{"id":95552,"date":"2003-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2"},"modified":"2019-03-19T20:11:48","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:41:48","slug":"devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","title":{"rendered":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  674 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nDevatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPublic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/09\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thirty-five accused including the appellant herein<br \/>\nwere charged for offences punishable under Sections 302,<br \/>\n147, 149 and 304 IPC for having committed the murder of<br \/>\none Krishnaiah on 28.7.1988 at about 7 a.m. near the Ram<br \/>\nMandir (Temple) at Palachuru village. The learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Nellore Division, Nellore, by his judgment dated<br \/>\n18.5.1999 acquitted all the accused persons of the charges<br \/>\nframed against them holding that the prosecution had failed<br \/>\nto establish its case. In appeal the High Court of Judicature<br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the impugned judgment<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that A-1 (since deceased) and A-2<br \/>\n(the appellant herein) were responsible for causing the death<br \/>\nof deceased. The High Court also held that A-3 was<br \/>\nresponsible for causing injuries to PW-1. Since by then A-1<br \/>\nhad died, the proceedings against him had abated, therefore,<br \/>\nthe High Court convicted A-2 for an offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 302 simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment for life while A-3 was convicted by the High<br \/>\nCourt for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, the<br \/>\nsaid A-3 has not challenged his conviction and sentence, so<br \/>\nthe present appeal before us is confined to A-2 only.<br \/>\n\tBrief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are<br \/>\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>It is stated that there were two sub-castes of Harijans<br \/>\nresiding in Palachuru village, who had certain disputes inter<br \/>\nse between them. One such group consisting of 35 accused<br \/>\nwas led by A-1 allegedly attacked the deceased on<br \/>\n28.7.1988 at about 7 a.m. near the Ram Mandir in the said<br \/>\nvillage.  In the said attack, the deceased Krishnaiah was<br \/>\nseriously injured while PW-1 was also injured. The incident<br \/>\nin question was noticed by PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 7. While<br \/>\nPWs.5, 6 and 11 allegedly arrived at the scene soon after the<br \/>\nattack. The information in regard to this attack was received<br \/>\nby the Mandal Revenue Officer, PW-14 who conveyed the<br \/>\nsaid information to PW-21, the Sub-Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nPalachuru, who immediately visited the scene of the<br \/>\nincident and shifted the injured to the hospital at Gudur. In<br \/>\nview of the fact that the deceased was seriously injured he<br \/>\nwas shifted to Madras Medical College Hospital at Madras.<br \/>\nPW-1 also arranged to record the statement of the said<br \/>\ndeceased in the hospital which is marked as Ex. P-21. It is<br \/>\nstated that said Krishnaiah died on 3.8.1988, hence, Ext.P-<br \/>\n21 was treated as a dying declaration. After completion of<br \/>\ninvestigation, PW-21 filed a charge sheet against 35<br \/>\naccused persons including the appellant herein. The trial<br \/>\ncourt, as stated above, acquitted all the accused persons but<br \/>\non appeal preferred by the State the High Court has<br \/>\nconvicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMs. K. Sarda Devi, learned counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant contended that the High Court<br \/>\nseriously erred in reversing the well-considered judgment of<br \/>\nacquittal of the trial court. She submitted that from a perusal<br \/>\nof the judgment of the High Court it can be seen that the<br \/>\nHigh Court has not properly discussed the findings of the<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge nor has it given any acceptable<br \/>\nreason for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court.<br \/>\nShe also contended that a perusal of the evidence of eye-<br \/>\nwitnesses clearly shows that the said evidence cannot be<br \/>\nrelied on for basing a conviction as held by the trial court.<br \/>\nMs. T. Anamika, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nState of Andhra Pradesh supported the judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court by contending that the evidence led by the<br \/>\nprosecution was consistent, and PW-1 being an injured eye-<br \/>\nwitness, his evidence cannot be discarded. She also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the evidence of PW-1 is fully corroborated<br \/>\nby the other evidence led by the prosecution, hence, there is<br \/>\nno reason for this Court to interfere with the well<br \/>\nconsidered judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is a well-settled principle in law that though the first<br \/>\nappellate court like the High Court in this case sits as a<br \/>\ncourt of appeal on facts also while considering an appeal<br \/>\nfrom the judgment of the trial court and in that process it<br \/>\ncan re-appreciate the evidence on record to arrive at a just<br \/>\nconclusion, this Court in more than one case has held that<br \/>\nwhile so re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate court<br \/>\nshould first analyse the findings of the trial court and then<br \/>\nfor valid reasons to be recorded the appellate court can<br \/>\nreverse such finding of the trial court. The said decisions<br \/>\nalso hold that the appellate court while sitting as a court of<br \/>\nappeal should not substitute the finding of the trial court<br \/>\nmerely because another view is possible to be taken on the<br \/>\nsame sets of facts. (See : Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar<br \/>\n(1977 2 SCC 205), <a href=\"\/doc\/177671\/\">Harisingh M.Vasava vs. State of Gujarat<\/a><br \/>\n(2002 3 SCC 476) and <a href=\"\/doc\/1965090\/\">Joseph vs. State of Kerala<\/a> (2003 1<br \/>\nSCC 465).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBearing in mind the above principles in law, we will<br \/>\nnow consider whether the High Court is justified in this<br \/>\ncase in interfering with the finding of the trial court which<br \/>\nhad acquitted all the accused persons. A perusal of the<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court shows that it had discussed the<br \/>\nevidence led by the prosecution in a very casual manner.<br \/>\nFor example, in regard to the evidence of PW-1, this is what<br \/>\nthe High Court observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;As far as the attack on PW1 is<br \/>\nconcerned, the deceased while giving<br \/>\nthe first information Ex.P21 gave the<br \/>\ndetails of the offence. PW1 himself<br \/>\nattributed specific overt acts against<br \/>\nA3, A4, A6, A7 and A8 and whereas<br \/>\nPW10 has also attributed overt acts of<br \/>\nattacking PW1 to A2 and A3. It is<br \/>\nsupported by the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>But the injuries were simple in nature<br \/>\nand therefore they are ignored.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe do not find from the above observation of the<br \/>\nHigh Court that it has taken into consideration the various<br \/>\nomissions and contradictions found in the evidence of PW-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.<br \/>\n\tHaving perused the evidence of PW-1 in its entirety as<br \/>\nalso the medical evidence, we are not in a position to agree<br \/>\nwith the High Court in regard to the acceptability of the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-1. First of all, it should be noticed that in<br \/>\nthe above extracted portion of the judgment, the High Court<br \/>\nhas observed that the evidence of PW-1 is supported by the<br \/>\nmedical evidence but when we perused the evidence of the<br \/>\ndoctor, PW-16 as also the injury memo and post mortem<br \/>\nreport, we notice there is a direct conflict between the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-1 and the medical evidence. While PW-1 in<br \/>\nhis evidence before the court stated that the appellant<br \/>\npierced the forehead of the deceased Krishnaiah once. The<br \/>\nmedical report shows that the injury caused to the forehead<br \/>\nof the deceased was by the use of a blunt weapon and that<br \/>\ntoo by repeated blows. Therefore, the High Court was<br \/>\ntotally wrong in coming to the conclusion that the medical<br \/>\nevidence supported the oral evidence of PW-1. That apart,<br \/>\nthe High Court failed to notice certain other material<br \/>\nomissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW-1. First<br \/>\nof all it should be noted that PW-1 on his own admission is<br \/>\na person who has paralysed legs for the last 20 years and<br \/>\nwas unable to move on his own. It is his case that when he<br \/>\nheard some &#8220;galata&#8221; he went from his house to the place of<br \/>\nincident which was about more than one furlong away from<br \/>\nhis house. He did not state in his evidence who actually<br \/>\nhelped him to go to the said place of incident. In the cross-<br \/>\nexamination this witness has admitted that he had stated<br \/>\nbefore the police that due to old age he could not identify all<br \/>\nthe culprits. He has also admitted in the cross examination<br \/>\nthat when his statement under Section 161 was recorded he<br \/>\ndid not state before the police that the appellant herein had<br \/>\nattacked him, but in his oral evidence before the court he<br \/>\nhas made improvement in his evidence, while identifying<br \/>\nall the accused persons as also while stating the appellant<br \/>\nherein also attacked him. At this stage it is also relevant to<br \/>\nmention that in Ex.P-21 the dying declaration of the<br \/>\ndeceased presence of none of these witnesses including that<br \/>\nof PW-1 is mentioned. The only person who is stated to be<br \/>\na witness to the incident as per the dying declaration Ext.P-<br \/>\n21 is PW-12 who has not spoken anything about the attack<br \/>\nby the appellant herein either on the deceased or on PW-1.<br \/>\nIt is on consideration of all these facts and also taking into<br \/>\nconsideration the conflict between the evidence of PW-1<br \/>\nand medical evidence the trial court rejected the evidence of<br \/>\nPW-1. In our opinion, the High Court has not taken into<br \/>\nconsideration these important facts while accepting the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-1. We are aware of the fact that PW-1 is an<br \/>\ninjured witness and normally the presence of such a witness<br \/>\nat the time of incident can be inferred if the injuries are<br \/>\nsuffered in the course of same incident. But in the instant<br \/>\ncase, we are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of<br \/>\nPW-1 because on his own admission in the cross-<br \/>\nexamination because of poor eye sight he was not able to<br \/>\nidentify all the accused persons. That apart it has come in<br \/>\nthe evidence that so far as this witness is concerned he was<br \/>\nactually attacked not at the place of occurrence, namely the<br \/>\nRam Mandir where the deceased was attacked, but in front<br \/>\nof the house of one Yellampali Peda Polaiah which is at a<br \/>\nconsiderable distance from the Ram Mandir where the<br \/>\ndeceased was attacked. Taking into consideration these<br \/>\nfacts, we are of the opinion that the trial court was justified<br \/>\nin rejecting the evidence of PW-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe prosecution has then relied on the evidence of<br \/>\nPW-3 and PW-7 to establish the fact that it is the appellant<br \/>\nherein who pierced the forehead of the deceased with a<br \/>\nspear. We have already noticed the fact that the injury<br \/>\nattributed to this appellant to the forehead of the deceased<br \/>\ncould not have been caused by a sharp edged or pointed<br \/>\nweapon like spear and it is on that basis among other facts<br \/>\nwe have rejected the evidence of PW-1. For the very same<br \/>\nreason, we think it is not safe to place reliance on the<br \/>\nevidence of these two alleged eye witnesses. The evidence<br \/>\nof PW-4, as a matter of fact, does not support the<br \/>\nprosecution at all because according to him it is A-3 and not<br \/>\nA-2 who pierced the head of the deceased with a spear. So<br \/>\nfar as other witnesses examined by the prosecution are<br \/>\nconcerned, namely, PWs. 5, 6, 10 and 11, they are all<br \/>\nwitnesses who arrived at the place of incident after the<br \/>\nattack was over, therefore, their evidence will not support<br \/>\nthe prosecution case any further. Only other alleged eye-<br \/>\nwitness PW-2 has not supported the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom the above discussion of the evidence led by the<br \/>\nprosecution in the case in hand, we are satisfied that the<br \/>\nHigh Court fell into an error in reversing the judgment of<br \/>\nthe trial court. Therefore, this appeal succeeds and the same<br \/>\nis allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the<br \/>\nconviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set<br \/>\naside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith,  if not<br \/>\nrequired in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 674 of 2002 PETITIONER: Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah RESPONDENT: Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/09\/2003 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh. JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-19T14:41:48+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\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T14:41:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\"},\"wordCount\":1936,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\",\"name\":\"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T14:41:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-19T14:41:48+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\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T14:41:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2"},"wordCount":1936,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2","name":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ... on 9 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T14:41:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devatha-venkataswamy-rangaiah-vs-public-prosecutor-high-court-of-on-9-september-2003-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of &#8230; on 9 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/95552","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=95552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}