Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2012-0006Kalaburagi, KarnatakaJudgment 3 April 2012
Kalaburagi Police Head Constable v. State of Karnataka
The High Court confirmed the conviction of Head Constable for intentionally allowing his brother-in-law, convict Rustum Khan, to escape from lawful custody while escorting him from Central Jail Gulbarga to hospital and back, and then omitting to apprehend him. The Court disbelieved the chilly-powder escape story, noting the convict was the appellant's wife's younger brother. The sentences of six months' imprisonment plus Rs.500 fine on each of the three counts (Sections 221, 222 and 223 IPC) were sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 3 April 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2007, the Karnataka High Court (Coram: V. Suri Appa Rao, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Head Constable, District Armed Reserve, Gulbarga (attached to Central Jail).
- Register number
- KA 32 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2007 / (2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556
- Court and date
- Karnataka High Court (Coram: V. Suri Appa Rao, J.), 3 April 2012
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, District Armed Reserve, Gulbarga (attached to Central Jail)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 222 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It appears that the appellant intentionally allowed the convict Rustum Khan to escape from his lawful custody.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 0.5 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Karnataka High Court judgment dated 3 April 2012 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“It appears that the appellant intentionally allowed the convict Rustum Khan to escape from his lawful custody.” (para 12)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
3 Apr 2012
Order issued
ConcludedThe Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.