\/p>\n
ml’i’herefore, her evidence does not suffer from any<\/p>\n
discrepancy. “J .  ,\\_ _g\/L ~,..\u00a2g,._Q<\/p>\n
._  ._\n<\/p>\n
14. PW–7 Nagaraja Naik was the son of deceased.<\/p>\n
At the time of occurrence he was studying S.S.L.C.  PW-<\/p>\n
?’ had given evidence which is similar to the evider:ic.e’~Vof<\/p>\n
PW–6. During cross examination, PW–7  <\/p>\n
that accused was abusing deceased.  ‘to.4_”:th\u20ac.V nu<\/p>\n
occurrence, he was cordial with   .’
\ndemanded the accused to   ”
\nwater, but the accused._refuVsed;”_:=I?le_admitted that
\nin the quarrel, deceased.”liadfttold: that if he<\/p>\n
does not allo__w–him  would see to<\/p>\n
him.   brought a sickle and<\/p>\n
assau1ted”deceascd’V away from the place. When<\/p>\n
 deceased WasV’lb’ein_g__’shifted to hospital, he succumbed<\/p>\n
2 to V injeu Fives. ‘ i  “* ..\n<\/p>\n
H *  Vlb.’V%\u00a7’heA’o:ettidence of PW~8 relates to the seizure of<\/p>\n
 blood  clothes from the place of occurrence.<\/p>\n
    PW–9 Gajendra, was the Tahsildar of<\/p>\n
‘  Slgika\ufb01pur. At that time, he is alleged to have recorded<\/p>\n
 confessional statement of accused. PW-9 was neither a<\/p>\n
Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate to record the<\/p>\n
{vi  Q'””””d’\\<\/p>\n
VIIII 12 VVVVV
\nconfessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
\nTherefore, his evidence is not of any assistaniee’i~.to<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
17. PW–lO Krishna Naik has given–‘ev-idience  “= <\/p>\n
regard to borewell sunk by <\/p>\n
adjustment between accused and deceasedgw  <\/p>\n
18. T he evidence.__ of “-.to 1?}}ll’irelates to
\ninvestigation of the case.      A it<\/p>\n
19. In the’discus_sio21:.V~inadetsupra, I have referred
\nto Dr Rajashekar, the medical<\/p>\n
evidence lgiven   regarding injury found on<\/p>\n
 . g_ deceased’ and caus,e__o.f death has not been controverted.<\/p>\n
  from the overall appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence; that the prosecution has proved beyond<\/p>\n
Jiears_ona-‘ole doubt that on 25.7.1998, at about 9.30<\/p>\n
” , lp,_ln1-.,-F there was a quarrel between accused and<\/p>\n
  ~deceased regarding sharing of water from the borewell<\/p>\n
” jointly sunk by them. Accused brought a sickle and<\/p>\n
assaulted on the neck of deceased. Accused had<\/p>\n
N. \u00abi: w- Q.\n<\/p>\n
reasons to believe that injury in\ufb02icted by him was likely<\/p>\n
to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
21. The learned trial Judge,_….,o_:n.Vv’:\u00bbA.proper”<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence and also <\/p>\n
background of occurrence, -.___solita1jy” blow’V’%’   <\/p>\n
accused on the vital part of  hasliheldlfaccused
\nguilty of an offence    Iittot” ZPC and
\nsentenced him  for a
\nperiod of      Rs.10,000\/– in
\ndefault, “to   rpivsjorous imprisonment.<\/p>\n
252; ‘Sri  Counsel for accused<\/p>\n
wou1d..sub1n’itt_:that* the initial provocation came from the<\/p>\n
 ‘op,\/,’dec’eased. v”mTherefore, the sentence imposed on<\/p>\n
A =.the- accuse<\/p>\n
” ‘ is V too severe.\n<\/p>\n
  ‘The learned Government Advocate would<\/p>\n
A X1″ the sentence. An offence under Section 304 Part<\/p>\n
‘   of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either<\/p>\n
 description for a term which may extend up to 10 years<\/p>\n
or with fine or with both. At the time of occurrence,<\/p>\n
deceased was aged about 38 years. His wife Halibai<\/p>\n
 p’\\- – “‘”4’\u00a3f\\’<\/p>\n
59. z::\n<\/p>\n
{PW–6) was aged about 83 years. She became a widow<\/p>\n
due to the acts committed by accused. The.<\/p>\n
deceased had lost the love and affection and  ~<\/p>\n
his father.\n<\/p>\n
24. in the circumstances, fivdddo 1]Q~f.  <\/p>\n
extenuating factors to reduceu”th’e  years
\nimposed by the trial   do hotuyf\ufb01nd any
\ngrounds to int,e1ffere:y.with.   judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,    V  if \n\n yyyy       ,.  \n\n aim-\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 Author: N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF’ Aucusjij . BEFORE 0 0 0 0 THE HONBLE MR.JUST’ItC”L?.\u00abI\\f.2:1NI!\u00a7c’\\TIV\u00a7A’ 0:} I CRIMINAL APPEAL M11825\/2003 – = 0′ BETWEEN: A ‘0 V’ […]<\/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-89111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1980,\"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\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2"},"wordCount":1980,"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\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2","name":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-04T20:02:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakasha-naik-prakash-kumar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakasha Naik @ Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89111","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=89111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}