Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V Srishananda, J
Mallappa S/o Devappa Vagangera – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearing and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. establishment of complaint details and initial charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's claims of discrepancies in evidence. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties regarding evidence and conviction. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. court's evaluation of witness credibility and evidence. (Para 18 , 38 , 41) |
| 6. court's evaluation of evidence and witness reliability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. final judgment and modification of the conviction. (Para 42 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel, for the appellant-accused and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State.
2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.3/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act, is sentenced as under:
“The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in-default S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Section 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and further he is sentenced to unde
The court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, while affirming the conviction for assault under Section 323 IPC with a modified fine.
The absence of corroborative evidence renders the sole testimony insufficient for conviction under criminal law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's duty to consider material contradictions in the e....
![Uppara Venkatesulu, S/o. Mulinti Anjinappa, Magecheruvu[V], Anantapur VS State Of A. P. , Rep. By P. P. - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1509](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Andhra_Pradesh_2.png)
Prosecution must prove charges under the SCs & STs Act beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delay in lodging FIR can undermine case credibility.
Credible evidence of caste identity is essential to establish an offence under the SC & ST (PoA) Act; without it, prosecution fails.
The importance of prompt lodging of FIR in criminal cases and the need for evidence to establish the presence of the public at the time of the offense to satisfy the criteria of 'public view' under S....
The court held that while the intention to murder was not established, the appellants were guilty of assaulting the victim, with emphasis on the inapplicability of exaggerated judicial proceedings in....
The prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the nature of injuries and adherence to procedural requirements in cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
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
