Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, T.M.NADAF
Bheemaraya @ Bheemareddy @ Reddy S/o Mareppa Dodmani – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE THROUGH SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for brevity) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.85/2012 by the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) wherein the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366A and 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 11.11.2010 at 4:40 p.m. when the victim girl was in Balaji Book Depot, Shahapur along with her inmates, accused had induced her to go to any place knowingly well that she is less than 18 years for having sex. On 15.11.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. in Bol
The Court ruled that evidence of school records is primary for establishing age in sexual offense cases, and a minor's consent is irrelevant. Conviction under Section 366A was modified to Section 363....
The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the procedure laid down in the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules for determining juvenility. The court emphasized the need....
The court affirmed that acquittal was proper, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the prosecution’s failure to prove kidnapping or consent under the specified ....
(1) Mere recovery of a child from some other person ipso facto does not to prove offence under Section 363, IPC – Prosecution has to prove that accused either took or enticed minor out of keeping of ....
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
Prosecution must prove age and lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt for charges of rape and kidnapping; prior voluntary cohabitation casts doubt on claims of forced sexual intercourse.
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
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.
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
