RAMESH @ RAMYA S/O HANMANTH VADDAR vs THE STATE

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200094 OF 2020

(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))


BETWEEN:

RAMESH @ RAMYA S/O HANMANTH VADDAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. GADLINGADAHALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE THROUGH,
CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.

2. SUNITA W/O REVANSIDDAPPA DAKALI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. GADININGADALLI, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL.SPP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)








Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE
RECORDS IN SPL C P.26/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, KALABURAGI FOR CONVICTING THE APPELLANT BY ITS
JUDGMENT DATED 11-02-2019 PASSED IN SPL C POCSO
26/2014.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal
under Section374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘ CrPC ’ for short) challenging the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.02.2019 passed in Special
Case (POCSO) No.26/2014 by the Court of learned II Addl.
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (‘ Sessions Court ’ for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this
appeal are as follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


2.1. On 19.12.2012 at 04:00 p.m., when the victim
had taken bullocks out to the stream situated near the
land of Somasekhar Chitaguppi to feed water and was
coming back, the accused came from opposite direction,
restrained her unlawfully, dragged towards the stream,
knowing fully well that the victim is a minor, committed
rape on her.
2.2. The complaint was lodged against the accused.
The Police, based on the complaint, registered first
information report ( FIR ) in Crime No.134/2012 for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 376(2)(f) of the
Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’ for short).
2.3. The Investigating Officer, after investigating the
case, filed charge sheet. The Committal Court took
cognizance for the aforesaid offences and registered the
case in CC No.80/2013. A copy of the charge sheet was
furnished to the accused in compliance with Section 207 of
CrPC. After committal, the case was made over to the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charges
and additional charge on 21.11.2013 and 14.11.2014. The
accused did not plead guilt and claimed for trial.
2.4. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined
fourteen witnesses out of twenty charge sheet witnesses
as PW1 to PW14 and marked twelve documents as Exs.P1
to P12. The prosecution had given up CW3, CW4, CW10,
CW11, CW15 and CW16.
2.5. The Sessions Court examined the accused
under Section 313 of CrPC by reading out all the
incriminating material from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. He denied the entire evidence, and
did not lead any defence evidence.
2.6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and based on the entire evidence, the Sessions Court
framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the prosecution proves that, on
19.12.2012 evening at 04.00 p.m. near the land of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


Somsekhar Chitguppi near nala in Gadilingadalli
village, within the limits of Chincholi Police Station,
with an intention to commit the offence, wrongfully
restrained minor victim aged about 11 years from
proceeding further when she was coming after
feeding water to the oxen in the stream and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 341 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that, the accused
on the aforesaid date, time and place with an
intention to commit the offence taken the minor
victim aged about 11 years towards stream by
holding her hands and committed sexual assault on
her and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that on the
aforesaid date, time and place, accused committed
penetrative sexual assault on victim minor girl,
amounting to aggravated penetrative sexual assault
as defined under section 5(1) of POCSO Act and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 6 of POCSO Act?
4. What order or sentence?”

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


2.7. The Sessions Court, after appreciating the
entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in
the affirmative and point number 4 as per the final order.
The accused was found guilty and convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(l) of IPC
and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (‘ POCSO Act ’ for short) vide judgment
dated 11.02.2019 and the accused was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the offences punishable under Section
376(2)(l) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, in default to
pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2
years. The accused was also sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of
IPC, in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of eight days. It was ordered
that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently;
the period of detention undergone by the accused an

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


under-trial prisoner during the investigation, enquiry and
trial shall be set off as provided under Section 428 of
CrPC.
3. The appellant/accused, aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.02.2019 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.26/2014
by the Sessions Court, preferred this appeal.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and learned Additional SPP for State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submits that, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is contrary to the law, facts and
evidence on record. He submits that, the Sessions Court
has slipped into an error and passed the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence resulting in
substantial miscarriage of justice; there is a delay of 3
days in filing the complaint. He further submits that, the
alleged incident took place on 19.12.2012; Section 6 of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


the POCSO Act provides punishment for aggravated
penetrative sexual assault, as per which, the offender shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. He
submits that, the Sessions Court could have sentenced the
accused for a period of 10 years. He submits that, one
Somasekhar had committed rape on the victim on
18.12.2012, and the appellant/accused had been falsely
implicated in the case. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra , learned Additional SPP for State
submits that, the victim was aged about 11 years. One
Somasekhar committed rape on her on 18.12.2012 and on
the next day, the accused committed rape on the victim
girl. He submits that, though there is a delay of 3 days in
lodging the complaint, however, the prosecution had
explained that the victim and her mother/PW1, along with
the local Advocates, approached the Police Station but the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


Police refused to register the case; then, the victim and
her parents approached the Superintendent of Police;
thereafter, the case was registered. He submits that, the
prosecution had explained the delay in lodging the
complaint. He further submits that, the FSL report clearly
indicates that human blood stains were found on the
nighty of the victim and innerwear of the accused. He
further submits that, the Doctor was examined as PW5;
PW5 stated that, there were hymen tear, bleeding from
the private parts of the victim, and blood stains were
found in the inner wear of the accused. He submits that,
the evidence of PW5 clearly strengthens the contention of
the prosecution and the blood stains were also found in
the nighty of the victim, which was marked as MO1 and
inner wear of the accused was marked as MO4; thus, the
accused committed an offence punishable under Sections
341, 376(2)(l) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He
submits that, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is just and proper, and do not call for

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The point that would arise for our consideration
is as follows:
Whether the appellant/accused proves
that the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is arbitrary, erroneous and
without proper appreciation of evidence on
record?
Reg. Point for Consideration:
9. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined
the victim as PW6. She deposed that, about 2 years back,
one day at 10:00 a.m., she went to graze the cattle on the
directions of her mother; at 03:00 p.m., she took the
cattle to the stream to feed water and while returning, the
accused came there and dragged her towards the stream,

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


pushed her down and committed rape on her; when she
started screaming, PW2 and PW3 came there; looking at
them, the accused ran away; she had narrated the
incident to PW2 and PW3;. PW2 and PW3 advised her to
go to the house; she sustained injuries on her back and
stomach; the accused had squeezed her; since the
accused had committed rape on her, there was bleeding
from her vagina. She further deposed that, when she
went back home, nobody were there; her mother had
been to work; after an hour, her mother came back and
she narrated the incident to her mother; her mother called
and informed CW13 by phone, who is her younger
paternal uncle; on the same day at about 05:30 p.m., the
father of the victim came back after grazing the sheep;
they informed the matter to her father; on the same day,
they intended to lodge Police complaint, but in order to
inform the matter to the elders of the village and to
conduct a panchayat , they gave information to Dalapati ;
as the accused was out of village, Dalapati advised them

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


to file a Police complaint. She deposed that, therefore,
after 3 days, they went to Chincholi Police Station and filed
a Police complaint; the police had not taken their
complaint; since she was tired, CW10 and CW13 took her
to Solapur hospital; she was admitted in the hospital for 2
days; when she was in the hospital, Kalaburagi Police
came and took her to Kalaburagi Government Hospital and
admitted her there, and recorded her statement; she was
in Kalaburagi hospital for 4 days.
9.1. During the cross-examination of PW6/the victim
th
girl, it was elicited that she was studying in 6 standard
and staying in Government hostel. It was elicited that, the
police had not enquired her and had not recorded her
statement; their family had no bullocks and goats, but
they were grazing them on share basis. It was also
elicited that, her father was going to graze goats; she was
going to school and on 19.12.2012, she had not gone
towards hillock to graze the cattle. She admitted that one
Somasekhar committed rape on her. She admitted that,

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


she was admitted to the Solapur hospital, she had
disclosed that Somasekhar committed a rape on her; after
Somasekhar committed rape on her, her mother had not
allowed her to go out of the house. She denied that, the
accused had not committed rape on her on 19.12.2012. It
was elicited that, she had not disclosed before the Doctor
what happened; she went to Solapur by bus; Chincholi
Women Federation had not met them. It was elicited that,
she had not received any money from the Government.
10. The prosecution examined the complainant as
PW1 who is the mother of the victim. She reiterated the
complaint averments in the examination-in-chief. The
complaint was marked as Ex.P1. She deposed that, the
victim was aged about 11 years.
10.1. During the cross-examination of PW1, it was
elicited that she had filed a complaint against Somasekhar
and she denied that, on 18.12.2012 when rape was
committed on the victim, she did not send the victim out

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


of the house. It was elicited that, the Police, earlier had
not taken the complaint; the Police have not recorded the
statement of the victim. She deposed that, there were
Government hospitals in Chincholi and Kalaburagi; before
taking to Solapur hospital, the victim was not taken to
Chincholi or Kalaburagi hospitals. It was also elicited that,
she is illiterate and does not know reading and writing
Kannada. It was elicited that, her husband and the father
of the accused were not in talking terms.
11. The prosecution examined one of the eye
witnesses as PW2. She deposed that, herself and PW3 had
been to coolie work; at 02:00 p.m., the victim was
standing crying by the side of the road; herself and PW3
went there and the victim went forward along with the
cattle; therefore, they came back. PW2 further deposed
that, she had not seen the accused and she did not know
what happened except the above facts. PW2 was treated
as hostile.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


12. The prosecution also examined another eye
witness as PW3. PW3 also deposed in par with PW2 and
the prosecution treated PW3 as hostile.
13. The prosecution examined the Doctor as PW5,
who deposed that he worked as a Medical Officer in
Government Hospital, Kalaburagi, from December 2012 to
January 2013; on 25.12.2012 at about 10:30 p.m., he had
examined the victim who was aged about 12 years, was
brought by WPC 115 Ashadevi of Mahila PS with the
history of sexual assault; she had given a history of sexual
assault by 2 persons by name Somasekhar and the
accused on 18.12.2012 and 19.12.2012; after 3 days, she
was taken to Ashwini Hospital, Solapur with complaints of
pain in abdomen and was treated there for the same; she
had not attended menarche. He deposed that, on
examination, she was conscious, well oriented to time and
general condition was good. He issued the medical
certificate marked as Ex.P11, final opinion was marked as
Ex.P12 and FSL report was marked as Ex.P10.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


14. The prosecution the father of the victim as
PW7. He deposed in par with the complainant/PW1. He is
a hearsay witness.
15. The prosecution examined the Advocate as
PW8. He deposed that he had been to the Police Station
during 2012 at the request of his friend Advocate Irfan; on
that day, one Dharamraj and one Raju were present; Irfan
and Dharamraj requested the Police to receive the
complaint; Thereafter, he came back and did not know
anything.
15.1. During the cross-examination, it was elicited
that Police had not recorded his statement and he had not
enquired whether the complaint was received by the Police
or not.
16. The prosecution examined one witness as PW9
who deposed that, on 22.12.2012, one Rajappa brought
his sister-in-law and victim to his house and informed that
the accused had committed rape on the victim on

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


19.12.2012; they went to the Police Station and informed
Police regarding the incident.
17. The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspector of
Police as PW10. She deposed that, on the directions of the
Superintendent of Police, she visited Solapur Ashwini
Hospital, inquired with the victim orally; the doctor
informed that the treatment could be given in some other
hospital; therefore, the victim was brought to Kalaburagi
Hospital at 10:30 p.m., and was admitted to the hospital;
she directed the women constables Bhagyashree and
Ashadevi to guard the victim and she gave intimation to
the Superintendent of Police.
18. The prosecution examined the younger paternal
uncle of the victim as PW11. He also deposed in par with
PW1 and PW7.
19. The prosecution examined another Sub-
Inspector of Police as PW12. He deposed that, he received

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


the complaint-Ex.P1, registered the FIR-Ex.P9, and
thereafter he handed over the further investigation to CPI.
19.1. In the cross-examination, PW12 deposed that,
nobody had lodged complaint before him; some other
person also committed rape on the victim; on that day at
01:00 p.m., complaint was lodged, on the same day, he
gave information to the Superintendent of Police and also
forwarded FIR to the Superintendent of Police; on
22.12.2012, PW1 and the victim had come to the Police
Station along with PW4, PW8, PW11 and CW10.
20. The prosecution examined the Investigating
Officer as PW14. He deposed that, on 26.12.2012, on the
directions of the Superintendent of Police, he had received
further investigation of the case and verified the records;
on that day evening, Chincholi Police produced the
accused before him; he sent the accused for medical
examination along with staff; on 27.12.2012, when the
clothes of the accused were produced, he drew the

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


mahazar as per Ex.P6 in the presence of PW4 and CW4,
seized the clothes as per MO2 to MO4, and recorded the
further statements of PW1, PW6 and PW7 and the
statement of PW10. He further deposed that, he received
the medical certificate as per Ex.P7; on 22.01.2013, he
recorded the statements of PW9, CW10, CW11, PW8 and
PW11.
21. From the perusal of the entire records, they
disclose that the victim is a minor aged about 12 years as
of the date of alleged incident, on 18.12.2012, one
Somasekhar committed rape on her and on 19.12.2012,
the accused committed rape on her. PW5/the Doctor who
examined the victim had opined that the hymen of the
victim was torn and she was aged about 12 years; the
victim had not attained menarche, her second sexual
characters were also not well developed. The accused,
without caring physical condition, forcibly committed rape
on her, due to which the victim started bleeding from her
private part. The FSL report i.e., Ex.P10 clearly indicates

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


that blood was found in the nighty of the victim and
innerwear of the accused.
22. The FSL report clearly corroborates with the
evidence of the victim i.e., PW6. The prosecution, by
examining the victim and the Doctor i.e., PW5, has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and
admittedly, the victim was aged about 11-12 years as of
the date of incident and the accused committed rape on
19.12.2012, wherein Somasekhar committed rape on the
victim on 18.12.2012 and it was brought on record that a
criminal case was registered against Somasekhar shaker
and he was also convicted.
23. Further, the prosecution has also explained the
delay in lodging complaint against the accused by
examining the Advocate as PW8 who has deposed that he
had been to the Police Station to lodge the complaint
along with the victim girl and her parents. When the
Police refused to register the case, the victim’s parents

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


approached the Superintendent of Police. On the directions
of the Superintendent of Police, the criminal case came to
be registered against the accused.
24. The medical records support the case of the
prosecution to prove that one Somasekhar the accused
had committed rape on the victim on 18.12.2018 and
19.12.2012. The accused had committed a heinous crime
of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor
victim girl aged about 12 years as of the date of incident.
The Sessions Court has rightly recorded its finding that
such an incident not only cause great distress in the mind
of the victim, but the dignity of the child, family honour,
reputation and image in the society among the relatives
will also be spoiled. The accused has spoiled the life of the
minor girl and left a black mark in her life.
25. The Sessions Court convicted the accused and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under
Section 6 of POCSO Act. Though the accused was found

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


guilty of committing rape on the minor victim girl aged
about 11 to 12 years, and the age of the accused was 22
years, the punishment imposed by the Sessions Court is
too harsh and disproportionate.
26. We find that the sentence imposed by the Court
is disproportionate inasmuch as the Special Court has
failed to assign reasons for imposing maximum sentence
of life imprisonment.
27. It is pertinent to state here that the accused has
to be sentenced in accordance with law as it stood on the
date of commission of crime i.e., before the amendment
coming into effect viz ., before 06.08.2019, since, Section
1
6 of the POCSO Act, as it stood then, permitted the

1
6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault : Whoever, commits
aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
x x x x
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019.
5. For section 6 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted,
namely:—

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


imposition of minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous
imprisonment to a maximum of life imprisonment.
However, for subjecting the accused to a maximum
sentence requires assignment of valid reasons, which is
absent in the instant case.
28. Considering the age of the appellant as on the
date of incident, as there are no criminal antecedents
against the appellant, except the present case, and as he
is also the first time offender, in our considered view, ends
of justice would be met if the period of imprisonment
awarded against the appellant is reduced from Life
Imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
29. As the appellant has already served more than 9
years 3 months of his sentence, considering the
appellant’s long period of incarceration, good conduct in

"6. (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life , which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the
victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.".

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


the present, and lack of any criminal history, we are of the
opinion that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is
disproportionate, inasmuch as in a special case, and the
primary object of sentencing should include the
opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation. The said
view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
2
Court in the case of Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand .
30. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered view that the order of sentence requires to be
modified. Hence, we answer the point for consideration
partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative.
31. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part ;
ii. The impugned the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.02.2019
passed in Special Case (POCSO)

2
Crl. Appeal No.2224 of 2014 disposed of on 14.10.2024;

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11319-DB
CRL.A No. 200094 of 2020


CNR: KAHC030016572020


No.26/2014 by the Sessions Court are
hereby modified ;
iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for
the offences punishable under Section
376(2)(l) of IPC and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine,
the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months;
iv. Rest of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is
maintained;
v. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 | Ct:pk