Karnataka High Court
Prasad @ Lalya @ Kempya And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
CRL.A No. 200242 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200001 of 2022
CRL.A No. 200003 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200242 OF 2021
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200001 OF 2022
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200003 OF 2022
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
IN CRL.A.NO.200242/2021:
BETWEEN:
RAJESH S/O SHARANU GUDUR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
R/O. SUNDAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANT
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRADEEPKUMAR, AMICUS CURIAE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
CRL.A No. 200242 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200001 of 2022
CRL.A No. 200003 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE IN
SESSIONS CASE NO: 79/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI DATED
03.12.2021 AND 6.12.2021 INCLUDING FINE AMOUNT PASSED
AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 395 IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO. 200001/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. PRASAD @ LALYA @ KEMPYA
S/O MALLIKARJUN ALANDKAR,
AGE:30 YEARS, R/O. DOR GALLI,
SUDAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
2. TOUSIF S/O HAJIMIYA SHAIKH,
AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O. SUNDAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHAMPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 03.12.2021 AND 06.12.2021 IN S.C NO.
79/2017 AND S.C. NO.231/2019 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI INCLUDING
FINE AMOUNT PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 395 IPC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
CRL.A No. 200242 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200001 of 2022
CRL.A No. 200003 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A.NO. 200003/2022:
BETWEEN:
VINOD @ VINAYAK
S/O CHANDRAKANT SHANKARWADI,
AGE:20 YEARS,
R/O. BACKSIDE OF GOVT SCHOOL
BAPUNAGAR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVALING NASI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH
BRAHMAPUR PS KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED THROUGH S.P.P,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE WITH FINE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 395 OF IPC
AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2 PASSED BY HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN BEARING S.C.NO.28/2021
DATED: 03.12.2021 AND 6.12.2021.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
CRL.A No. 200242 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 200001 of 2022
CRL.A No. 200003 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.200001/2022
being accused Nos.1 and 4, appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.200003/2022 being accused No.2 and appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.200242/2021 being accused No.3, are
impugning the common judgment of conviction dated
03.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 06.12.2021
passed in Session Case Nos.79/2017, 231/2019 and
28/2021, on the file of the learned III Additional District
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (for short 'Trial Court'),
convicting them for the offence punishable under Section
395 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with default sentences.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, PW.4-the
injured, lodged the first information with Brahmapur Police
Station, Kalaburagi, against unknown persons for the
offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. Accordingly,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.87/2013. The
investigation was undertaken. During the investigation,
accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended and the final report
came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5. The trial
against accused No.1 was held in S.C.No.231/2019, trial
against accused No.2 was held in S.C.No.28/2021 and trial
against accused Nos.3 to 5 was held in S.C.No.79/2017.
The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P1 to
P10 and identified MOs.1 and 2 in support of its
contention. This accused have denied all the incriminating
materials available on record in their statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but they have not led any evidence
in support of their defence.
4. After taking into consideration all these
materials on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion
that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly passed
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 395 of
IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 are
before this Court.
5. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae
for accused No.3, Sri Mahantesh H.Desai, counsel for the
appellants-accused Nos.1 and 4, Sri Basavaling Nasi,
learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.2 and Sri.
Gopal Krishna B.Yadav, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials
including the Trial Court records.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellants-accused have
made out a case to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
7. My answer to the above point is in the
'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that the
appellants being accused Nos.1 to 4 herein along with
accused No.5 committed robbery by snatching the gold
chain from PW.4 by assaulted him and caused injuries.
The prosecution examined PW.1-the doctor who examined
the victim-PW.4 and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P1.
PWs.2 and 3 are the police officials, who have
apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3. PW.4 is the injured
victim, who lodged the first informed and deposed about
the incident and snatching away of his gold chain. He
identified the same as MO.2 and MO.1-mobile hand set.
However, this witness has not identified any of these
accused in his evidence. PWs.5 and 6 are the mahazar
witnesses to Exs.P5 and P6-spot mahazars. Ex.P7-is the
seizure mahazar where-under the motorcycle was seized
at the instance of accused No.2 and Ex.P8-is the seizure
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
mahazar under which the gold chain and mobile hand set,
MOs.1 and 2 were recovered at the instance of accused
No.1. PW.7, is the police officer who apprehended
accused No.4. PW.8-is the Investigating Officer who
registered the FIR and filed the final report after
investigation.
9. The materials on record disclose that, the
prosecution is successful in proving that, PW.4 was taken
forcibly and his mobile hand set and gold chain were
robbed by four to five persons. In the incident, PW.4 has
sustained injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate at
Ex.P1. The FIR came to be registered against unknown
persons. Inspite of that, no test identification parade was
held by the Investigating Officer on apprehending the
accused. PW.4 has never identified any of these accused
even during trial. Under such circumstances, there are
absolutely no materials to connect these accused to the
offence in question. Hence, the accused are entitled for
acquittal by extending them the benefit of doubt.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact
that injured PW.4 never identified any of the accused. It
has also lost sight of the fact that CW.4, who said to have
accompanied PW.4 at the time of incident, was not
examined before the Trial Court. The recovery mahazar
witnesses, PWs.5 and 6 have turned hostile and they have
not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such
circumstances, it has proceeded to convict the accused
without any legal evidence. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentenced passed by
the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the above, I answer the above point
in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5364
HC-KAR
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction
dated 03.12.2021 and order of sentence
dated 06.12.2021 passed in Session Case
Nos.79/2017, 231/2019 and 28/2021, on
the file of the learned III Additional
District Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, is
hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, appellants/accused Nos.1 to
4, are acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 395 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bond of the accused, if any, and that
of their sureties shall stand cancelled.
(v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused
is ordered to be refunded to them after
appeal period is over, on due
identification.
Registry to send back the Trial Court Records along
with copy of this judgment for information and for needful
action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
