Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court of Karnataka Reverses Acquittal in POCSO Case, Criticizes Erroneous and Insensible Lower Court Judgment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment on December 18, 2023, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, presided over by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, overturned an acquittal granted by the POCSO Court, Ballari, in Special Case No.684/2018. The case involved allegations of sexual assault on a minor, with the accused charged under several sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act.

Justice Sanjeevkumar, in his detailed judgment, heavily criticized the approach of the lower court, describing it as “completely erroneous, perverse and inhuman.” The judgment underscored the need for sensitive handling of cases involving minors, especially in the context of sexual offenses. The High Court found that the POCSO Court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, leading to an unjustifiable acquittal.

The case’s facts revealed that the accused was charged with sexually assaulting an 8 and ½-year-old child. The High Court, after reassessing the evidence, found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim and her family, credible despite minor discrepancies. Consequently, the accused was convicted for offenses under Sections 354A and 354B of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the POCSO Act.

In a stinging observation, Justice Sanjeevkumar noted that the POCSO Court judge showed a lack of sensitivity and professionalism in handling the case. He recommended that the judge undergo training at the Karnataka Judicial Academy to better handle such sensitive cases in the future.

The High Court’s judgment also directed the District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the minor victim under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme. In addition to reversing the acquittal, the court imposed rigorous imprisonment and fines under the relevant sections of the IPC and POCSO Act.

Date of Decision: 18th December 2023

STATE OF KARNATAKA VS VENKATESH @ VENKAPPA

 

Latest Legal News