Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O Basappa Joger vs Shivanand S/O Dyavappa Bentur on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, S.Rachaiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100132/2017
BETWEEN:
YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA JOGER
AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC : CARPENTER
R/O : GUDAGERI, TQ : KUNDAGOL,
DIST : DHARWAD.
.. APPELLANT
(SRI.YALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA (ABSENT))
AND:
1. SHIVANAND
S/O DYAVAPPA BENTUR
AGE : MAJOR,
R/O : GUDAGERI
TQ : KUNDAGOL,
DIST : DHARWAD.
2. DEVENDRAPPA @ DYAVAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA KATTI
AGE : 32 YEARS,
OCC : COOLIE
3. RAMESH
S/O SHEKHAPPA KATTI
Crl.A.No.100132/2017
2
AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE
4. NINGAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA KATTI
AGE : 36 YEARS,
OCC : PEON AT PANCHAYAT
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4
ARE ALL R/O KURUBAR ONI
GUDAGERI, TQ: KUNDAGOL
DIST : DHARWAD.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH POLICE STATION GUDAGERI
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 372 OF CR.P.C
SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD
SITTING AT HUBLI DATED 31.03.2016 IN S.C NO.90 OF 2013
BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND TO PASS A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 109, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING THIS DAY, Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.100132/2017
3
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is not present.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned
Additional SPP for respondent No.5 are present.
No reasons are forthcoming for non appearance of
learned counsel for the appellant. On the previous occasion
also, the learned counsel for the appellant had remained
absent. As such, noticing that on several dates of hearing of
not less than seven times, since the learned counsel for the
appellant had remained absent, this Court on 18.11.2021
proceeded to make the following observation:
"Though Sri.Amrut V Jois and Rajashree
advocates had entered appearance for the
appellant by filing vakalathnama in the month
of March-2021, none has appeared for the
appellant on 22.04.2021, 26.05.2021,
02.06.2021, 06.07.2021, 14.07.2021,
30.07.2021, 06.08.2021 and even today.
Hence, issue court notice to the appellant
returnable by 14.12.2021.
Re-list on 14.12.2021. The appeal having
not been admitted, if none were to appear for
the appellant on that date, the appeal would
be liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Crl.A.No.100132/2017
Accordingly, the Court notice was issued to the
appellant. Despite the service of Court notice, the appellant
has remained absent. However, as an abundant caution,
when the appellant was called out again, he has remained
absent. The observation made on 18.11.2021 makes it very
clear that the appellant has not been appearing in this matter
and not even shown the reason for his non appearance and
even not responded to the Court notice issued to him. The
appeal is against the judgment of acquittal. The appellant is
claiming himself to be the victim. Thus, claiming himself to
be the victim the appellant who has challenged the judgment
of acquittal is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the
appeal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN
