Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
Siddaraju S., S/o. Mahasetti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Kirugalalu P.S., Represented By SPP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of the alleged crimes by the accused. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning the integrity of the prosecution's case. (Para 8 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. observation on evidence credibility and witness reliability. (Para 12 , 24) |
| 4. final decision reversing the conviction based on lack of evidence. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl. C. No.64/2013 dated 01.10.2014.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Dy.S.P, Malavalli Sub-Division, Malavalli submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to accused Nos.1 and 2. Having understood the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted
The absence of corroborative evidence renders the sole testimony insufficient for conviction under criminal law.
Convictions must rely on cogent, corroborative evidence; failure to provide such leads to acquittal.
The court held that reliance on inconsistent and insufficient witness testimonies, alongside lack of medical evidence for grievous injuries, invalidates the conviction, necessitating acquittal.
![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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to prove charges under the SCs & STs Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering factors such ....
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....
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
