State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath @ Manjya Ramanna Waddar on 12 April, 2022
perverse
as the Trial Court has failed to consider that the victim defined
6
under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act is, any person below
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1942 (1.30 seconds)Mr Imran Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2020
whereby a proviso was added,
conferring a statutory right upon the victim, as
defined under Section 2(wa) , to prefer an
appeal against an order ... proviso, for the
first time, created right in favour of a victim as
defined under Section 2(wa) to file appeal
against an order
Sri Chandru vs The State By on 26 December, 2025
acceptable
legal evidence before the court to prove that the victim was
child as defined under section 2(d) of POCSO Act. The
prosecution ... 1645 of 2021
has failed to prove that the victim was child as defined under
Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, as on the date
Faruq @ Mohammed Faruq vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2025
cogent, convincing or corroborative legal evidence
to prove that the victim was child as defined under Section 2(d)
of POCSO Act, at the time ... When the prosecution has failed to prove that the
victim was child as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act,
the question of committing
Uma Abhilasha Iyer vs V Janardhan on 1 February, 2025
view of amendment. The amendment
also says "the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal
against any order passed by the Court ... cannot be termed as 'Victim' defined U/s.
2(wa) Cr.P.C . This Court also taken note of proviso to Section
Raju Appasab Ghend vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025
victim requires consideration.
42. It is to be noticed that under Section 2(wa) of
Cr.P.C., victim is defined as follows ... victims rights, though it fit to
introduce Section 357-A. Under Section 2(e) of the
Karnataka Scheme 2011 victim is defined as follows
Sri Janardhan V vs Smt Uma Abhilash Iyer on 1 February, 2025
view of amendment. The amendment
also says "the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal
against any order passed by the Court ... cannot be termed as 'Victim' defined U/s.
2(wa) Cr.P.C . This Court also taken note of proviso to Section
Smt Mahadevamma vs The State By on 26 December, 2025
acceptable
legal evidence before the court to prove that the victim was
child as defined under section 2(d) of POCSO Act. The
prosecution ... 1645 of 2021
has failed to prove that the victim was child as defined under
Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, as on the date
Vakalpudi Venkanna S/O Apanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
sufficient cause from filing the
application in time."
12. Victim is defined in clause (2)(1)(i) of the
Scheme ... victims of the specified crimes are
universal to all victims irrespective of the time of
occurrence of the crime. Victims have not been
- 23 -
segregated
Tippanna Kavali vs The State And Anr on 17 March, 2026
Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that the victim was child as
defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO ... prove the age of the victim.
Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of
the victim as defined under Section