Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA
Timmappa @ Timmanna, S/o Basappa Yarakihal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. Appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2, who suffered an order of conviction in S.C. No.24/2016 dated 30.10.2019 by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, (for short ‘trial Court’), and sentenced as under:
“The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and with a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .
Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and with a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 354A(1) of INDIAN PENAL CODE .
Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and with a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 354-B
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for serious offences based on credible witness testimonies while recognizing insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 354D.
Court upheld conviction for attempted sexual assault based on corroborative testimony despite victim's disabilities, emphasizing reliability of witness accounts.
The conviction for abduction and intimidation was upheld despite the victim's lack of support for the prosecution, with the court emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual offence cas....
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was upheld based on the credible testimony of the victim, while the sentence was reduced from five to three years due to mitigating circumstances.
Victim's consent and reliability of testimony paramount; insufficient evidence led to acquittal.
The conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act was not upheld due to lack of evidence; however, conviction for house trespass under Section 454 IPC was a....
The court affirmed that consent of a minor is irrelevant in rape cases, reinforcing statutory protections and addressing evidential credibility.
Consent of a minor is legally invalid in sexual assault cases; sufficient evidence supported conviction for kidnapping despite the absence of legal consent.
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
