Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Kashipathi S/O Monappa, And Others on 21 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB
CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200009 OF 2025
(378(CR.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
WADAGERA POLICE STATION,
YADGIRI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. KASHIPATHI S/O MONAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ULLESUGUR, TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
2. HANAMANTHRAYA S/O MANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ULLESUGUR, TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST YADGIRI-585202.
3. NAGARAJ S/O KASHIPATI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB
CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ULLESUGUR, TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
4. MANOHAR S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ULLESUGUR,
TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
5. SIDDANNA S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ULLESUGUR,
TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
6. MALLAMMA W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O ULLESUGUR,
TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
7. SIRASAMMA W/O KASHIPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O ULLESUGUR,
TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
8. DEVAMMA W/O DEVENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O ULLESUGUR,
TQ. SHAHAPURA,
DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB
CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C (OLD) UNDER SECTION 419(1) (B)
AND (3) OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08-09-
2023 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
YADGIRI, IN SC NO.16/2017, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 447, 504
AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, B) SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08-09-2023 PASSED BY
THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI, IN SC
NO.16/2017 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 447, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.
149 OF THE IPC. C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 447, 504
AND 506 R/W SECTION. 149 OF THE IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in SC No.16/2017. I.A.No.1/2025 is filed for condonation of delay of 392 days in filing this appeal. Reasons assigned and cause shown to -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025 HC-KAR condone the delay are specifically mentioned in paragraph No.2, which read as under:
"I further submit that, the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2023. The copy of judgment was applied on 11.09.2023, the said copy was kept ready on 16.09.2023 and same was obtained on 16.09.2023. Thereafter, the Public Persecutor has given an opinion that, the said case fit to prefer and appeal. Thereafter, the said judgment and opinion of the prosecutor was sent to the Director of Prosecution who in term after verifying the records have given an opinion on 17.11.2023, that the said case is fit to prefer an appeal. The said opinion was sent for the Government, the Home Department, after verifying the entire records have passed the Government Order No.HD:1732:HCP-1:2024 Bengaluru, dated 16.05.2024 for preferring the Criminal Appeal. Thereafter, on 24.05.2024 the G.O has been sent to the office of Addl. State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi. Thereafter, the records were given to the Government Pleader for drafting the same. Few records were not legible, hence, through telephonically it was intimated to the concerned officer to furnish the legible copies. Thereafter, after obtaining the required records same was placed before the High Court Government Pleader, immediately the Criminal Appeal has been preferred after going through the entire records."
2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, reported in -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025 HC-KAR (2013) 12 SCC 649, Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. and Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 513 and State of Odisha and Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School reported in 2026 INSC 148 has dealt with how an application for delay has to be decided. It is categorically held that the State cannot have a better preference over private litigant and would have to show more diligence in filing the appeal.
3. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and Ors. (supra), at paragraph Nos.16 and 21 has held as under:
"16. Katiji (supra) and Ramegowda (supra) were consistently followed by this Court until adoption of a different and seemingly strict approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay during the last decade and a half became discernible starting with the decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, where a delay of 427 days in filing the relevant special leave petition was not condoned. University of Delhi v.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025 HC-KAR Union of India is another decision (of a three-Judge Bench of this Court) where delay of 916 days was not condoned. While upholding the decision of the relevant high court under challenge refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in presentation of an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the heirs of a deceased landowner, a coordinate Bench in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector(LA) very recently reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on public policy, the object is that a legal remedy is put to an end so that no litigation remains pending for an indefinite period. It was also held, departing from the earlier view, that the merits of the case cannot be considered at the stage of considering the application for condonation of delay.
21. Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay. Despite all the latitude that is shown to a "State", we are of the clear opinion that the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up."-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. On perusal of the reasons assigned and cause shown in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, it is seen that reasons assigned are service exigencies and delay in giving the opinion by the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the same was sent to Director of Prosecution to verify the records and thereafter, Home Department passed an order, which was sent to Additional Public Prosecutor. Then government started drafting the same for filing the appeal and thereafter, appeal is preferred. These explanations provided are vague, cannot be considered to be valid ground or sufficient cause or bona fide reasons, much less satisfactory to this Court for condoning the delay.
5. Under the circumstances, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are not inclined to accept the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1708-DB CRL.A No. 200009 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. In view of rejection of I.A.No.1/2025, this appeal would not survive for consideration and is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NJ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4 CT:SI