Karnataka High Court
State By vs Hanumantharayappa on 2 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY
KUNIGAL POLICE - 572130
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
by DEVIKA M
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KUNIGAL TALUK,
KARNATAKA TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
2. NANJUUNDAIAH @ NANJUNDI @ AMBI
S/O LATE AMBALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
3. LAKSHMANA @ PAPA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKAHONNEGOWDANAPALYA,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
4. CHAMAIAH @ CHAMA,
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKAHONNEGOWDANAPALYA,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
5. KRISHNAMURTHY @ NANJA,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O SOBAGANAHALLI,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH , ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SMT. SHYLAJA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H. R. SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED AND UNREPPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
JUDGEMNT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 9.11.14
PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND S.C.NO.206/2012 BY
THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCHEDULE
CASETE/SCHEDULE TRIBE (POA) ACT 1989, TUMKURU,
THERBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366-A R/W 149 OF IPC; SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
9.11.14, PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND
S.C.NO.206/12 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 TUMAKURU ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
366-A R/W 149 OF IPC.(c) CONVICT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
366(A) R/W SEC.149 IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.11.2014 passed in S.C.No.190/2012 and S.C.No.206/2012, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Tumakuru, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, on 23.06.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., victim girl was proceeding near the land of Nanjundaiah on Shettigere- Kempasagara road to go to college at Kunigal along with her friends. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 with a common object to kidnap Lakshmi Devi and forcibly marry to accused No.1, kidnapped her in Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA-41-N-
319. Based on the complaint, case was registered and the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 149 of IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5 and marked M.O.1 and closed the prosecution side evidence. The portion of statement of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. The accused were subjected to 313 statement and incriminating materials were denied by the accused and the accused not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the evidence available on record not inspires the confidence of the Court that P.W.2 was kidnapped by accused Nos.1 to 5. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there are contra evidence available before the Court and the very incident itself is doubtful and the place of incident according to the prosecution is a public place and it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that none came to help them and extracted the evidence of prosecution witnesses and comes to the conclusion that benefit of doubt -6- NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR goes in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused persons.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend that P.W.2 is the victim girl and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are her friends, who were present along with the victim at the time of kidnapping her. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.1 to 5 came in a car i.e. Marathi van and kidnapped P.W.2 and when P.W.2 refused to marry accused No.1, she was sent back. P.W.4 is the father of P.W.2, who lodged the complaint and only on information, the case was registered at the instance of P.W.4. The learned counsel would submit that P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8 are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.7 is the driver of the Omni car. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the witnesses to the seizure of the vehicle and both of them have turned hostile. P.W.11 is the spot mahazar witness and he also turned hostile. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and comes to an erroneous conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case. The conclusion of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR Trial Court with regard to the facts is palpably wrong and there was an erroneous approach and the same led to miscarriage of justice. The entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal. The Trial Court has ignored the oral and documentary evidence available on record and comes to an erroneous conclusion that there are material contradictions and also the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the interested witnesses, who are the friends of P.W.2. The Trial Court has failed to analyze and appreciate the evidence of P.W.2, who is the victim in the above case who has clearly narrated the overt-acts of all the accused persons who have actually participated in the crime. The Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 in its proper perspective and so also the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were present at the time of kidnapping of P.W.2. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons and hence, it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 particularly and contend that their evidence is consistent not only in respect of the incident of kidnap, but also -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR place of incident. But the Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that the place of incident itself is doubtful and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not inspires the confidence of the Court, which led to miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would vehemently contend that there was a dispute between the family of accused No.1 and also the victim and the same is suggested to P.W.2 while cross examining the same. Though nothing is illustrated but the fact is that there was a dispute between the family of victim as well as the accused No. 1 and hence, respondent No.3 is implicated in the case. The Trial Judge also having taken note of the material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that the very incident is doubtful and even the statement of the witnesses - P.W.1 to P.W.3 is contrary to the case of prosecution and the statements are recorded on 24.06.2011. But the material discloses that they had given the statement on the very day before the Investigating Officer and all these contradictions were taken note of by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused -9- NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR persons extending the benefit of doubt and hence, it does not require any interference. In spite of this Court extending an opportunity, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 did not choose to make any submission.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the grounds urged in the appeal so also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
[i] Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses and [ii] Whether it requires interference of this Court to reverse the same.
[iii] What order?
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and also considering the material on record, no doubt, prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 was kidnapped in the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR Maruthi Omni van when P.W.1 and P.W.3 were present at the time of the kidnapping. Hence, relies upon the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are the friends of P.W.2 - victim. It is also important to note that accused persons forcibly kidnapped P.W.2 and when she refused to marry accused No.1, she returned back to her house on the very same day. It is pertinent to note that P.W.4, who is the father of the victim on the information received from P.W.1 and P.W.3, registered the case with the police.
8. The Trial Judge having considered the material available on record in answering the point No.1 has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that when they were proceeding near the land of one Mr. Kempehonmaya, Maruthi Omni van came in front of them and stopped and that Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Chamanna kidnapped P.W.2 in the said vehicle and the other accused were sitting in the vehicle. But P.W.2 deposes that when they were proceeding near Nanjundaiah's land, a vehicle came and stopped and Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Hanumantharayappa tried to grab P.W.2 and when P.W.2 tried to escape, they kidnapped
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR her in a Maruthi Omni van. There are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 has also deposed her evidence in a line of evidence of P.W.2 but she deposes the place of incident as near the land of Mr. Mariappa and Mr. Nanjundaiah. There are material contradictions with regard to kidnapping the victim and their evidence is contrary to each other. Even with regard to the panchnama is concerned, the alleged incident has taken place, but P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not depose when they came near Kempasagara and P.W.2 was kidnapped. If really P.W.2 was kidnapped on the alleged place, P.W.1 to P.W.3 would have stated the same version in their evidence.
9. With regard to the place of incident is concerned, each one of P.W.1 to P.W.3 have given different statements. Apart from that, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she has given the statement before the police on 23.06.2011 itself and the said statement was recorded between 12.00 p.m and 01.00 p.m. but on perusal of the records, P.W.1 did not make any statement before the police on the very same day but actually, her statement was recorded on 24.06.2011. P.W.12, the Investigating Officer also categorically gives an evidence that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR statement was recorded on the next day i.e. on 24.06.2011 and even P.W.1 also states that she has not given the statement as per Exhibit D.1 on 23.06.2011. P.W.2 states that she and her friends Ms. Lakshmidevi and Ms. Vanitha were moving towards college from their house at 08.30 a.m. If P.W.1 and P.W.3 were accompanying P.W.2 at the time of her kidnapping by the accused, definitely they would have known who are the witnesses in this case. P.W.3 has stated that her statement was recorded on the very same day i.e. on 23.06.2011 at 11 a.m. but statements are given on the very next day and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are contrary to each other and even the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.12 and 19, wherein categorically admitted the place of incident is the only road to go to Kunigal and several people would move in that road.
10. The Trial Court, after taking note of all the factors comes to the conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses are contrary to each other and even while recording the statement of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR as P.W.12, he categorically states that he did not verify the attendance register in the college of P.W.1 to P.W.3 on whether they attended the college on 23.06.2011 or not. Since the very recording of the statement of these witnesses is contrary to each other, the very kidnap is doubtful since P.W.2 says that she was kidnapped by Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Hanumantharayappa but P.W.1 says that Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Chamanna kidnapped P.W.2. P.W.7 admitted in his evidence that the circumstantial witnesses cannot state that who have kidnapped the victim - P.W.2. If really accused kidnapped P.W.2, P.W.7 would have known the person who grabbed P.W.2 and who were sitting by the vehicle. Hence, even considering the evidence of circumstantial witnesses i.e. P.W.7, his evidence cannot be proved. P.W.5 also identified the accused No.3 but he says that accused No.3 approached him to get a car to go to the temple and he took the vehicle belonged to P.W.5 stating that he would pay Rs.6 per kilometer but in the cross examination, this witness says that he is not working as an agent and also he cannot tell on what date accused No. 3 had approached him so also he came to know through the police that car belonged to P.W.5 was used to kidnap and also
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR he cannot tell on what date he went to the police station and gave the statement.
11. The Trial Court, having taken note of overall documentary evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 having witnessed the incident of kidnapping and also the evidence of P.W.2 which does not inspire the confidence of the Court even with regard to the place of incident. P.W.1 to P.W.3 gives the description of different land owners and also the evidence of P.W.12 is contrary with regard to the recording of statement of P.W.4. P.W.4, who is the father of the victim is only a hearsay witness. The records reveals that P.W.2 was not married forcibly by accused No. 1 and also it discloses that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that when she refused to marry accused No.1, accused No. 1 himself left P.W.2 to her house.
12. Having taken note of all the factors into consideration, it is not a case to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and Trial Court having taken note of material discrepancies and also the contradictions in the evidence of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015 HC-KAR P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses, only circumstantial witnesses and their evidence does not support the case of the cross-examination and hence, the Trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons.
13. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and while reversing the finding of the Trial Court also, the Appellate Court must come to the conclusion that there is a consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses and the present evidence available before the Court is sufficient to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and unless and otherwise question of reversing the judgment does not arise in the absence of cogent evidence.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RB