Karnataka High Court
Mahesha vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5137
CRL.A No. 809 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2022 (C)
BETWEEN:
MAHESHA
S/O DODDARANGANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAZID ROAD
KADAKOLA VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 311
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE BY LEGAL AID SERVICE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally BY MYSURU SOUTH POLICE STATION,
signed by REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PAVITHRA B
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560 001.
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISG, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 08.12.2020 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.95/2019 BY HONBLE
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1 MYSURU AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5137
CRL.A No. 809 of 2022
HC-KAR
OFFENCE P/U/S 5(K) R/W 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.506 OF
IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Mysuru, in Special Case No.95/2019 dated 08.12.2020.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Mysore Rural Police Station, Mysore City, submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(l), 376(N) and Section 506 of IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(k), 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that the informant is the mother of the victim girl. The victim girl is a handicap -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR minor girl living in the house of accused as a tenant. Five months prior to 04.01.2019 at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim was alone in her house, accused entered the house, closed her mouth and sexually abused her. He has committed sexual assault on the victim girl on 2-3 occasions and victim became pregnant. After committing the crime, he has threatened her that she should not reveal the incident to anybody or else he is going to take away her life.
3.1 That on 07.01.2019 the mother of the victim gave a complaint before the police alleging that she is eking her livelihood by doing coolie. In the year 2013, she has taken the house of accused on lease and she is residing in that house. Since the victim girl is a physically handicap child, she was admitted to school behind time. On 04.01.2019 victim has gone to school as usual. She has returned as she was unwell. She was taken to hospital and in the hospital on examination it is revealed that she is pregnant. On enquiry she has revealed that accused -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR herein has sexually abused her forcibly and has also threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody.
3.2 Based on the complaint of the complainant, a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.5/2019. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offences.
4. Since the date of arrest, the accused is in judicial custody. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC and 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The same was read over and explained to the accused and having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8, got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR No material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In Section 313 statement, he has stated as under:
GvÀÛgÀ:
GvÀÛgÀ: vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ¥ÉÆãï¤AzÀ ªÀiÁr¹ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. DPÉ mÁå¨Éèmï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä£À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ DPÉUÉ ªÁAw ªÀiÁr¹zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ §gÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ PÉÊPÉÆAiÀÄÄÝ PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É mÁå¨Éèmï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ 2, 3 ¸Áj ºÉzÀj¹zÀݼÀÄ. CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä JzÀÄj¹ CªÀ¼À PÁ°UÉ ©¢ÝzÉÝÃ£É mÁå¨Éèmï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ CAvÀ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ. CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄvÁÛ¼É ¨Á CAvÀ PÀgÉAiÀÄÄwzÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ¥ÉÆãï£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ DPÉUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. eÉÊ°UÉ eÉÊ°UÉ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÉ E®è.
6. The accused has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC and Section 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and passed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal through the Legal Services Committee, High Court of Karnataka.
8. Sri Mahesh Y.L., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is erroneous opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant is innocent of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR charges leveled against him. The victim was not a minor at the time of alleged incident, because of which, the provisions of POCSO Act cannot be invoked against the appellant and in furtherance, the contention of the appellant is that the relationship between the appellant and victim was consensual relationship and at no point of time, the appellant has allegedly committed any act of rape against the victim. The prosecution has not produced the birth certificate, school admission register or any Aadhaar card collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. No documents have been produced at the time of trial to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor as on the date of alleged incident.
9. The respondent-police have miserably failed to get ossification test on the victim to establish that she was minor at the time of alleged incident. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the victim was allegedly 17 years 10 months at the time of alleged incident and also had younger sister who at the time of incident was -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR studying PUC and younger brother Abhishek was studying in SSLC along with the victim. Seen from any angle, when the younger sister of victim itself was studying PUC at the time of alleged incident, the victim, in all probabilities, be aged between 17-18 years and in any stretch of imagination, the victim cannot be less than 18 years.
10. Further, he would submit that the entry in the medical register produced by the prosecution reveals that the victim was 18 years and has undergone Urinary Pregnancy Test-UPT in order to determine the pregnancy. Therefore, the penal provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 will not be applicable to the case on hand. The victim has falsely deposed because of threats by the family. Firstly, the victim has falsely deposed about her age. Secondly, the victim during her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 16.01.2019, has allegedly stated that she was raped once. But during the chief- examination before the Court she has improvised and falsely alleged that the appellant had raped her on -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR 5-6 occasions. Surprisingly, the victim neither in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate nor at the time of her deposition before the trial Court, has whispered about any injuries that may have suffered due to the alleged act of rape committed by the appellant.
11. Further it is submitted that when the alleged incident came to light on 26.12.2018 itself, nothing prevented the complainant to set the law into motion immediately, rather than seeking the indulgence of elders and village panchayat, which forced the appellant to marry the victim. Hence, on all these grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal.
12. As against this, Smt. N.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record in proper perspective and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim was a child as on the date of commission of offence as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012?
(ii) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?
(iii) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC?
(iv) What order?
Reg: Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
14. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Rajamma, Mysore South Police have registered the case in Crime No.5/2019 against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR and Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(l), 376(N) and Section 506 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(k), 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
15. It is alleged by the prosecution that P.W.2
- Smt.Rajamma is married to one named Lakshmana Naika about 20 years back. Out of their wedlock, she has got three children of which victim is also one. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant used to work as a dailywage labourer and since 2013, they were residing in the rented premises of Mahesh (appellant/accused). The victim was physically challenged and thus, was allegedly admitted to the school lately and according to the complaint, said victim was studying SSLC at Government High School. The complainant further alleges that on 04.01.2019 the victim as usual had been to her school and thereafter,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR as the victim complained of being unwell, she was taken to the Government Hospital at Kadakola and upon examination, it was revealed that victim was pregnant and the victim stated that about 4 - 5 months back when victim was alone at the home the accused came to the house and sexually assaulted by raping her and threatened her not to disclose the alleged incident to anybody. It is alleged that victim was aged 17 years 10 months at the time of alleged incident. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences.
16. In order to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution has produced Ex.P.11, which is the school certificate issued by the Head Master of Government High School, Kadakola, in which date of birth is shown as 07.02.2001. In order to prove this document, the prosecution has examined M.Shivamma, the Head Master of Government High School, Kadakola, as P.W.5. She has deposed in her evidence as to the issuance of Ex.P.11. She has not deposed as to how the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR age of the victim was entered in the admission register while admitting her to school for first standard. The Investigating Officer has not collected the admission school register to the first standard. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to non-collection of documents from the concerned school authorities at the time of admission of child to the first standard.
17. The Investigating Officer has not produced the birth certificate or ossification certificate as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the non-production of birth certificate of the victim and also the production of ossification certificate.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that, Ex.P.16-letter addressed by Dr. Nagakanya, Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kadakola, reveals that the age of the victim was 18 years at the time of her examination. The same is also
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR entered in the concerned register. The prosecution has not disputed the document Ex.P.16. The evidence placed before this Court makes it clear that victim was above 18 years at the time of commission of alleged offence. The I.O. has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a child as on the date of commission of offence as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012.
19. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012, as on the date of commission of offence, the penal provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 will not be applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offence under Section 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in negative.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR Reg: Point No.3
20. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012, this Court has to determine whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC. In this regard, P.W.1 the victim has clearly deposed in her evidence that 9 months prior to the date of her testimony before this Court, when she was alone in the house at about 09.00 a.m., accused came there and requested for a cup of water. She has gone to kitchen to get him water, accused closed the door, closed her mouth and took her to the room and by removing her clothes, sexually abused her and he has inserted his penis into her vagina. He has threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody or else he will kill her. He has sexually abused her on 5-6 occasions in the said month. After a few months, when she had gone to school, at the time of prayer, she fell unconscious. She was taken to Kadakola Government
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR Hospital and after urine test and blood test, when it was revealed that she is 4 months pregnant, she has informed the matter to her mother.
21. She further stated that when the accused was sexually abusing her, she was not in a position to push him or shout for help as she is weak. The mother has convened a panchayat and in the panchayat, it was advised to file complaint. Accordingly, mother gave complaint. She has given her statement before the police, learned Magistrate and before the Medical Officer. Spot mahazar was drawn in the place of accident by the police. Further she has stated that since she was of 9 years old, she is not having strength in her legs and she is very weak and also getting handicap pension. As she is very weak, she could not withstand the pregnancy. The fetus is aborted with the consent of her parents. She has identified the accused before the Court.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR
22. P.W.2-mother of the victim has deposed as to the contents of complaint Ex.P.5. P.W.3-Medical Officer who has examined the victim on 07.01.2019 at 07.00 p.m., has stated that the victim girl was brought by woman police of Mysore South and also accompanied by her mother. The victim girl has narrated the history before the medical officer. According to victim, she is studying in 10th Standard at Kadakola Government High School. Their family stays in a rented house since five years. Accused is the owner of the house and he is married to Mahadevi having two children. First child of accused is the classmate of victim girl. The victim girl knows the accused since 5 years. He used to tease her since 6 months prior to complaint while she was going to school. She was afraid and never complained to her parents. He used to follow her to school. One day in the month of October, during Dasara holidays, when her parents had gone to work and her siblings had gone to native at Jayapura, Mysuru, he entered her home for
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR the sake of water at around 10.30 a.m., when she went to kitchen, he locked the door and held her and took her to a room and locked the room door and removed her clothes. When she tried to shout, he held her mouth with hand tightly and sexually assaulted her and threatened her that he would kill her if she revealed it to anyone and went away. Again after 15 days, he has repeated the same act when she was studying alone at home keeping the door open. He has repeated sexual assault on her once a week on every Saturday. She has passed urine and washed private part after each sexual contact. He has threatened her that he would kill her and her parents, if she reveals the story of sexual contact. Once her sibling came back home from vacation, accused stopped coming home. Therefore, she did not inform her mother. Last sexual contact was in the month of November. No history of usage of contraceptive. On 04.01.2019, Friday she felt giddiness and vomiting and school teacher sent her to
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR Government Hospital with friends where doctor informed her parents that she is 4 months pregnant. On 06.01.2019 her parents called panchayath and got the accused arrested on 07.01.2019. She was taken to the police station from there she was brought for medical examination. On physical examination, it was found that she is 18 to 20 weeks pregnant. The mother of the victim gives history of delayed developmental mile stones. The mother has also produced the disability certificate of the victim girl. On local examination external genitalia hymen not intact. She has collected clinical specimens of victim and clothes worn at the time of examination was collected. Urine pregnancy test was positive. The samples were sent to RFSL. After receipt of RFSL report, she has issued final opinion that there are signs suggestive of vaginal penetration. She is prime gravida with 18 to 20 weeks gestation. Again she got admitted on 21.01.2019 with request letter for MTP. Child is aborted on 27.01.2019. Samples were handed
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR over to WPC for RFSL for DNA analysis. As per DNA report, victim girl is the biological mother of the fetus and accused is the biological father of the fetus.
23. P.W.4 is the Professor and Head of the Department of Clinical Psychology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, testifies that victim girl was brought on 08.01.2019 along with WPC-598 of Mysore South Police. She was registered to the Institute on 07.01.2019. She was referred for I.Q. assessment. Tests Administered: Seguin Form Board (SFB), Raven's Progressive Matrices (SPM:Standard versions) and Gesell's Drawing Test (GDT). She has also interviewed the victim girl and clinically found that she cannot count numbers above 199. She cannot add or subtract and cannot tell time in a clock, cannot handle money, solve problems requiring simple reasoning and thinking. Her overall impression is that she is a slow learner or below average intelligence and IQ 75 mentally 12 years and 40% mental disability. In this regard, he has issued
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR psychological report. Psychological Report is marked as Ex.P.10.
24. P.W.5 is the Head mistress in the Government High School, Kadakola, has deposed as to the issuance of School Admission Register Extract as per Ex.P.11.
25. P.W.6 is the Women PSI of Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Mysuru, has deposed as to the recording of statement of victim in her office in the presence of her mother as per Ex.P.13. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the Investigating Officer who speaks about their respective investigation.
26. That in view of Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in a prosecution for rape under clauses (a) to (m) or (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
27. On careful examination of the entire materials on record including the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., with the statement of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and DNA report Ex.P.9, I am of the considered opinion that the accused has committed rape on a victim girl who is physically handicapped women and accordingly, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC.
28. In the case on hand, the accused has not placed any materials to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to the alleged commission of rape. Hence, considering the evidence placed by the prosecution and also the provisions of Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, I am of the considered
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR opinion that the accused has committed the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, I answer point No.3 in affirmative.
29. The alleged commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also be liable to fine of Rs.10,000/-. While imposing sentence for the commission of offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, the trial Court has observed that the accused is aged 36 years. He has to look after his wife and children and he is the only earning member in the family. Further it is observed that the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has come from a respectable family having no bad antecedents. He has to look after his family and in the event of incarceration he would be subjected to humiliation and his family
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR would be put to great hardship. Hence, he has sought for taking a lenient due while imposing sentence.
30. Considering all the mitigating circumstances, the trial Court has convicted the accused for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5(k) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and also the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
31. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and position of the accused, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to impose the minimum sentence of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC and 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in affirmative.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR
32. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 5(k) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) and 506 of IPC.
(iii) The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC.
(iv) The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
(v) The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
(vi) The period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be given set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The remaining order passed by the trial Court regarding the compensation is unaltered.
(vii) The copy of this judgment shall be sent to the District Legal Service Authority, Mysuru, for payment of compensation as ordered by the trial Court.
(viii) Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the concerned jail authorities for their reference.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5137 CRL.A No. 809 of 2022 HC-KAR
(ix) Registry is also directed to send the copy of this judgment along with TCR to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1