Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Raghavendra on 6 November, 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1980 OF 2017(A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2017 (A)

IN CRL.A No. 1980 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

AND:
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O LATE PUTTARAJU,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.

2. DALI @ VENKATESHAMURTHY,
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.

3. PRAVEENA @ PRAVEEN NAIK,
S/O MANJANAYAKA,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

4. SHANTHAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.

5. CHARANNA,
SON OF LATE NARASEEYAPPA,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.

6. KESHAVA,
SON OF EESHWARAIAH,
BEHIND KEB,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.

7. SHASHI,
SON OF HANUMANTHAIAH,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3,
SRI. A DERICK ANIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5,
SRI. H.K. PAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 AND R-7,
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2024, APPEAL
AGAINST R-2 STANDS ABATED)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIOIN 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITAL DATED 07.04.2017,
PASSED BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN S.C.NO.167/2012, ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 366, 354, 506, 307, 109 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.

IN CRL.A NO.958 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:

KUM. SHILPA G.N.
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O ANTHARASANAHALLI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRIC. ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. J.I. KITTUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE, TUMKUR,
NOW REPTD. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O LATE PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMKUR - 572 101.

3. DAALI (ALIAS) VENKATESHA MURTHY,
S/O R. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT ,
NRUPATHUNGA BADAVANE,
R/O ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMKUR - 572 101.

4. PRAVEEN (ALIAS) PRAVEEN NAIK,
S/O MANJA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT, R/O KADUR TOWN,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE NARASINHAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE

6. CHARAN,
S/O LATE NARASINHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC: FACTORY WORKMAN,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

7. KESHAVA ,
S/O ESHWARAYYA ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O BEHING KEB.

8. SHASHI,
S/O HANUMANTHAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: FACTORY WORKMAN,

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7
ARE THE RESIDENTS OF
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMUKUR- 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI. K.B.K SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-4,
SRI. A. DERICK ANIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 AND R-6,
SRI H.K. PAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 AND R-8,
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2024, APPEAL
AGAINST R-3 STANDS ABATED)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 7.4.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN
S.C.NO.167/2012, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AND 6 TO
9 (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 HEREIN) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 366, 354, 307, 506, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC PASSED
BY THE VI ADDL. DIST.AND S.J., TUMKURU AND TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED 1 TO 3 AND 6 TO 9/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 HEREIN IN
S.C.NO.167/2012, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 366, 354, 307, 506, 109 R/W 149 AND SENTENCE THEM
SUITABLY IN TERMS OF SAID CONVICTION TO BE PASSED AGAINST
THEM AND ETC.,

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
UMESH M. ADIGA, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

CAV COMMON JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated

07.04.2017, passed by the learned VI Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, (for short `trial Court'), in

S.C.No.167/2012, acquitting the accused of the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 354, 506, 307, 109 read

with Section 149 of IPC.

State has filed Criminal Appeal No.1980/2017 and

victim PW-2 - Shilpa G.N., has filed Criminal Appeal

No.958/2017. Both these appeals are taken up together

for disposal.

2. We refer to the parties as per their ranks before

the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on

09.08.2011, around 3.00 p.m., PW-2 Ms.Shilpa was

waiting for a bus at S.S.Puram road, Tumakuru, near DDPI
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

office, to go to her house situated at Antharasanahalli in

Tumakuru. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the

said spot in a Tata Indica car bearing registration

No.KA-02-B-8328. Accused No.1 came behind PW-2,

closed her mouth by his hand and forcefully pushed her

inside the car and kidnapped her. The accused Nos.2 to 4

were sitting inside the car and they proceeded towards

Hiriyur side. Accused Nos.1 and 4 were sitting at the

back seat of the car and they forced her to sit in-between

them. Accused tied her hands and closed her mouth by

keeping cloth. They threatened to kill her if she raises her

voice. Due to which she kept quite. On the way, accused

No.1 was insisting her to marry him, failing which he

would kill her. Initially she refused to marry him.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that

Accused No.1 to 4 reached nearby Hiriyur; it appears that

one of the tyre of the car got punctured; The accused got

it repaired; Accused No.1 once again warned PW-2 that

if she refuses to marry him, then he would kill her; PW-2
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

requested him to take back home she would convince her

father and will give consent to marry him.

Thereafter, accused were returning to Tumakuru. Around

9.00 p.m, they reached near MCL layout in

Antharasanahalli and when the car was going slow PW-2

tried to escape. Hence, accused No.1 to 4 with an

intention to kill her, accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 held her and

accused No.1 stabbed her on left side chest and right ribs.

Once again accused No.1 tried to assault on her chest; at

that time PW-2 raised her hand, and the knife hit on her

left thumb causing bleeding injuries; The wounds were

bleeding profusely. She raised hue and cry and she loudly

told to the people gathered at the spot, that the accused

kidnapped her and also intending to kill her. She

requested them to take her to hospital for treatment.

When people gathered at the spot were attending her,

accused Nos.1 to 4 fled away from the said spot in the car.

The people gathered at the spot shifted her to Government

hospital situated at Sira Gate. The incident had taken

place at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. She gave mobile number
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

of PW-3 and asked the people gathered at the spot to

inform him about the incident. When she was taking

treatment at Sira Gate hospital, her father, PW-1

Narasimhamurthy, her mother and PW-3 came to the

hospital. She narrated about the incident in short. In the

meanwhile, due to bleeding, she was not fully conscious.

When she regained consciousness, she was in Harsha

hospital at Tumakuru. Thereafter, she had given details of

the incident to PW-1.

5. PW-1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P-1 and on

that basis, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Tilak Park

police station registered a case in Crime No.123/2011, for

the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354, 506,

307, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. The SHO of Tilak Park police station has partly

investigated the case. Thereafter, with the permission of

the Court, handed over further investigation to New

Extension Police Station, Tumakruru. Said police

registered the case in Crime No.226/2011 and
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

investigated the case. On conclusion of investigation

submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for

the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 506,

307, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The learned Magistrate took congnizance of the case

and committed the case to the Court of Sessions

Tumakuru for trial.

7. The learned Sessions Judge heard both the

parties; framed the charges. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution to prove its case, examined

PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-28 and

produced MO-1 to MO-5 and closed its evidence. The

learned trial Judge examined the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. The accused, examined DW-1 to DW-4 and

got marked Exs.D-1 to D-14.

9. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the

parties and appreciating evidence available on record,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against

them.

10. It appears, during pendency of these appeals,

accused No.2 was dead. The accused Nos.4 and 5 were

absconding; the case against them was split up and

separate cases were registered against them. Accused

No.1, 3, and 6 to 9 are prosecuting this appeal.

11. We have heard the arguments of the learned

High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for

both sides.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants submit

that the star witness in this case is PW-2 and others are

not eye witnesses. PW-2 supported the case of the

prosecution and stated the manner in which the incident

had taken place. The injuries sustained by PW-2 was

deposed by her as well as PW-13 - the Doctor who treated

her. PW-2 identified the accused, as well as the weapon

of offence used for causing the injuries by the accused. In

the cross-examination of material witnesses, accused were
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

not able to demolish the evidence of PW.2, PW-13 and

PW-12 - Investigating Officer. The prosecution proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial

Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and

erroneously acquitted the accused of the above said

charges. Hence, prayed for interference in the said

findings of the trial Court and reverse the findings.

13. Learned counsels for respondents/accused

supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the

learned trial Judge by well reasoned order, acquitted the

accused and it does not call for any interference.

14. Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3

vehemently contended that the case of prosecution is not

at all believable. PW-2 contends that she was kidnapped

in daylight from market place of Tumakuru. It is difficult

to believe the said version and no eye witnesses were

examined by the investigating officer, who have seen the

incident. Even she did not raise her voice while returning

to MCL layout and there is no explanation in this regard.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

The evidences of PWs.1 and 3 are not consistent with the

evidence of PW-2. The evidence of other witnesses does

not help the case of the prosecution in proving the guilt

against the accused. The timing of taking PW-2 to

different hospitals is not consistent. The prosecution failed

to prove that PW-2 was taken to the hospital at Sira Gate,

Sridevi Hospital and Vinayaka hospital at Tumakruru as

stated in her evidence. PW-2 was taken to the hospital

situated about 40 Kms. away from the place of incidence.

There is no explanation for the same. Evidence of PW-5

regarding treatment given to PW-2 is not corroborated by

any materials.

15. The learned counsel further submitted that PW-4

is none other than the maternal uncle of the victim girl

and brother of PW-3. During his evidence, he never stated

before the police that injured PW-2 is his niece and stated

before the police as if she was not all related to him. The

said conduct of PW-4 creates serious doubt. The medical

records at Ex.P-27 shows that PW-2 was admitted in the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

said hospital on 10.08.2011, but according to the evidence

of PWs.1 and 3, PW-2 was admitted in Harsha hospital on

09.08.2011, which is contrary to the records produced by

the prosecution. Even the injuries sustained by PW-2 is

not proved by the evidence of PW-13. It is the defence of

the accused that accused No.5 and another daughter of

PW-1 by name Vidya were loving each other and they

intended to marry. Daughter of Nandeesha, who is

brother-in-law of PW-1, is married to one Chandrashekar,

relative of the accused. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are

belonging to scheduled tribe and PW-1 belong to

scheduled caste. PW-1 was upset by knowing both his

daughters fell in love with boys belonging to other

community. He brainwashed PW-2 and through her, filed

a false complaint to take revenge against accused.

PW-2 did not sustain any injuries and all these facts are

created only with an intention to harass accused

Nos.1 to 5.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

16. The learned counsel further submitted that

accused No.6 Shantamma is the sister-in-law of

PW's 3 and 4. She demanded for partition of the family

property from PWs.3 and 4. Accused No.7 is the son of

accused No.6. PWs. 3 and 4 refused to effect partition,

therefore, accused No.7 filed a suit for partition and it has

been seriously contested by PWs.3 and 4. Therefore, to

force accused No.6 to compromise the matter with PWs. 3

and 4, they were also made as accused in this case

without any basis. The learned trial Judge considered all

these points and rightly acquitted the accused. The said

finding does not call for interference. With these reasons,

they prayed to dismiss the appeals.

17. Following point emerges for our determination :

Whether the learned trial Judge is justified in
acquitting the accused of the offences punishable
under Sections 366, 354, 506, 307, 109 read with
Section 149 of IPC?

We answer the above point partly in the Negative for

the following reasons :
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

18. The material witness in this case is PW-2. In

her evidence, she has stated the manner in which the

incident had taken place. She also stated about the

injuries sustained by her. According to her evidence, at

the time of incident, she was studying in Diploma. Three

years prior to the incident, accused No.1 told her that he

loves her and intending to marry her. He used to follow

her while she was going to college, as well as returning

home. Sometime both Accused No.1 and 4 were forcing

her to marry Accused No.1. She complained about the

same to her parents and her maternal uncles. Inspite of

the warning given by them, accused No.1 continued his

illegal act of harassing her and forcing her to marry him.

19. It is the further evidence of PW-2 that on

09.08.2011, she attended computer training centre and

around 3.30 p.m., she was going towards city bus stand

situated near DDPI office, at that time, a person closed her

mouth and pushed her inside the car. They took her both

hands towards her back and tied. They forced her to sit
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

at footrest. They were in all four persons and out of them

she was familiar with accused Nos.1 and 4. Thereafter,

during conversation between the accused, she came to

know the name of other two persons as Dali and Praveena.

Accused No.1 was threatening her to marry him, otherwise

he would kill her. On the way, he received a call from

Rajesha and one Smt.Shantamma encouraging him to do

whatever he wants to do with her and they would protect

him. PW-2 further stated that said vehicle went upto

Hiriyuru. Accused No.1 once again threatened her to

marry him and at that time, she told him to take her back

to her house so that she would convince her parents for

the marriage. Hence, they were returning back to

Tumakuru.

20. PW-2 in her further evidence stated that when

the car reached near MCL layout at Antharasanahalli, she

tried to escape. At that time, accused Nos.2 to 4 held her

and accused No.1 stabbed on the left side of the chest and

right ribs. He once again he attempted to stab on her
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

chest, in the meanwhile, she raised her hands to prevent

the assault, the knife hit her left thumb and caused

bleeding injuries. The wounds were profusely bleeding.

She told the accused to take her to hospital at Sira Gate.

Accordingly, they took the vehicle near Sira Gate. She

alighted from the car and rushed towards the people

gathered at the spot and told them that accused were

trying to kidnap her and caused injury. When people

started gathering around the car, accused fled away from

the spot. It was around 9.30 to 9.40 p.m. She also

requested one of the person gathered at the spot to

telephone to her maternal uncle giving his telephone

number. When she was undergoing treatment at Sira

Gate hospital, her father and uncle came to the hospital.

Due to profuse bleeding from the wounds, she lost her

consciousness and she regained consciousness at Harsha

hospital at Nelamangala. She also stated about the

treatment taken by her and the gravity of injuries

sustained by her. She also deposed regarding seizure of

her clothes which she was wearing at the time of the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

incident under mahazar at Ex.P-2 and identified them as

MOs.1 to 3. She identified the knife which was used to

stab her by accused No.1 as MO-4.

21. PW-2 in her further evidence stated that on

21.08.2011, she was discharged from the hospital. On

28.08.2011, police called her to the spot of the incident.

Accordingly, she went to the place of the incident and

showed the spot. The police drew mahazar in her

presence, as well as in the presence of the witnesses as

per Ex.P-3. The police took her to the place wherein

accused have kept the car, in which she was kidnapped.

The said car was seized and mahazar was drawn as per

Ex.P-4. She identified the car in Ex.P-5. She identified

accused Nos.1 and 3 in the Court.

22. PW-2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the

accused wherein she elaborated the facts which she had

stated in her examination-in-chief.

At the cost of repetition, the defenses of accused are

that PW-1 belongs to schedule caste and accused Nos.1
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

and 5 they belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Accused No.1

fell in love with PW-2; Accused No.5 fell in love with sister

of PW-2. They were intending to marry against the wish of

PW-1. Close relative of Accused No.1 and 5 had married

one of the close relative of PW-1. Accused No.6 to 9 filed

suit claiming share in joint family property of wife of PW-1

and her brothers. Therefore to take revenge against all of

them, false case has been filed. No such incident had

taken place. PW-2 did not sustain any injuries. In collusion

with police and medical officers accused were falsely

charge sheeted.

23. In the further cross-examination of PW-2,

defenses of the accused were suggested to her and she

denied them. The accused could not get any admission in

their favour to make their defenses probable. PW-2

sustained severe stab injuries near chest, ribs and palm.

She was inpatient in Harsha Hospital. Her condition was

said to be critical while admission as per medical records.

Treated doctors corroborated her evidence regarding
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

injuries and treatment. There are no materials to

disbelieve their evidence. If PW-2 and her sister were

loving accused No.1 and 5 and they were ready to marry

the accused, then all of a sudden why both changed their

mind is not explained. Hence, it is difficult to believe. If

PW-1 was able to persuade both his daughters from not

marrying accused No.1 and 5 respectively, then why he

would lodge a false case against accused? Hence not

probable. Accused have not produced any materials

except the so called message sent by PW-2 to accused

No.1, to show that both PW-2 and her sister were loving

accused No.1 and 5 respectively and agreed to marry

them.

24. PW-2 in her cross examination deposed

contrary to the contentions of accused. She said that

Accused No.1 was following her while she was going to

college and returning home and forcing her to marry him.

She also said that, sometime he was also following her
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

along with accused No.4. She stoutly refused to marry

him.

The evidence given in the cross-examination of PW-2

strongly supports the case of prosecution and leads to an

inference that PW-2 did not agree to marry accused No.1.

Therefore, he must have kidnapped her to force her to

marry him and when she tried to escape, he tried to kill

her.

25. It is also the contention of the accused that

PWs.1 and 4 influenced all the persons concerned of this

case, including the police officers, medical officers and

doctor in Harsha hospital and other witnesses and created

records. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, they

are poor villagers, having a small land holdings. It was

not brought out in their evidence that they are politically

very influential persons and financially sound to spend

huge money to purchase every one. Therefore, the

defense of the accused that with an intention to file a false
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

case against the accused, PWs.1 and 3 used PW-2 as

instrument and created all the documents, is not probable.

26. There are no eye witnesses who had seen the

accused kidnapping PW-2. While kidnapping her, as per

the evidence of PW-2, accused tied her hand and closed

her mouth with cloth and made her to sit inside the car at

footrest. Hence, it appears that she could not shout for

help or outsiders could notice her. Accused were said to

have threatened her of dire consequences if she shouts for

help. When such was the situation, a poor girl could not

resist and raise hue and cry for protection of herself. It

does not create any doubt in the case of prosecution.

27. It is the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 that, initially PW-2 was taken to the

Government Hospital at Sira Gate, for treatment. The

Medical Officer of the said hospital gave her first-aid

treatment and since wounds were bleeding profusely, he

advised PWs.1 and 3 to take PW-2 to higher medical

centre. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 that PW-2 was
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

taken to Vinayaka hospital and Sridevi hospital at

Tumakuru. In both the hospitals, the Medical Officers

were not available, therefore they rushed to Nelamangala

and admitted PW-2 to Harsha hospital on the very same

day i.e., on 09.08.2011 and admitted her as an inpatient.

PW-2 was unconscious and according to her, she regained

consciousness on 10.08.2011. The learned trial Judge

observing the discrepancies in the timing of admission of

PW-2 in Harsha hospital as per evidence of PW-1 to 3 and

medical records, disbelieved the case of the prosecution,

which is erroneous.

28. Inpatient file of PW-2 was maintained in the

Harsha Hospital at Ex.P-27. It appears that due to the

mistake of the concerned staff of Harsha hospital, date

and timing of admission was wrongly mentioned in Ex.P-

27. PW-5 who was the Medical Officer in Government

Hospital at Sira Gate, in his evidence has stated that on

09.08.2011, PW-2 was brought to the said hospital around

9.00 p.m. He also stated that PW-2 sustained stab injuries
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

and wounds were profusely bleeding. Therefore, he

advised PW-1 to shift her to higher medical centre. He

enquired with PW-2 regarding history of the injuries and

she told that accused stabbed her. He also stated that

police enquired him and recorded his statement. It

appears that, he has not recorded treatment of PW-2 in

MLC register.

29. In the cross-examination of PW-5, the defence

highlighted the lapses of PW-5. Not recording the said

facts of injury to PW-2 in the MLC register and failing to

intimate to the nearest police station about the incident,

are nothing but negligence and dereliction of his duty.

That will not affect the merit of the case. In view of the

same, the investigating officer recorded his statement and

submitted along with charge sheet.

Evidence of PW-5 supports the case of prosecution

that on 09.08.2011, PW-2 came to his hospital situated at

Sira Gate and took treatment. Thereafter, she was

referred to higher medical centre.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

30. PWs.1 and 3 have stated that both of them went

to Vinayaka hospital, as well as Sridevi hospital, at

Tumakuru. Due to absence of doctors, the concerned

person in the hospital did not admit PW-2 for treatment.

That forced PW-1 and 3 to shift PW-2 to Harsha hospital.

It is natural and that will not create any doubt in the case

of prosecution.

31. The trial Court secured inpatient records of

Harsha Hospital, that contains date of admission,

treatment given to PW-2 etc., In the first page of the

admission card, date of admission is mentioned as

10.08.2011 at 11.10 p.m. The second page of the file is

regarding police intimation, which shows that victim girl

was brought to the hospital on 09.08.2011 around 11.10

p.m., therefore, requested the police to take appropriate

action. The said document appears to be having an

endorsement of the concerned police station and receipt of

the same.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

Again in the operation records, the date of entry of

patient is mentioned as 10.09.2011. At the end of the file,

there are papers having a nomenclature "Nurses notes".

It shows that patient was admitted to the hospital on

09.08.2011 at 11.30 p.m. Her temperature, BP,

pulse rate prescriptions etc., are noted in the said sheet.

In the next page of the said sheet, it is stated that on

10.08.2011 around 1.25 a.m., said girl was shifted to ICU

from casualty ward. All the day-to-day treatments are

mentioned in the said Nurses notes. These records

reveals that due to mistake, dates were wrongly

mentioned in the file. It appears, initially she was taken to

casualty ward and hence date of admission was mentioned

as 09.08.2011. When concerned medical officer found that

admission of patient was required for treatment, she was

referred to ICU. At that time, date was mentioned as

10.08.2021, since by that time, it might have crossed

midnight 12 O'clock. Therefore, much importance cannot

be given to the said inconsistency.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

32. PW-13 Doctor gave wound certificate as per

Ex.P-22. In his evidence he stated that on 09.08.2011,

around 11.30 p.m., PW-2 was admitted in their hospital.

One Dr.Raghavendra sent an intimation to police about the

offence. She was treated by a team of doctors such as

Dr.Manjappa, Dr.Jayanth, Dr.Raghavendra, Dr.Bhavani,

Dr.Harsha and himself. She underwent three surgeries as

she had three stab injuries, which are mentioned in the

medical records i.e., one stab injury at left breast, another

at abdomen and one more at left thumb. He operated on

her chest and abdomen along with other doctors.

According to him, the injuries suffered by PW-2 were

grievous. She was discharged from the hospital on

20.08.2011.

In his cross-examination, the defence counsel has

highlighted some of the mistakes crept in Ex.P-27.

33. The inconsistencies or lapses of staff of the

hospital cannot be a ground to disbelieve the contents of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

Ex.P-27 or evidence of PW-13. The evidence of PW-13

corroborates the evidence of PW-2.

34. PW-1 is the father of PW-2. He has stated on

09.08.2011, he went to attend his job at Bengaluru and

his daughter went to computer centre to learn computer

course. She did not return till 9.00 p.m. He searched

here and there. He went to the police station to lodge a

complaint, at that time, PW-3 received a call stating that

PW-2 had sustained injuries and admitted in Government

Hospital at Sira Gate. They rushed to the said hospital

and on medical advise, shifted her to Harash hospital at

Nelamangala since they could not find doctors at Vinayaka

hospital, as well as Sridevi hospital at Tumakuru. Much of

the cross-examination of PW-1 was pertaining to the

dispute between accused No.6 with PWs.1, 3 and 4. The

said evidence is not at all of much importance. It may be

double edged weapon; It may be reason for filing

complaint or due to said dispute, accused NO.6 to 8 might

have committed the crime; PW-1 and 3 are not eye
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

witnesses; On the basis of information, they deposed

before the court about incident. They have also stated

about shifting of PW-2 to hospital for treatment.

35. The evidence of PW-4 is also not of much

importance. He is one of the maternal uncles of

PW-2. Much was argued that PW-4 suppressed his

identity as maternal uncle of PW-2. It is true that his

conduct is doubtful, but it will not affect the merits of the

case. PW-4 is not an eye witness. For the sake of

discussion, even if it is accepted that he is a planted

witness, it does not affect the merits of the case.

36. Another important witness is PW-12. He deposed

in detail about the investigation done by him and through

him, documents were marked. In his detailed cross-

examination, certain omissions or alleged improvements of

the witness were suggested. They are not material to

disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Some of the lapses

of the investigation were also brought; It is settled

principle of law that lapses in the investigation, do not
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

affect merit of the case. As suggested in the cross

examination, PW-12 could have collected sufficient

materials besides the evidence placed on record, to

strengthen the case of the prosecution. The prosecution

has the benefit of evidence victim- PW-2, who withstood in

the cross-examination. Nothing was brought out to discard

her evidence. She is strong pillar to the case of the

prosecution. Under those circumstances, minor lapses

committed by PW-12 does not affect the merits of the

case.

37. From the above discussions, prosecution is able

to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 along

with accused Nos.2 to 4, kidnapped PW-2 to persuade or

force her to marry him. When she refused to marry him

and tried to escape, accused No.1 stabbed her with an

intention to kill her. PW-2 stated in her evidence that the

accused No.1 intended to kill her when she refused to

marry him. He told her that when he could not marry her,

then none should marry her. With that intention, accused
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

No.1 stabbed her with knife on her chest, abdomen and at

ribs and caused grievous injuries. The nature of injuries

and weapon of offence indicates that accused No.1 was

intended to murder PW-2. Accused Nos.2 and 3 helped

accused No.1 to materialize his intention to kidnap PW-2

and also held PW-2 to facilitate accused No.1 to stab her.

All these evidences prove that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3

have committed the offences punishable under Sections

366 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

38. During the pendency of the case, accused No.2

was dead and case against him is abated. Accused No.4 is

absconding and hence case against him is not considered.

39. Accused Nos.5 to 9 were said to be abetted

accused No.1 to commit the crime and forcefully marry

PW-2. Except the statement of PWs.1 and 3, there are no

materials to connect them with the guilt. It may be an

opinion of PWs.1 and 3 that other accused also intended to

kidnap and murder PW-2. On the basis of such

assumptions or presumptions, the accused cannot be
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

convicted. There are no sufficient materials to reverse the

judgment against accused No.6 to 9.

40. The accused were also charge sheeted for the

offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. There are

no sufficient material to attract the ingredients of Section

354 of IPC. The evidence of PW-2 is not sufficient to

believe that the accused No.1 was intended to outrage her

modesty.

41. PW-2 in her evidence has repeatedly stated that

while going in the car from Tumakuru towards Hiriyuru,

accused No.1 holding knife repeatedly threatened her to

marry him and if she refuses to marry him, then, he will

kill her. Later, accused No.1 to kill her, stabbed her with

knife and caused bleeding injuries. Hence, it is proved

that accused No.1 had committed an offence punishable

under section 506 IPC.

42. The accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched a plan to kidnap

and force her to marry accused No.1. They joined hands

with accused No.1 and supported him till the end of the
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

incident. When PW-2 tried to escape, accused No.2 and 3

held her and accused No.1 stabbed her with MO-4. That

was seized from the house of accused No.1 under mahazar

in the presence of witnesses, by PW-12. Therefore,

accused Nos.1 to 3 had common intention, to commit the

offence. Therefore, they are liable to punishment for the

offences punishable under Sections 506, 366 and 307

read with Section 34 of IPC.

43. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused

mainly on two grounds of inconsistencies in the evidence

of Pw-1 and 3 with respect to admission of PW-2 to Harsha

hospital, Nelamangala and inconsistencies with regard to

Ex.P-27. This point is elaborately discussed in the above

paras and the said inconsistencies are not material to

disbelieve or discard the case of the prosecution. The

learned trial Judge also doubted the case of the

prosecution due to lapses of investigating officer in the

investigation of the case. And also on the ground of

inconsistencies in evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 12 and 13,
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

the learned trial Judge gave the benefit of doubt and

acquitted the accused. The said reasons are not tenable.

Except PW-2, other witnesses are hearsay witnesses.

A young lady had sustained severe injuries and her

condition was critical. She was struggling between life and

death. Under such circumstances, her close relatives might

be under lot of pressure and shock and they must have

taken the victim to different hospitals, as such, the

inconsistencies in the timings might be natural and much

importance cannot be given to it. Even if there are such

inconsistencies, it has to be ignored. Therefore, the

reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting

the accused are not tenable in respect of the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 506 and 307 of IPC, which

requires to be interfered by this Court.

44. We are aware that while reversing the judgment

of acquittal, the appellate court has to take proper care

and caution. If the trial court has committed any grave

error or findings are perverse, then only appellate court
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

can interfere in such findings of acquittal. If two views are

possible, then, the view taken by the trial court or the

view which is favourable to the accused, is to be accepted.

In this case, as discussed above, only one view is possible;

that is accused have committed above said offences. The

reasons assigned by the trial court to acquit the accused

are not in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court

time and again held that in appropriate cases where

injustice or miscarriage of justice has caused or the

findings of the trial judge are against the provision of law

and perverse, the appellate court shall interfere and

reverse the said findings of acquittal.

45. In the case of Guru Dutt Pathak -vs- State of

Uttar Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

" Each and every ground on which trial court
acquitted accused was elaborately dealt with by High
Court. On reappreciation of entire evidence on record,
High Court specifically concluded that findings
recorded by trial court were perverse. Therefore, High
Court was right in interfering with judgment and

1
(2021) 6 SCC 116
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

order of acquittal passed by trial court and convicting
accused under Ss. 302/34 IPC. No interference with
impugned judgment and order passed by High Court
is warranted herein. Hence, conviction of accused
under Ss. 302/34 IPC, stands confirmed".

46. In the case of Siju Kurian -vs- State of

Karnataka2, it is held that (we quote):

" 16. It need not be restated that it would be
open for the High Court to re-apprise the evidence
and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and in the
case of the judgment of the trial court being perverse
that is contrary to the evidence on record, then in
such circumstances the High Court would be justified
in interfering with the findings of the Trial Court
and/or reversing the finding of the Trial Court. In
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636, it has been held by this
Court as under:

" 14. We have considered the arguments
advanced and heard the matter at great
length. It is true, as contended by Mr.Rao,
that interference in an appeal against an
acquittal recorded by the trial court should be
rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is,
however, well settled by now that it is open to
the High Court to reappraise the evidence and
conclusions drawn by the trial court but only

2
2023 SCC Online SC 429
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

in a case when the judgment of the trial court
is stated to be perverse. The word "perverse"
in terms as understood in law has been
defined to mean "against the weight of
evidence". We have to see accordingly as to
whether the judgment of the trial court which
has been found perverse by the High Court
was in fact so."

17. The Appellate court may reverse the order
of acquittal in the exercise of its powers and there is
no indication in the Code of any limitation or
restriction having placed on the High Court in exercise
of its power as an Appellate court. No distinction can
be drawn as regards the power of the High Court in
dealing with an appeal, between an appeal from an
order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction.
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place any
fetter on exercise of the power to review at large the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal was
founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that
evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.

18. In the case of Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council held as
under:

" But in exercising the power conferred by
the Code and before reaching its conclusions
upon fact, the High Court should and will always
give proper weight and consideration to such
matters as:
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

a) The views/opinion of the trial judge as to
the credibility of the witnesses;

b) The presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused;

c) The right of the accused to the benefit of
any doubt; and

d) The slowness of an appellate court in
disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge
who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

47. In the case of Chandrappa and others -vs-

State of Karnataka3 reiterated the legal position as

under:

'42.... (1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial
and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient
grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended
to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an

3
(2007) 4 SCC 415: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more
in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise
the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court.'

We have kept in mind the law laid down in this

regard before reversing the judgment.

48. For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to

pass the following :
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB
CRL.A No. 1980 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 958 of 2017

ORDER

The Criminal Appeals are allowed in-part.

Acquittal of the accused No.3 for the offences

punishable under Sections 354 and 109 read with Section

149 of IPC, is confirmed.

The acquittal of accused Nos.6 to 9 for the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 354, 506, 307, 109 read

with Section 149 of IPC, is confirmed.

The acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 506, 307 read with

Section 149 of IPC is reversed.

The accused Nos.1 and 3 are convicted of the

offences punishable under Sections 366, 506, 307 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

                     S             Sd/-
                          (SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
                                  JUDGE


                                  Sd/-
                             (UMESH M ADIGA)
                                 JUDGE

bk/
                            - 41 -
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB






SHKJ & UMBAJ :
07.11.2024
                    HEARING ON SENTENCE


     49.    Heard    learned        counsel   appearing   for

respondents/accused Nos.1 and 3.

submits that at the time of the incident, both the accused

were students, aged about 20 to 21 years. Accused No.1

has aged mother. Both the accused belong to scheduled

caste. Both accused Nos.1 and 3, after their acquittal, got

married and are having children. Accused No.1 has been

serving in a factory, having meager amount of salary.

They are the bread earners for their respective families.

They have no criminal antecedents.

51. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, may be

extended to them. They also seek for lenient view while

imposing the sentence. They may be directed to pay

- 42 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB

reasonable amount of fine instead of sentencing to

undergo imprisonment.

52. The accused are convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 506, 307 of IPC. It is

settled law that sentence imposed by the Court shall be

proportionate to the gravity of the offence and it shall not

be too harsh or too meager that may encourage others to

commit such offences. The submission of learned counsel

for respondent/accused is not seriously disputed by the

prosecution.

53. Considering the facts stated by the learned

counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 3, age of the accused,

their educational, social and economic background and the

nature of offences etc., lenient view needs to be taken

while imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the accused

Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced as under :

- 43 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB

ORDER ON SENTENCE

[i] Accused No.1 - Raghavendra, son of

late Puttaraju and accused No.3 - Praveena @

Praveen Naik, son of Manjanayaka, are

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of two years and each shall pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of six months for the offence punishable

under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

[ii] Accused No.1 and 3 are sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years and each shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, they shall

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months for the offence punishable under

Section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC.

[iii] The accused No.1 and 3 shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months

- 44 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB

and each shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, they shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

months for the offence punishable under

Sections 506 read with 34 IPC.

[iv] Substantive sentence of imprisonment

shall run concurrently.

[v] The period of detention undergone by

the accused Nos.1 and 3 shall be given set-off

as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

[vi] The accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed

to surrender before the trial Court to undergo

sentence of imprisonment within 45 days from

the date of this order.

[vii] Out of the fine amount, Rs.1,00,000/-

is ordered to be paid to PW-2 - victim as

compensation, as provided under Section 357 of

Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-

shall be defrayed towards prosecution expenses.

- 45 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45070-DB

Since split up case is pending for disposal, the trial

Court shall keep the records, as well as material objects

intact till disposal of the split up case.