[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Sharath vs State By on 20 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
CRL.RP No. 667 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 667 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI SHARATH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O KODANDARAMAIAH
R/AT THIMMANAHALLI
KANDIKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. RAJESH, ADV., FOR
SRI MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI P.S.,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Digitally THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
signed by
NANDINI M S SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
Location:
HIGH COURT SENTENCE DATED 19.11.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
OF
KARNATAKA JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.230/2015
AND AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2017 PASSED BY THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN
CRL.A.NO.10038/2016 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
CRL.RP No. 667 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this petition filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
19.11.2016 passed in CC.No.230/2015 by the Court of Prl. Civil
Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, and the judgment and
order dated 01.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.10038/2016 by the
Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 354D & 509 of IPC, and was tried for the said
offences in CC.No.230/2015 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge &
JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.01.2015 at
about 8.00 p.m., petitioner had gone near the house of PW-2
(victim) when PW-1 & PW-3 were not at home and had
harassed her to marry him and he also used to follow the victim
girl wherever she went and was pestering her to marry him. It
is further alleged that on 04.01.2015 at about 2.30 a.m., when
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
PW-2 was sleeping in her house, petitioner came near her
house and in a loud voice asked PW-2 to come out of her house
and he also shouted that he intend to marry her. Based on the
complaint of PW-1 - father of the victim, Chikkanayakanahalli
Police had registered FIR in Crime No.1/2015 and after
completing investigation, had filed charge sheet against the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
5. After receipt of summons from the Trial Court in
CC.No.230/2015, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial
Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order
to prove the charge sheet allegations, the prosecution had
examined seven witnesses as PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked
five documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. In support of the defence,
three witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-3. The Trial
Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, had
convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the charge-sheeted
offences. For the offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC,
petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. For the
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The said
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in
CC.No.230/2015 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.10038/2016 by the
court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur, vide
judgment and order dated 01.06.2017. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid two judgment and orders of conviction and sentence
passed by the courts below, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that the prosecution has
not examined any independent witnesses to prove the charge
sheet allegations. The evidence of DW-1 to DW-3 has not been
properly appreciated by the courts below. The material on
record prima facie would go to show that the petitioner and
PW-2 were acquainted to each other and prior to the alleged
date of incident, they were talking regularly to each other for a
period of nearly two years. A false complaint has been lodged
by PW-1 only after a demand notice for the loan borrowed by
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
him from the society in which the petitioner is employed, was
made. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the petition.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the
judgment and order passed by the courts below, and submits
that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record
clearly makes out a case against the petitioner for the charge-
sheeted offences. The courts below were, therefore, justified in
convicting the petitioner for the charge-sheeted offences.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that for a period of nearly
two years prior to the alleged date of incident on 08.01.2015,
petitioner used to meet PW-2 near her house whenever PW-1 &
PW-3 were not in the house. It is alleged that on 08.01.2015,
petitioner came near the house of PW-2 when PW-1 & PW-3
were not in the house and pestered her to marry him. On
04.01.2025 at about 2.30 a.m., petitioner allegedly had come
near the house of PW-2 when she was sleeping and shouted in
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
a loud voice and had asked PW-2 to come out of the house and
also shouted that he intended to marry her.
9. To prove the allegations against the petitioner, the
prosecution has examined seven charge-sheet witnesses. PW-1
is the father of victim girl PW-2, and PW-3 is the grand mother
of the victim girl. It has come on record during the course of
cross-examination of PW-1 to PW-3, that PW-1 had borrowed
loan from the society in which the petitioner was employed and
he had not cleared the loan dues. Perusal of the deposition of
PW-1 to PW-3 would also go to show that petitioner and PW-2
were talking to each other for a period of nearly two years prior
to the alleged date of incident. No complaint was filed either by
PW-1 or PW-2 against the petitioner, earlier to the alleged date
of incident. It has also come on record that there were many
other houses situated adjacent to the house of PW-1 to PW-3.
The prosecution has not examined any other independent
witnesses to prove the alleged incident in question. The
evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 who are interested witnesses has,
therefore, remained uncorroborated.
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
10. PW-4 allegedly had participated in the panchayath that
was held after the incident in question. It has come on record
during the course of cross-examination of this witness that he
and PW-1 are members of Raitha Sangha and he also had
borrowed loan from the society in which the petitioner was
employed. This witness has admitted that he also had received
a recovery notice from the society since he had not repaid the
loan amount. From a reading of his deposition, it does not
appear that he was the neighbour of PW-1 to PW-3.
11. PW-5 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P-2
and PW-6 is the Head Constable who had registered the FIR
and conducted the spot inspection. This witness also had
recorded the statement of PW-1 to PW-4. From the evidence of
this witness, it is very clear that there is a delay of four days in
lodging the FIR with regard to the alleged incident that had
taken place on 04.01.2015. He also has admitted that there are
overwritings in the first information and the dates have been
changed.
12. PW-7 is the other panch witness to the spot mahazar
Ex.P-2. However, this witness has not turned hostile to the case
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
of the prosecution. It is relevant to note here that the
prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who had
conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the
present case. The prosecution has not examined the
neighbours' of PW-1 to PW-3 who would have been the best
witness to state about the alleged incident that had taken place
on 04.01.2015 and 08.01.2015. On the other hand, on behalf
of the defence, three witnesses who were residing in the
neighbourhood, have been examined and all these witnesses
have stated that they were not aware of any incident that had
taken place on 04.01.2015 or 08.01.2015. These witnesses also
have stated that PW-1 was due to pay the loan amount to the
society and recovery proceedings was initiated against him. It
has also come on record that the petitioner was an employee of
the society in which PW-1 & PW-4 had borrowed the loan and
had not repaid the same to the society.
13. Considering the overall material that are placed on record
and since the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 remains
uncorroborated, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not
justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the
NC: 2026:KHC:3074
HC-KAR
charge-sheeted offences. The prosecution has failed to prove
the charges leveled against the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt, and therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been
extended to the petitioner by the courts below. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the following order:
14. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2016 passed in
CC.No.230/2015 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Chikkanayakanahalli, and the judgment and order dated
01.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.10038/2016 by the Court of V
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur, are set aside. Petitioner
is acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences. His bail bonds, if
any, stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited shall be
refunded to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
