[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Ningappa Olekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
CRL.A No. 100105 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100105 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O NINGAPPA OLEKAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KELAGONDA VILLAGE,
TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CPI OF KAGINALE POLICE STATION,
BYADGI CIRCLE, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
KATTIMANI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF CONVICTION DIST:20.02.2016
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DT. 24.02.2016 IN SC. NO 59/2012 FOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 363 AND 366 OF IPC PASSED
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI BY THE 2ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI SITTING
Date: 2026.02.28
11:25:16 +0530 AT RANEBENNUR, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 363 AND 366 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THE
ABOVE APPEAL AS PUNISHABLE FOR WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
CRL.A No. 100105 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. Accused No.1 who has suffered an order of conviction in
S.C No.59/2012 dated 20.02.2016 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, for
the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian
Penal Code is the appellant.
3. The sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge reads as
under:
"The accused person is hereby Convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC with
simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year.
Acting under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. I hereby ordered
that the period of detention already undergone by the
accused person shall be given in set off.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
Acting under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., the victim girl is
hereby directed to approach the concerned District
Legal Services Authorites in seeking compensation
amount.
MO No.1 to 5 are worthless objects are ordered to be
destroyed after the appeal period is over.
The order regarding releasing of MO No.6 i.e., Katma
auto bearing registration No.KA/27/4412 is hereby
made as absolute.
Serve the free copy of the judgment to the accused
person forthwith."
4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by father of the victim girl
on 27.11.2011 with Kaginele Police Station, Haveri District,
reporting the missing of his daughter. Police registered the case
in Crime No.102/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections
143, 147, 366A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
and investigated the matter.
5. During the course of investigation, appellant/accused No.1
and the victim girl were traced. Complainant was summoned to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
the police station and there was an enquiry to the victim girl as
to what happened.
6. At that juncture the victim girl stated that all the accused
persons had hatched the plan and abducted her. Later on,
accused No.1 had physical relationship with her.
7. Thereafter, investigation was completed and charge sheet
came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section 363,
366, 417, 493, 366A along with Section 376 IPC.
8. Presence of the accused persons were secured and charges
were framed. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty.
Therefore, trial was held.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, as
many as 26 witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 26 and 41
documentary evidence were placed on record which were
exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-47 besides marking six
material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 6, which included a
three wheeler Katma auto bearing registration No.KA- 27/4412
which was used for abducting the victim girl.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
10. After due trial, accused Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted for all
the offences. But accused No.1 was alone convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and was
acquitted for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.
11. State did not choose to file any appeal against the Order of
acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 376 and
417 IPC, so also, acquittal of other accused persons for all the
offences.
12. It is the first accused who has filed the present appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence insofar as offence under
Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
13. Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel would
contend that appellant/accused No.1 was innocent of the
offences alleged against him and in fact, there was a love affair
between the appellant as well as the victim girl. The entire story
as is woven by the prosecution is nothing but imaginary story
and therefore the State did not choose to file any appeal against
the acquittal of the accused Nos. 2 to 5 for all the offences and
did not choose to challenge the acquittal of the appellant for the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC. Therefore, sought for
allowing the appeal.
14. He would further contend that when there is an order of
acquittal for the offence under Section 376 IPC, there cannot be
conviction for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC
simplicitor and sought for allowing the appeal.
15. He would also contend that in the event this Court
upholding the order of conviction, the custody period already
undergone by the appellant for a period of five months eighteen
days be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably.
16. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader, supports the impugned judgment and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
17. He would further contend that admittedly the victim girl
was a minor as on the date of her kidnap. Therefore, removing
the victim girl from the lawful custody of her custodians viz.,
parents, would complete the offence under Sections 363 and 366
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
IPC, though appellant is acquitted for the offence under Section
376 IPC and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.
18. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Sri Siddi
would contend that Appellant is not entitled for any lenience or
mercy only on the ground that the victim girl is now married, so
also the accused, and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal in
toto.
19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, following points
would arise for consideration.
(i) Whether the material on record would be
sufficient enough to sustain the conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Sections 363 and
366 IPC?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering
from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls
for interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
(iv) What order?
20. REGARDING POINT NOS.(i) TO (iii): In the case on
hand, fact of the victim girl taken from the lawful custody of her
parents by the accused No. 1 in MO-6/auto rickshaw stands
established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
21. Admittedly, victim girl was a minor as on the date of the
incident. No doubt, there is a slight delay in lodging the missing
complaint. But in the complaint itself there is an explanation for
the delay that the complainant kept searching for the victim girl
and when she was not found missing, complaint came to be
lodged belatedly.
22. However, during the course of investigation, investigation
agency was able to trace the accused No.1 and the victim girl
and her statement has been recorded.
23. However, before the Court, victim girl failed to depose
about the forcible sexual intercourse by accused No.1.
24. Therefore, the trial Judge rightly exercised discretion and
acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
417 IPC. Detailed discussion carried out in the impugned
Judgment while acquitting the remaining accused persons and,
State having not preferred any appeal against the Order of
acquittal insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 and order of acquitting
the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC
itself establishes that the impugned judgment is based on sound
reasoning and with logical conclusion.
25. Therefore, order of conviction of the Appellant for the
offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC needs no interference
even after re-appreciating the material evidence on record.
26. Having said so, taking note of the fact that the incident has
occurred when victim girl and appellant/accused No.1 were in the
young age and only on the ground that the victim girl was a
minor, conviction order came to be passed for the offence under
Section 363 and 366 IPC against accused No.1.
27. Taking note of the fact that the victim girl is now married
and well settled and so also the appellant, custody period already
undergone by the appellant if treated as period of imprisonment
by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- which can
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
be paid as compensation to the victim girl, ends of justice would
be met.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion point No.(i) is answered
in affirmative, point No.(ii) in the negative and point No.(iii)
partly in the affirmative.
29. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of
this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
appellant/accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC,
custody period already undergone by him is
treated as period of imprisonment by
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 31.03.2026.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3160
HC-KAR
(iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount entire
amount shall be paid as compensation to the
to the victim girl through the complainant who
is the father of the victim girl, under due
identification.
(iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount the
order of sentence stands restored
automatically.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records with copy of this order forthwith for
issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV paragraphs 1 to 3
kcm paragraphs 4 till end
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 116
