IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, G. BASAVARAJA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
B.V. Sindhu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. These appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June, 2024 and order on sentence dated 27th June, 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”.)
2. Criminal Appeal No.100026 of 2025 is preferred by the State under Section 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 418 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit seeking enhancement of punishment by modifying the sentence dated 27th June 2024 and imposing maximum sentence as provided for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 195, 211, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code .
3. Criminal Appeals No.100354, 100355, 100356, 100357, 100358, 100370 & 100371 of 2024 are preferred by the accused 2 to 13 in SC No.262 of 2019, challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 25th June 2024 and order on Sentence dated 27th June 2024 passed in SC No.262 of 2019 by the trial Court.
4. Complainant-Tukaram Balesh Majjagi has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100305 of 2024 under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the sent








Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Another
Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and Another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.