Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA
RAMLAKHAN YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding trial procedure and rights. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. fair trial rights and procedural rules. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. failure to follow mandatory provisions leads to miscarriage of justice. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. remand of the case for fair trial procedure. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction and order on sentence passed by the FTSC-I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No. 1659/2022 dated 05.02.2024.
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 Police Inspector of Nandini Layout Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 5(m), 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that the victim, aged 6 years, is the daughter of CWs 1 and 5, and they were residing in Rajagopalanagar. CW5, the father of the victim, was running Sree Sai Fab Welding Shop in his building, where the appellant/accused was working und
The right to a fair trial includes the opportunity for the accused to cross-examine witnesses, and the trial court's failure to adhere to this principle necessitates remanding the case for proper pro....
Conviction of the appellant for attempted aggravated penetrative sexual assault upheld based on consistent testimony of the minor victim, despite charge framing errors; sentence reduced to ten years'....
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 court emphasized the right to a fair trial, necessitating adequate cross-examination opportunities for the accused, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The denial of cross-examination rights in a trial under the POCSO Act infringes on the accused's right to a fair trial, necessitating remand for proper procedural adherence.
The denial of an accused's right to cross-examine the victim in a POCSO case undermines the fairness of the trial, warranting remand for further examination.
The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of res gestae evidence were central to the court's decision.
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
