Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, K.V.ARAVIND
Sridhar, S/o. Govindappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Manchenahalli Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. V. ARAVIND, J.
These appeals are against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.02.2019 in Spl.S.C.17/2015 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326 -A r/w Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with Rs.1,00,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.372/2019 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with Rs.10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months and he is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year with Rs.5,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Crl.A.No.372/2019 is by accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.572/2019 is by accused No.2.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2014, at about 6
A conviction for an acid attack was overturned due to lack of credible evidence linking the accused, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof in sensitive cases involving caste dynamics.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the reliability of the victim's testimony, corroboration from contemporaneous documents and medical evidence, recovery of evidence,....
Point of law : Offence under Section 307 of IPC which was available to the prosecution in the absence of Section 326A of IPC., was justifiable. Since prosecution has invoked Section 326A of IPC and t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere testimony of the victim is insufficient without corroboration.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in victim testimonies can lead to acquittal in serious crimes.
The judgment establishes the liability of the appellants in an acid attack case, considering the evidence, legal provisions, and the victim's compensation. It emphasizes the application of Section 10....
Acid attack conviction under IPC §§304, 326A upheld on eyewitness testimony despite FIR delay and minor discrepancies; life sentence reduced to 14 years fixed term balancing retribution, time served,....
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
