KUM NARAYANAMMA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS .

KUM NARAYANAMMA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS .

The High Court erred in acquitting; the prosecutrix was a reliable witness whose testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and an independent eyewitness; absence of spermatozoa or of back injuries did not negate the case; convictions and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge were restored (Muniyappa held constructively liable under Section 114 IPC).

Parties
Appellant: Kum. Narayanamma; Appellant: State of Karnataka; Respondent: Muniyappa; Respondent: Venkataswamy; Respondent: Somanna
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Decision by the Supreme Court (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court dated 20.11.1987 in Crl. A. No. 157 of 1986 set aside and the conviction and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kolar restored.
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration, Medical Evidence, Age of Consent, Section 114 IPC, Section 376 IPC, Constructive Liability
Criminal Law Evidence Rape Corroboration Medical Evidence Age of Consent Section 114 IPC Section 376 IPC +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kum. Narayanamma

Appellant

State of Karnataka

Appellant

Muniyappa

Respondent

Venkataswamy

Respondent

Somanna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Decision by the Supreme Court (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecutrix was a reliable witness
  2. 2 Whether medical evidence corroborated the prosecutrix
  3. 3 Whether absence of spermatozoa in vaginal smear is fatal to prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in acquitting; the prosecutrix was a reliable witness whose testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and an independent eyewitness; absence of spermatozoa or of back injuries did not negate the case; convictions and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge were restored (Muniyappa held constructively liable under Section 114 IPC).

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court dated 20.11.1987 in Crl. A. No. 157 of 1986 set aside and the conviction and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kolar restored.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court dated 20.11.1987 in Crl. A. No. 157 of 1986 set aside