Suresh vs State Of Karnataka

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200036 OF 2026
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. SURESH
S/O BASAVARAJ KALMANI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A KURIHAL, WADAGERA TALUK
YADGIRI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA
2. SIDDAPPA
S/O BASAVARAJ KALMANI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A KURIHAL, WADAGERA TALUK
YADGIRI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHINAYA K. (BY V/C) AND
SRI. PUNITH MARKAL (BY PH))

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by REP. BY WADAGERA P.S
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI DIST. YADAGIR
Location: HIGH REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI-585102.

2. KUM. SHIVAGANGA
D/O MARILINGAPPA HOSAMNI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O KURIHAL VILLAGE
TALUK: WADAGERA
YADGIRI DISTRICT-585202.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
2

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC. 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.14/2024 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR. II) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.02.2026 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF BNSS BY 1ST
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI SC.14/2024,
AND DISCHARGE THEM OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109 R/W 149,
IPC 1860.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

CAV ORDER

1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition

under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short "BNSS, 2023") against the

order dated 5th February, 2026, passed in SC No.14 of 2024 by

the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir (for short "the

trial Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that on the

basis of complaint filed by one Sivaganga Hosamani s/o

Marilingappa Hosmani, Wadagera Police, registered case in

Crime No.58 of 2023 against accused 1 to 12 for commission of

offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109

read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation,

the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against
3

accused 1 to 11 for commission of offence under Sections 143,

147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109 read with 149 of Indian

Penal Code. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in

CC No.5263 of 2023 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC,

Shahapur. Since offences are exclusively triable by the court

of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions

and was registered as SC No.14 of 2024. Accused were

enlarged on bail. Before framing of charges, application was

filed on behalf of present petitioners who are accused No.4 and

5, under section 227 of CrPC read with Section 250 of BNSS,

2023 for discharge. The same came to be rejected by the trial

Court by impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same,

petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

3. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are innocent of

alleged offences. The offences alleged by the respondent police

are not made out from materials produced before them. It is

submitted that the complaint is lodged on the following day of

the alleged incident, but the complainant fails to give any

explanation for the delay and hence it may be safely inferred

that the de-facto complainant, after due deliberations, has
4

given improved version of the alleged incident, implicating the

petitioners. The de-facto complainant had made specific

allegations against one Manappa who was shown as accused

No.11 in the First Information Report, but was later dropped by

the respondent police upon the statement of de-facto

complainant, which clearly shows that the names included in

the complaint and the witness statements are false.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the

petitioners were not in Yadgir District when the alleged incident

took place and they were in Kalaburagi district pursuing their

academics by staying in hostel. The accused No.1, on the

alleged date was in Kalbuargi submitting his application for his

Ph.D with Kalburagi University. Hence, the allegation against

the petitioners does not hold water. The case of the respondent

police is that the deceased was shifted to the United Hospital

Kalburagi on 8th June 2023, after the alleged incident, but no

explanation is given by the respondent-Police as to why the

hospital had not registered the case as Medico-legal case when

the injured was taken to Hospital with the history of stab

injury. Hence, it is submitted that the very genesis of the case

is doubtful. It is further submitted that the motive attributed to

the petitioners is very slim and not supported by any credible
5

material. The witnesses are either interested or hearsay

witnesses. At this stage, it looks very unnatural as to why the

petitioners along with other accused tried to do away with the

deceased. The land in question was never made part of any lis

till the alleged date of incident and also it had nothing to do

with the petitioners. Hence, the motive does not stand. As per

the police, incident took place in village at 7:30 pm, but the

respondent police have failed to produce any document to show

that there were sufficient light for the de-facto complainant to

witness and identify the petitioner and other accused. It is also

submitted that there are no recoveries at the instance of

petitioners. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the

revision petition. To substantiate his argument, the learned

Counsel have produced the true copy of educational

qualification of the petitioners, provisional certificate of passing,

Form of application for registration as a student for Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D), the attendance certificate issued

by Siddhartha Law College in respect of Siddappa B. Kalmani

student of III year LL.B along with a covering letter and his

identity card.

5. As against this, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP

appearing for respondent No.1-State, would submit that the
6

trial Court has assigned proper reasons for rejecting the

discharge application. Absolutely there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

The accused may raise the grounds urged in this Revision

Petition only after the full-fledged trial. Whether the petitioners

were present at the time of commission of offence or not has to

be examined only after the trial. Merely on the basis of

attendance certificate issued by the concerned authority, at this

stage, accused cannot be discharged, as there are prima facie

material to constitute the offence alleged against the

petitioners. On all these grounds, it is sought for dismissal of

revision petition.

6. I have examined the materials place before this court.

On the basis of complaint filed by Shivaganga Hosmani,

Wadagera Police have registered case in Crime No.58 of 2023

against accused 1 to 12 for the offence punishable under

aforestated Sections.

7. The present petitioners are Suresh B. Kalmani and

Siddappa B. Kalmani, who are accused No.4 and 5 in the FIR.

After investigation, the investigating officer submitted sheet

against accused 1 to 11. In the charge-sheet, also, the present

petitioners are shown as accused 4 and 5. At the time of filing
7

charge-sheet, the investigating officer has not submitted the

charge-sheet against accused No.11-Manappa on the ground

that during the investigation, the case is not proved against

him. Hence, accused No.11 is given up from the charge-sheet.

Though, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that de-facto

complainant had made specific allegation against one Manppa

who is accused No.11 in the FIR, but thereafter, the

respondent-police have dropped his name from the FIR, which

clearly shows that the names included in the complaint and the

witness statement are concocted, the perusal of the materials

placed before this court makes it clear that the investigating

officer recorded the further statement of complainant

Shivaganga Hosmani, in which he has stated that due to

misrepresentation of facts, he has inserted the name of

Manappa. He came to know that Manappa is working at

Bengaluru for the past years and he did not participate in the

alleged crime. Accordingly, investigating officer has not

submitted charge-sheet against accused No.11.

8. Mere non-filing of case against accused No.11 is not a

ground to discharge the present petitioners from the alleged

commission of offence. Therefore, in this regard, argument
8

advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners cannot be

accepted.

9. The alleged incident took place on 8th June 2023.

Complaint was filed on 9th June 2023 at 9.00 am and FIR was

submitted to the court on 9th June, 2023 at 10.00 pm. In this

regard, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners would submit that there is delay of more than 24

hours in submitting the FIR to the court, which shows that, only

after discussions and deliberations, the complainant has filed

false case against these accused. At this stage, this argument

cannot be accepted.

10. With regard to attendance certificate and eligibility

certificate, provisional certificates, Form of application for

registration as a student for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

pertaining to accused No.4-Suresh and the Attendance

Certificate issued by Siddharth Law College in respect of

accused No.5-Siddanna is concerned, on the basis of copies of

attendance certificates, at this stage, without evidence, it is not

possible to come to the conclusion that the present petitioners

were not present at that scene of commission of offence.

I have examined the prosecution papers, statement of

witnesses, inquest panchanama, seizure panchanama and other
9

materials placed by the concerned police. In Column 17 of the

Charge-sheet, it is stated as under:

"17) ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ವರ (ಅವಶ ಕ ದ ಪ ೆ ೕಕ ಾ ೆ
ಲಗ ) :-
ಾನ ಾ !ಾಲಯದ #ಾ $%ೆ ಒಳಪಟ) ವಡ%ೇ+ಾ , ೕ-
.ಾ/ಾ ಹ1 ಯ ಕು3 ಾಳ %ಾ ಮದ ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-
14 ರ ನಮೂ1 ದ :ಾ ನಂ-1 ರವರ ತಂ6ೆ!ಾದ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಮೃತ

ಮ3 ಂಗಪ= ತಂ6ೆ >ವಪ= ೊಸಮ? ಈತನು ಉಳAB ಾಡುವ ೊಲ
ಕು3 ಾಳ ೕ ಾಂತರದ ಅವರ $ ಾ CDತ ಆ ಸ#ೇD ನಂ: 48/9 ರ 1
ಎಕ+ೆ 13 ಗುಂGೆ ಇದು , ಸದ3 ೊಲವI ಮೃತ ಮರ ಂಗಪ=ನ ಎರಡ ೇ
ಅಣJತಮKA¢gÁದ ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-12 ರ
ನಮೂ1 ದ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1 ರವರ ತಂL!ಾದ ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ
ಾಲಂ ನಂ-14 ರ ನಮೂ1 ದ :ಾ ನಂ-13 ರವರ ೆಸ3ನ°è
ಇದು ದ 3ಂದ ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನು ಸು ಾರು 1ನಗMಂದ ೊಲವನುN ತನN
ೆಸ3ನ ಾO ೊಡುವಂ ೆ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1 ೇದ ವ?%ೆ ೇಳA ಾ
ಬಂ1ದು , ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1 ೇದ ವನು ತನN ತಂL :ಾ ನಂ-13 ರವರ
ೆಸ3ನ ದ ೊಲವನುN ಮ3 ಂಗಪ= ೆಸ3%ೆ ವ%ಾFವ/ೆ ಾOಸುವI1Rಾ
ಎಂದು ಮ3 ಂಗಪ= ೊಂ1%ೆ ತಕ+ಾರು ಾಡು ಾ ಬಂ1ದು , ಇದ3ಂದ
ಆ+ೋ$ತ+ೆಲ ರು ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನ BೕRೆ 6ೆSೕಷ :ಾUಸು ಾ
ಬಂ1ರು ಾ+ೆ.

ಅ6ೇ ಷಯ ೆV ಸಂಬಂU ದಂ ೆ ಈಗ ಸು ಾರು ಒಂದು ವಷDದ
Wಂ6ೆ ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನು ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-14
ರ ನಮೂ1 ದ :ಾ ನಂ-9, 10, 11 ರವರ ಸಮXಮದ :ಾ ನಂ-13
ಮತು ಾಲಂ ನಂ-12 ರ ನಮೂ1 ದ ಆ+ೋ$ತ3%ೆ ಕ+ೆY ಾ ಯ
ಪಂZಾಯ ಾOದು , ಾ ಯ ಪಂZಾಯ ಯ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1 ಮತು
10

ಅವರ ತಂL :ಾ ನಂ-13 ರವರು ೊಲವನುN ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನ
ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ಾO ೊಡಲು ಒ$= ೊಂOರು ಾ+ೆ. ಅ ಂದ
ಆ+ೋ$ತ+ೆಲ ರು ೊಲದ ಷಯದ ªÀÄj°AUÀ¥Àà£À ªÉÄÃ É #ೈಷಮ
ೊಂ1 6ೆSೕಷ :ಾUಸು ಾ ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ= ೊಂ1%ೆ ತಕ+ಾರು
ಾಡು ಾ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

1 ಾಂಕ:08/06/2023 ರಂದು :ಾಯಂ ಾಲ 7:30 ಗಂGೆ
ಸು ಾ3%ೆ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನು ಕು3 ಾಳ %ಾ ಮದ ಬW6ೆD:ೆ%ೆ ೋL
ಮರM ಮ ೆ%ೆ ೋಗು ರು#ಾಗ ಕು3 ಾಳ %ಾ ಮದ ?ೕ3ನ GಾA\ ಹ ರ
ಆ+ೋ$ತ+ೆಲ ರು ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 ರವರು
ಏ ೋ6ೆ ೕಶ1ಂದ ಗುಂಪIಕ^) ೊಂಡು ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-5, 6, 10, 11 ರವರ
ಪ Zೋದ ೆಯ Bೕ+ೆ%ೆ ಬಂದು ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 ರವರು
ಅಕ ಮಕೂಟ ರ_ ೊಂಡು ಏ ೋ6ೆ ೕಶ1ಂದ ಬಂದು ಮ3 ಂಗಪ= ೊಂ1%ೆ
ಜಗಳ ೆ%ೆದು ತaೆದು ? "ಏ bೋಸುO ಮಗ ೆ ಮ3 ಂ%ಾ ?ನN
ಾYನ ಹaಾ ಸೂM ಮಗ ೆ ಾವI ಉಣುJ ದ ೊಲವನುN ?ನN ೆಸ3ನ
ಾO ೊಂಡು ನಮK ಮುಂ6ೆ ಎ6ೆ ಉcd ೊಂಡು ರು%ಾಡು ರಂO
ಮಗ ೆ" ಎಂದು ಅ#ಾಚ fೈಯು ಾ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-3, 4 ಮತು 7 ೇದ ವರು
ಮೃತ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=?%ೆ ಗ^)!ಾL WOದು ೊಂaಾಗ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-1
ೇದ ವನು ತನN ೈಯ ದ Zಾಕು ?ಂದ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=?%ೆ ೊRೆ ಾಡುವ
ಉ6ೆ ೕಶ1ಂದ ೊGೆ)%ೆ ಬಲ#ಾL ಚು_gದ 3ಂದ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನ ೊGೆ)ಯ ನ
ಕರಳAಗಳA ೊರಗaೆ ಬಂದು ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನು ಸ ೆ ೆ8ೊ)ೕ ಎಂದು ೆಳಗaೆ
c6ಾ ಗ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-2, 9 ರವರು ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=?%ೆ fೈಯು ಾ ೈಗMಂದ
Bೖ ೈ%ೆ ೊaೆಯು#ಾಗ ಆ+ೋ$ ನಂ-8 ೇದ ವನು ಈ ಸೂ ೆಮಗ?%ೆ
ೊaೆದು ಖRಾಸ ಾOiೕ caೋಣ ಎಂದು ಪ Zೋದ ೆ ಾOರು ಾ+ೆ.
ಅಷ)ರ ಘಟ ೆ ಸkಳ ೆV ಬಂದ :ಾ ನಂ-1 3ಂದ 8 ೇದ ವರು
ಜಗಳcO ದು , ನಂತರ :ಾ ನಂ-1, 2, 3 ರವರು bಾ3%ಾಯ%ೊಂOದ
ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=?%ೆ :ಾ ನಂ-12 ರವರ ಆGೋ3lಾದ ಾ\ ೊಂಡು
11

ಶ ಾಪmರವ+ೆ%ೆ ೋL ಅ ಂದ fೇ+ೆ nಾಸL #ಾಹನದ ಕಲಬುರL%ೆ
ಕ+ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋL ಕಲಬುರL ಯು ೈGೆo nಾಸL ಆಸ= ೆ %ೆ ೋL
:ೇ3 ೆ ಾOದು , _\ ೆp ಫಲ ಾ3!ಾಗ6ೇ ಮ3 ಂಗಪ=ನು
1 ಾಂಕ:18/06/2023 ರಂದು 12:45 $.ಎr. ಸು ಾ3%ೆ
ಮೃತಪ^)ರು ಾ ೆ.

ಾರಣ ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ-12 ರ ನಮೂ1 ದ
ಆ+ೋ$ತರು ಕಲಂ: 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109
ಸಂಗಡ 149 ಐ.$. ಅOಯ >lೆ%ೆ ಗು3ಪOಸುವ ಅಪ+ಾಧ
ಾOರುವIದು ತ?nೆ ಮತು :ಾlಾuvಾರಗMಂದ :ಾcೕ ಾLದ 3ಂದ ಸದ3
ಆ+ೋ$ತರ ರುದ ಈ 6ೋ8ಾ+ೋಪ/ೆ ಪತ ಸ ಸRಾL6ೆ."

11. On careful examination of the entire material on record, I

do not find any legal error in the impugned order, passed the

learned sessions Judge. In the result, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

Criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Consequently, all pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn