[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Fayaz S/O. Babasaheb Khondunayak vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104054 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MR. FAYAZ S/O. BABASAHEB KHONDUNAYAK,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SAI NAGAR, MUNAVALLI VILLAGE,
TAL. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. ARZOO M.MULLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-560001.
2. MRS. GEETA W/O. NIRANJANAYYA HIREMATH,
-2-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER,
R/O. H.NO.9, BASAV NAGAR, ANCHATGERI LAYOUT,
PB ROAD, BIDNAL, HUBBALLI-580028.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.MUTTGIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING
TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON DEPOSITION OF PW-
1/CW-6 DATED 27/09/2025 BY REJECTING THE OBJECTION
RAISED BY THE DEFENCE COUNSEL IN VIDYA NAGAR PS
CRIME NO.47/2024 SC NO.5066/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 341, 506 OF IPC PENDING
BEFORE THE IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL IN PRESENCE OF
PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ETC.,.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 10.11.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
-3-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to
quash the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 passed in
S.C No.5006/2024 pending on the file of I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad Sitting at Hubballi
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 506
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), wherein, the
application filed to discard the evidence of P.W.1 has
been rejected.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Geeta
Hiremath mother of the deceased Neha lodges a
complaint stating that the her daughter deceased Neha,
was studying M.C.A 1st year at BVB College, Hubballi.
Thereafter, she joined P.C Jobin College, Hubballi and she
was studying final year M.C.A. The accused was happened
to be the classmate of the deceased. It is stated that he
was having affection towards the deceased and he was
insisting her to marry him. It is further stated that four
months back from the date of incident, the husband of
-4-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
the informant - Niranjanayya met the accused and
informed him that his daughter Neha was not having any
affection towards him and he has informed the accused
that he should study hard by leaving all those misdeeds.
However, the accused was adamant and he was not in a
position to mend his ways.
3. It is further stated that the accused was insisting the
deceased and was calling her over phone and also he was
informing the family members of the deceased to perform
the marriage of their daughter with him. It is further
stated that, on 18.04.2024 at about 8.00 a.m, the
brother of the deceased had dropped the deceased on his
motorcycle to her college. It is further stated that, on the
same day at about 4.30 p.m., the informant in her car
had been to college along with the driver to bring back
her daughter and she was waiting in the college campus.
The deceased Neha was coming from the college from
one gate and the accused came through another gate. It
is seen that the accused was talking with Neha. However,
after some time, he removed one knife from the bag and
started assaulting the deceased Neha with the said knife
-5-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
on her neck, stomach and legs seven to eight times and
ran away from the spot.
4. It is further stated that, immediately after the incident,
the college staff had taken her in the car and went to the
hospital. Immediately, the informant called his son, who
was in college and they followed the car and went to
Shushruta Hospital, where the doctors advised them to
take the deceased Neha to KIMS hospital. The deceased
was shifted to KIMS hospital, where she was declared as
brought dead.
5. A complaint came to be registered against the accused in
Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi. Based on the said
complaint the respondent - Police registered a case in
Crime No.47/2024 for the offences punishable under
sections 302 and 506 of I.P.C. During the investigation,
they arrested the accused on 19.04.2024. After
conducting the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet.
6. Heard Sri.Z.M.Hattarki and Sri.Arzoo M.Mulla, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Praveena
Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Raghavendra
S.Muttgikar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
-6-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that, the trial of the case was held on 27.09.2025. The
Trial Court had examined P.W.-1. During the course of
examination-in-chief. Further, learned counsel for the
petitioner had raised an objection stating that the trial
has to be conducted in the presence of the accused as
contemplated under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. The Trial
Court has rejected the objection on the same day.
8. It is further submitted that when the Act provides certain
privileges to the accused that the trial has to be
conducted in his presence, which cannot be curtailed by
the Trial Court. As the trial Court has committed serious
error in recording the evidence without accused being
present, the order has to be set aside and evidence of
PW-1 has to be discarded.
9. It is further submitted that the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short BNSS, 2023),
provides the facility to produce the accused before the
Trial Court to face the trial through video conference.
However, the said Act is prospective in nature. Section
531(2)(a) of BNSS, 2023, makes it clear that appeal,
application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed
-7-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in
accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as
in force immediately before such commencement as if
this Sanhita had not come into force. Therefore, Section
273 of Cr.P.C mandates that accused must be present
before the Court to face the trial. Making such
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
allow the petition.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent - State vehemently submitted that the
order sheet would indicate that the accused was present
and produced through video conference and he was
watching the proceedings. The production of the accused
through video conference is also considered as the
presence of the accused. Therefore, Section 273 of Cr.P.C
has been complied. Therefore, there is no infirmity in
recording the evidence of PW-1. Hence, the petition
deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions,
learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss
the petition.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order passed by the Trial Court and also the
-8-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
order sheet made available by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Special Prosecutor, who was
conducting the case of the prosecution, has consented to
proceed with the case when the accused was produced
through video conference, which is contrary to the settled
principles of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner
had raised an objection stating that the accused must be
present before the Court to face the trial as contemplated
under Section 273 of Cr.P.C.
12. On considering the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it is appropriate to
refer Section 273 of I.P.C, which reads thus:
"273. Evidence to be taken in presence of
accused.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, all evidence taken in the course of
the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in
the presence of the accused, or, when his
personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
presence of his pleader:
[Provided that where the evidence of a woman
below the age of eighteen years who is alleged
to have been subjected to rape or any other
sexual offence, is to be recorded, the court
may take appropriate measures to ensure that
such woman is not confronted by the accused
while at the same time ensuring the right of
cross-examination of the accused.]
-9-
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
Explanation.--In this section, "accused"
includes a person in relation to whom any
proceeding under Chapter VIII has been
commenced under this Code."
13. On reading of the above said provision, it indicates that
all evidence taken in the course of trial or other,
proceeding shall be taken in the presence of accused, or,
when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
presence of his pleader.
14. The legislature has concisely enacted the said provision
that the accused shall be present during the trial. In case,
if, the attendance of the accused is dispensed with, the
trial can be conducted in the presence of the pleader also.
15. On going through the order sheet made available in
SC.No.5066/2024, wherein, it is clarified that the accused
has been produced before the Trial Court through video
conference. The presence of the accused through video
conference can also be considered as compliance of
Section 273 of Cr.P.C for the reason that no where in the
said Act it is stated that accused must be present
physically.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged
the validity of the said order for the purpose of
- 10 -
CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025
interpretation before the appropriate forum. At this stage,
the trial of the case has to be conducted on day to day
basis for the purpose of securing the ends of justice by
way of providing speedy trial.
17. Mere non production of accused physically before the
Court to face the trial could not sufficient to hold that
Section 273 of Cr.P.C has been violated. It is needless to
state that alternative method of production of accused
can also be recognised and it has been practicing in the
State of Karnataka prior to enactment of BNSS, 2023.
18. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. This Criminal Petition stands rejected.
ii. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial
and expedite the trial and complete it not later than
six (06) months.
Sd/-
(S.RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NM
