Dismissed¶¶89

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2025CRL.A/100085/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench dismisses criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 100085/2024) upholding conviction under Ss.363, 377, 302, 201, 404 IPC and Ss.6 & 10 POCSO for abduction, anal assault and murder of a 4-year-old boy; circumstantial evidence: last-seen, extra-judicial confession to relative, recovery of blood-stained blade and ornaments, FSL blood group 'O', dilated anus; delay/non-examination objections rejected.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge stand. ¶¶89

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge stand.

¶¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from either perversity or illegality? +1 more

¶¶67

Court's answer

The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffer from neither perversity nor illegality; interference is not warranted, and point No.1 is answered in the negative.

¶¶87

Ratio / Principle

The homicidal death of the deceased boy stood proved through the postmortem report Ex.P20 of PW.13-Doctor (cause of death: severe haemorrhage, hypovolumic shock secondary to injury to major vessel in the neck; injuries ante-mortem) read with inquest panchanama Ex.P10 and evidence of PWs.13 and 17; the defence did not seriously dispute the homicidal death.

¶¶72

Key takeaways

Since the FIR was registered at about 08:10 p.m. on 03.08.2018 and the statements of PWs.4 and 6 were recorded by PW.17 on 04.08.2018 (the very next day), there is no delay in recording their statements; non-examination of CWs.10 and 11 is not fatal to the prosecution case.ratio¶¶76
The discrepancy in the timings stated by PWs.4, 6 and 9 about the accused carrying the deceased does not go to the root of the prosecution case, since the timings stated by PWs.1, 9 and 10 (Anganawadi attendant) corroborate each other.ratio¶¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2023 in Special Case No.95/2018 (Addl. District and Sessions Judge FTSC-1, Bagalkote) convicting the appellant of kidnapping, forcible anal intercourse, murder and robbery of articles from a 4-year-old boy (offences under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 POCSO Act; incident of 03.08.2018). The case rested on circumstantial evidence: last-seen evidence of PWs.4 and 6 corroborated by child witness PW.9; extra-judicial confession to PW.7, a relative of the accused; recovery of blood-stained blade M.O.1 and the deceased's silver waist thread and gold earrings M.Os.7 and 8 (mahazar Ex.P16) with FSL report Ex.P33 showing human blood of 'O' group matching the deceased; medical evidence of dilated anal opening (postmortem report, Doctor's opinion Ex.P24, inquest Column No.7). HELD: recording statements of PWs.4 and 6 on the day after the FIR did not amount to delay, and non-examination of CWs.10 and 11 was not fatal; discrepancies in timing did not go to the root of the case; charges proved beyond all reasonable doubt; point No.1 answered in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative; appeal dismissed and conviction/sentence (life imprisonment with Rs.10,000/- fine for Section 302 IPC, among others, running concurrently) upheld.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100085 OF 2024 (C)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SABU S/O. PARAGOND JAKATI @ KATAGERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. BANDIGAMI VILLAGE, RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. N.G. RASALKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶16

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE STATION, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1, BAGALKOTE IN SPECIAL CASE NO.95/2018 DATED 11.07.2023 AND CONVICTION ORDER DATED 14.07.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 363, 404, AND 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 06 OF POCSO ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS SUBSTANTIAL IMPRISONMENT AND ALSO LEVYING FINE UNDER AFORESAID SECTIONS AND ALSO SET ASIDE IMPRISONMENT

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

WHICH ACCUSED IS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶29

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2023 passed in Special Case No.95/2018 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-1, Bagalkote (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Special Judge’), whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO ACT’ for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC; he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 404 of IPC; he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. It was directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

¶33

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as

¶34

follows:

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The deceased, a boy aged about 4 years was the son of complainant-PW.1-Yallappa. On 03.08.2018 at about 04:00 p.m., when the deceased was returning from Anganawadi in Bandigani village situated within the limits of respondent-Police, the appellant/accused kidnapped him to the land bearing R.S.No.57/3B belonging to CW.15-Hanmant Gurappa Tavanidhi where sugarcane crop was grown. There, the accused undressed the victim boy and had forcible anal intercourse with him. When the victim raised alarm, the accused murdered him by slitting his neck with M.O.1-blade and caused injuries on the body and cut his penis. He also removed the silver waist thread and golden earrings worn by the deceased i.e., M.Os.7 and 8 and fled away from the spot. Since the victim boy did not return home from Anganawadi after 4:00 p.m., PW.1 went to the Anganawadi and searched at other places. At that time, CWs.10 and 11 informed him that they saw accused carrying the victim boy and proceeding towards Vittala Mandira at about 4:30 p.m. Later, PW.1 saw the shorts of deceased in the field of CW.15 and on further search, found the body of deceased with cut injuries all over the body. Hence, he lodged a complaint

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

before the respondent-Police on the same day i.e., 03.08.2018 as per Ex.P1.

¶41

On the strength of Ex.P1, FIR was registered against accused in Crime No.141/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC dated 03.08.2018 as per Ex.P26. Subsequently, PW.17-Investigation Officer conducted spot mahazar, inquest panchanama, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused on 09.08.2018 and on obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge-sheet against accused before the learned Special Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

¶42

After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences and the same was read over to him. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

¶43

In order to prove the charges leveled against accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW.1 to

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

PW.17, marked 33 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 and identified 13 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.13.

¶48

On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, he refuted the same and claimed that he was falsely implicated.

¶49

After assessing the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Special Court, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal.

¶50

We have heard the learned counsel Sri. S.D. Babladi for the appellant and learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. A.M. Gundawade for the respondent-State.

¶51

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

convicting the appellant/accused without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective. He contended that the case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused by connecting the links in the chain of circumstance with cogent evidence. According to him, as per the complaint lodged by PW.1 on the date of incident, CWs.10 and 11 informed him that the accused was carrying the deceased boy at about 4:30 p.m. However, the prosecution did not examine both these witnesses. Further, the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased did not state about the anal intercourse committed on the deceased boy. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC or Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. He further contended, the learned Special Judge while convicting the accused, significantly relied on the evidence of PWs.4, 6, 7 and 9. The statement of PWs.4, 6 and 7 was recorded on 04.08.2018 i.e., the day following the incident. Hence, there is a delay in recording their statement. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW.7 before whom the accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession cannot be relied, as he partly supported the case of

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

prosecution. Further, PW.9 is a child witness and his evidence also cannot be relied without proper corroboration. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove the purchase of blade-M.O.1 by the accused on the date of incident in the shop of PW.8, since the said witness turned hostile to the prosecution case. He further contended, there is a discrepancy in the timings stated by PWs.4, 6, and 9 about the accused carrying the deceased boy on the date of incident. In such circumstance, the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶58

Per contra , the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State contended, the judgment under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. He submitted, the evidence of PWs.4, 6, 7 and 9 categorically established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. According to learned Addl. SPP, PWs.4 and 6 clearly stated in their evidence that on the date of

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

incident, the accused was carrying the victim boy towards Vittala Mandira. Further, the accused made an extra judicial confession with PW.7-the relative of accused on the next day of incident and he supported the case of prosecution. PW.9-the child who was attending Anganawadi with the deceased boy clearly deposed that on the date of incident, he saw the accused carrying the deceased towards Vittala Mandira. Further, the prosecution also proved the other circumstance i.e., recovery of M.Os.1, 7 and 8 at the instance of accused under mahazar-Ex.P16. PW.5 is the panch witness for the said mahazar and supported the case of prosecution. Further, the evidence of Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased boy clearly reveals that anus was dilated and reason for the same was forcible sexual intercourse on him. In such circumstance, the prosecution proved the charges leveled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶62

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusing the entire evidence on record including

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the impugned judgment, the following points arise for our consideration:

¶67

1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from either perversity or illegality?

¶68

2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act?

¶69

In order to prove the homicidal death of deceased boy, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.13-Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased boy and postmortem report as per Ex.P20. On careful perusal of Ex.P20, PW.13 opined that the cause of death is due to ‘severe haemorrhage, hypovolumic shock and death secondary to injury to major vessel in the neck’. He also stated, all the injuries sustained by the deceased boy were ante-mortem in nature. Further, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P10-inquest panchanama drawn on the body of deceased by PW.17Investigating Officer. The same was marked with the consent of defence counsel. Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence

¶70

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

of PWs.13 and 17 coupled with Exs.P20 and P10, we are of the view that the prosecution proved the homicidal death of deceased. Even otherwise, the defence did not seriously dispute the homicidal death of deceased.

¶73

To connect the accused with the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 7, 9, 10 and PW.17-Investigation Officer. On a careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses, PW.1 is father of deceased, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint-Ex.P1 soon after the incident. According to him, on 03.08.2018, his son-deceased went to Anganawadi and did not return home after 4:00 p.m. As such, he visited Anganawadi and other places in search of his son. At that time, he came to know through CWs.10 and 11 that the accused was carrying the deceased at about 04:30 p.m. Later, he found the body of deceased in the field of CW.15. Hence, he lodged a complaint against the accused. In his evidence, he reiterated the averments of his complaint. Though CWs.10 and 11 were not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.4 and 6 the villagers who also saw the accused carrying the deceased on 03.08.2018. The statement of both these

¶74

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

witnesses was recorded on the next day of incident i.e., 04.08.2018. As can be seen from records, the FIR was registered at about 08:10 p.m. on 03.08.2018 and on the very next day i.e., on 04.08.2018, the statement of PWs.4 and 6 was recorded by PW.17. In such circumstance, it cannot be construed that there is a delay in recording the statement of the witnesses and non-examination of CWs.10 and 11 is not fatal to the prosecution case. On examination of the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, they categorically stated that the accused was carrying the deceased on 03.08.2018 towards Vittala Mandira. Their evidence corroborates the testimony of PW.9-child witness, who also stated that the accused took the deceased from Anganawadi towards Vittala temple by offering a chocolate. No doubt, there is a discrepancy in the timings stated by these witnesses, however that itself does not go to the root of the prosecution case, since the timings stated by PWs.1, 9 and 10-the attendant at Anganawadi corroborates each other. Further, the prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW.7-the relative of accused before whom the accused made

¶77

an extra judicial confession that he murdered the deceased. PW.7 being the relative of accused supported the case of

¶78

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

prosecution. Additionally, the evidence of PW.10-attendant at Anganawadi reveals that on the date of incident, the deceased boy was present in the Anganawadi and at about 04:00 p.m., he left the Anganawadi. This evidence of PW.10 clearly corroborates the testimony of PW.9-the child witness who attended the Anganawadi with deceased boy on the date of incident and the evidence of PW.1-the father of deceased boy. The evidence of all these witnesses is consistent and corroborates with each other, except a few minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused, in the postmortem report-Ex.P20, there is no mention of anal intercourse committed on the deceased boy. On careful perusal of the postmortem report, PW.13-Doctor has mentioned about the dilated anal opening with passage of stool. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer obtained the opinion of the Doctor about the anal dilation. PW.13 gave his opinion as per Ex.P24, it could be possible that anal dilation can happen after sexual assault. Further, on perusal of inquest panchanama, it is stated in Column No.7 that, ‘anus of the deceased dilated’ and there is a strong suspicion of sexual assault on the deceased boy. In

¶81

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

such circumstance, in our considered view, the prosecution has proved the forcible anal intercourse on the deceased boy by the accused.

¶84

Further, the prosecution also proved the recovery of blade-M.O.1 used for the commission of crime by the accused and the silver thread and gold earrings of the deceased namely M.Os.7 and 8 at the instance of accused under a recovery mahazar-Ex.P16. PW.5 is the witness for the same and he supported the case of prosecution. The Investigation Officer also obtained an opinion of PW.13-Doctor as per Ex.P-25. Whether the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased would be caused with M.O.1-blade. Moreover, the prosecution also sent M.Os.1, 7 and 8 to FSL for chemical examination and the Scientific Officer gave his report that those articles were stained with human blood of ‘O’ group as per Ex.P33. It is pertinent to note, the blood group of deceased was also ‘O’ group as per the postmortem report. In such circumstance, the prosecution also proved the recovery of weapon-M.O.1 and silver waist thread and two gold earrings of deceased-M.Os.7 and 8 at the instance of accused.

¶85

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9216-DB CRL.A No. 100085 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, interference in the impugned judgment is not warranted. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 raised above in the ‘negative’ and point No.2 in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶88

ORDER

¶89

The Criminal Appeal No.100085/2024 is hereby

¶90

dismissed.

¶91

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶92

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶93

HKV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2023 in Special Case No.95/2018, convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Section 302 IPC), 20 years with fine (Section 6 POCSO), 4 years with fine (Section 363 IPC), 3 years with fine (Section 404 IPC) and 7 years with fine (Section 201 IPC), substantive sentences to run concurrently.¶¶29
Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-1, Bagalkote · 11.07.2023 (judgment of conviction); 14.07.2023 (order of sentence)
Prior proceeding
Complaint Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1 (father of the deceased boy) before respondent-Police on 03.08.2018 after the body of the 4-year-old boy was found with cut injuries in the field of CW.15.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
FIR registered against the accused in Crime No.141/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, dated 03.08.2018, as per Ex.P26.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Investigation by PW.17 including spot mahazar, inquest panchanama, recording of witness statements and arrest of the accused on 09.08.2018.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet laid before the learned Special Judge for offences under Sections 363, 377, 302, 201, 404 of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Charges framed by the learned Special Judge; accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.¶¶42
Prior proceeding
Trial: prosecution examined 17 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.17), marked 33 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P33) and identified 13 material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.13).¶¶47
Prior proceeding
Accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on incriminating circumstances; he refuted the same and claimed false implication.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the charges and sentenced him as stated in the impugned order; the conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.¶¶49

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek S/O Kallappa Javoor Vs the State of Karnataka

City Union Bank Ltd. Vs Karnataka Sahakari Sakkare

Shankara S/O. Hanumantappa Sali Vs State of Karnataka through

Sri.T.M.Kotraiah S/O T.M. Shivamurtaiah Vs Sri.K. Venkatesh S/O K. Marisiddappa

Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Ankali Vs Basavarajeppa Urf Basavaraj

Rajesab Alias Raju S/O Imamsab Manikbhai, Vs the State