M. NAGAPRASANNA
Aravinda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER
M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner/accused No.3 is knocking at the doors this Court calling in question an order dated 02-12-2022 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Spl.S.C.No.46 of 2021 arising out of crime in Crime No.43 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 447, 109 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri K.B.K. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri S.R. Sreeprasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-


The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of confronting witnesses with their previous statements to ensure a fair trial, as mandated by Section 145 of the Evidence Act a....
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
Accused have the right to access a transcript of the victim's Audio/Video Recorded Statement to ensure a fair trial and effective defense.
The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act must accompany the electronic record when it is produced in evidence, and the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which relian....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere identification in recordings is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.