VENKATESHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 176/2014
Case under 1501Two-criminal Law : Offences Against Women, Including Sexual Offences, Harassment, Domestic Violence, Dowry, Trafficking Etc.(cases Where Sentence Upto 2 Years Imprisonment Is Imposed Including Fine Only.) Section II-E. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010030552013
Filing Date
28-Jan-2013
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 176/2014
Diary Number
3055/2013
Order Date
09-Jan-2025
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 103
Disposal Type
Appeals Allowed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VENKATESHA
Adv. SUDHA GUPTA SUDHA GUPTA[P-2] [Pr] SUDHA GUPTA[P-3] [Pr] SUDHA GUPTA[P-4] [Pr]
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY
Adv. V. N. RAGHUPATHY V. N. RAGHUPATHY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Jan-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jan-2025
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
07-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Oct-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2013
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 176/2014
Case Summary: Venkatesha & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court's judgment dated December 14, 2011. The convictions under Section 363 IPC were set aside. The appellants' bail bonds were discharged. Key Reasoning: The Court found the conviction defective on two grounds: (1) the victim was 19 years old at the time of the alleged 1997 abduction, making Sections 361 and 363 IPC inapplicable (which require victims under 18 years for females), and (2) an 8-year gap between incident and 2005 trial, combined with no identification parade and the victim not knowing the co-accused, cast serious doubt on witness identification and prosecution credibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts