Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
Rajanna S/o Munichinnappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual basis for appeal (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding prosecution's evidence and delay (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's review of the evidence and testimonies (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. conclusion drawn from evidence indicates doubt (Para 39) |
| 5. final order of acquittal and appeal result (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Special Case No.430/2017 dated 02.07.2022.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Nandagudi Circle, Sulibele Police Station submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of POCSO Act.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 20.09.2017, PW.14-Sri. Govind B. M, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was the Station House Officer of Sulibele Police Station. O
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to delays, inconsistencies, and lack of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases is critical, and the failure to provide medical evidence raises reasonable doubt, impacting the legality of convictions.
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The competence of child witnesses, scrutiny of hostile witnesses' testimony, and the significance of corroborative evidence and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act are central legal pri....
The presumption under the POCSO Act is rebuttable and requires foundational facts to be established beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
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
