Mangaluru (Karnataka)(PTI): A fast-track special court here has sentenced a 50-year-old man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a minor girl.

The convict, identified as Abubakkar, was booked by the Bantwal Rural police station in under Sections 64(1) (rape) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and relevant section of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 

According to police, the incident dates back to March 29, 2025 when the accused sexually assaulted the minor girl in his neighbourhood and threatened her from disclosing about it. 

The case was investigated by then Police Inspector Shivakumar B, who collected the necessary evidence and filed a charge sheet against the accused before the court. 

After hearing the case, the District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Special Court-FTSC-2) in Mangaluru last week found the accused guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in prison along with a fine of Rs 50,000. 

Special Public Prosecutor Sahana Devi represented the prosecution and argued the case before the court. 

Head Constable Prashanth Kumar and Police Constable Santosh Jadhav of Bantwal Rural Police Station assisted in the investigation and court proceedings, police said.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre's response on a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, on the ground that those are allegedly discriminatory against women.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Panchol took note of the submissions made by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who appeared in the matter for petitioners Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation, and issued a notice to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs.

The plea says the current Shariat inheritance rules are "manifestly discriminatory" against women, often granting them only half or less of the share allocated to their male counterparts.

Bhushan said the 1937 Act violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

He said matters of succession are civil in nature and do not constitute an "essential religious practice" protected under Article 25.

"Saying women will get half or even less than half compared to male counterparts is discriminatory," the lawyer said.