Back
B. R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Venkatesha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High court of Karnataka at Bangalore, vide which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and set aside the judgment and order of the P.O. and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, at Kolar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Thereafter, the High Court convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
FACTS:
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
2.1 According to the prosecution on 21st February, 1997 at about 08:00 a.m., PW2-Bharathi-victim, the daughter of PW1 was going along with PW7-Kalavathi and PW-9-Sharada to the College at Srinivasapur from Kallur village. They boarded the bus from Kallur village to Srinivasapur. When they got down at Srinivaspur bus stand at about 08:00 a.m., they saw a car parked. The original
The court ruled that the victim's age of 19 years at the time of the incident precluded the application of kidnapping laws under IPC, leading to the quashing of the conviction under Section 366 IPC.
Call records require certification under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court clarified the distinction between kidnapping and abduction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent and compulsion in the offense.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Consent of victim is immaterial and subsisting family bond cannot be excuse for escape of victim from parental custody at pretext or behest of pleasant and affab....
The prosecution must prove specific intent for abduction under Section 366 IPC; failure to do so results in the acquittal of sexual assault charges.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping a minor, affirming the trial court's findings of evidence and intent.
The court affirmed the importance of credible evidence in sexual offense cases against minors while upholding the conviction for unlawful abduction but not for rape due to lack of proof.
Conviction for rape cannot be sustained where no signs of sexual intercourse is seen in victim’s body.
The main legal point established is that consistent evidence and the duration of the case can influence the court's decision in affirming a conviction and modifying a sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
