Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
R. DEVDAS, B. MURALIDHARA PAI
Anand, S/o. Durgappa Gollar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Cpi, Apmc Police Station, R/By. Its State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J.
1. The accused in Special Case No.505/2023 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi (for short, ‘the trial court’) has maintained this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 15 (2) of the B.N.S.S.. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2025 holding him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 , 376AB and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the order of sentence dated 20.02.2025 passed therein, in the ends of justice.
2. The parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to, as per their ranking before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: On 03.08.2023 at 4.00 p.m., a complaint came to be lodged by a lady with APMC Yard Police of Belagavi city alleging that the accused herein has committed sexual assault on her minor daughter by trespassing into her house and that the accused has also threatened the victim with dire consequences if she revealed the incident to anyone else. Pursuant to such a complaint, APMC Yard Police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.123/2023 for the offences punishable un
The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony while clarifying that mere sexual assault does not meet the threshold for aggravated charges under POCSO, which necessitates proof of pe....
The judgment established the distinction between rape and sexual assault, emphasizing the requirement of penetration for the former, and the physical contact without penetration for the latter under ....
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.
The appellant's position of trust and authority over the child victim led to his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of res gestae evidence were central to the court's decision.
The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction if credible, and age determination must rely on conclusive evidence such as school records.
The court held that insufficient evidence for penetrative assault warrants acquittal under specific POCSO sections, yet convicted the appellant for lesser sexual assault under Section 9(n).
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
