[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sheru @ Sherkhan Nurullakhan Harihar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                    -1-
                                                                     NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141
                                                                CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017
                                                            C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017



                      HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100263 OF 2017
                                              C/W
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100292 OF 2017


                      IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100263/2017
                      BETWEEN:
                      LIYAKAYTHALI S/O ABDULVAHABSAB TUMMINAKATTI
                      AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS OF PLASTIC MATERIALS,
                      R/O: NAGAVANDA, TQ: HIREKERUR,
                      DIST: HAVERI,
                      (NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL JAIL)
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. K M SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      BYY RANEBENNUR P.S.,
                      R/BY S.P.P.,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                                                                         ...RESPONDENT
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,   (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Dharwad Bench


                             THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
                      CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
                      CONVICTION DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO. 59 OF 2013 BY
                      THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI SITTING AT
                      RANNEBENNUR, UNDER SECTION 363, 365, 366-A AND 506 READ
                      WITH 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT HIM, FOR THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH
                      HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, IN THE INTEREST OF
                      JUSTICE.
                              -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141
                                          CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017
                                      C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017



HC-KAR




IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100292/2017:
BETWEEN:
SHERU @ SHER KHAN NURULLAKHAN HARIHAR
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR
4TH CROSS, NEAR BY AMANULLA KIRANI SHOP
RANEBENNUR, AT PRESENT YALIVAL,
TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
                                                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TOWN POLICE STATION,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI,
REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
                                                   ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA DEVAREDIYYAVARA, HCGP)
       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO. 59 OF 2013 BY
THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE HAVERI SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363,
365, 366-A, 506 READ WITH SEC. 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT HIM FOR
THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


       THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141
                                                 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017
                                             C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017



HC-KAR



                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri K.M.Shiralli and Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.100263/2017 and

accused No.1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.100292/2017,

challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in S.C

No.59/2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur.

3. The operative portion of the sentence passed by the

learned Trial Judge reads as under:

No. Offence punishable under Imprisonment Fine Section 1 363 r/w 34 of IPC Simple Rs.10,000/-

                             imprisonment                each
                             for four years
                             each,        in
                             default, simple
                             imprisonment
                             for one year
                             each.
2   366 r/w 34 of IPC        Simple                      Rs.10,000/-
                             imprisonment                each

                                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141





HC-KAR




                                     for five years
                                     each,         in
                                     default, simple
                                     imprisonment
                                     for one year
                                     each.
3    506 r/w 34 of IPC               Simple           Rs.2,000/-
                                     imprisonment     each
                                     for one year
                                     each,         in
                                     default, simple
                                     imprisonment
                                     for         two
                                     months each.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, both the accused persons

have preferred these appeals challenging the very conviction of

the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants opposed the impugned

judgment on the ground that victim girl voluntarily eloped with

the accused No.1. Accused No.2 had only lent the helping hand

for them by providing his motorcycle.

6. Alternatively, it is contented that in the event of this Court

upholding the order of conviction, custody period already

undergone by the accused No.1 for a period of two and a half

years, and post conviction of 40 days custody undergone by

accused No.2 be treated as the period of imprisonment by

enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would

contend that there is no material on record to establish that it is

the victim girl who voluntarily eloped with the accused No.1.

8. On the contrary, in the examination-in-chief itself, victim

girl has specifically deposed that on 13.08.2011 when she was

returning from Cholamurudeshwara temple, near the KEB grid on

Halageri Road, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle.

It is further deposed that accused No.1 forcibly took her on the

motorcycle belonging to accused No.2. Accused No.2 also sat

behind the victim girl where by all the three went on the

motorcycle. When she tried to escape from the clutches of

accused Nos.1 and 2, both of them gave threat to her that if she

tries to escape she would be pushed from the motorcycle.

Therefore, the conviction is just and proper.

9. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, learned

High Court Government Pleader would contend that admittedly

the victim girl was minor and kidnapping her from the custody of

her parents and keeping her in the relative's house of the second

accused for two days and then taking the victim girl to Goa by

the first accused, would complete all the ingredients of the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian

Penal Code. Therefore, no lenience can be shown to the accused

persons.

10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the

material on record, following points would arise for consideration.

(i) Whether the prosecution successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian penal Code?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?

(iii) Whether the sentence is excessive and needs modification?

(iv) What Order?

11. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) and (ii): In the case on hand,

victim girl is examined as PW-4. Admittedly, she was a minor as

on the date of the incident. She was married to her maternal

uncle. She was staying in her parental house. Accused No.1

used to pester the victim girl for love affair right from the time

when the victim girl was in 10th Standard by sending messages

to her mobile telephone.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

12. However, when the victim girl had been to

Cholamurudeshwara Temple on 13.08.2011, near KEB grid on

Halageri Road, when she alone was returning to her house by

walk, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle and

forcibly took her on the motorcycle belonging to accused No.2.

13. When the victim girl tried to escape from the clutches of

the accused persons, both of them threatened her that she

would be pushed out of the motorbike.

14. Thereafter, she was taken to Yelivala Village of Hirekarur

Taluk, wherein victim girl was kept for two days in the relative's

house of accused No.2.

15. Thereafter, victim girl was eloped by accused No. 1 to Goa.

Missing complaint was lodged by the parents of the victim girl.

Thereafter, accused persons again brought the victim girl to

Yelivala village. From there, victim girl escaped from the

clutches of the accused and came to her house and narrated the

incident to her parents. Later, on 18.08.2011, complaint was

lodged. Victim girl has identified the motorcycle on which she

was kidnapped by the accused persons.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

16. In the cross-examination however, victim girl has stated

that Lakshmi is her close friend. She has also answered that

Cholamurudeshwara temple is situated at a distance of about 1

km from B.A.J.S.S College. She admits that it is on a small

hillock near the outskirts of Ranebennur. She denied that she

alone out of her volition accompanied the accused No.1 on the

motorcycle of the accused No.2. She denied that she did not

seek the help of the others when the motorcycle passed through

Rattihalli. She denied that accused Nos.1 and 2 are innocent.

She also denied that accused No.2 was not present at the time of

the incident.

17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and motorcycle

on which the victim girl was abducted did belong to accused No.2

and the house in which the victim girl was housed is the

relative's house of accused No.2, all the ingredients required to

attract the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian

Penal Code stood established.

18. Sufficient explanation has been given by the victim girl in

her evidence itself as to all her attempts to escape from the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

clutches of the accused have failed because of the life threat

given by the accused Nos.1 and 2.

19. It is pertinent to note that three people have travelled on a

motorcycle from KEB electric grid situated near

Cholamurudeshwara temple on Halageri road till upto Yelivala

Village in Hirekerur Taluk passing through Rattihalli which is

about 30 to 35 kms.

20. All these factors would make it clear that the victim girl

was kidnapped by accused No.1. Accused No.2 gave a helping

hand not only in terms of providing his motorcycle, but also

accompanying accused No.1 and the victim girl on the very same

motorcycle and also providing the shelter in his relative's house

at Yelivala Village.

21. Therefore, conviction of the accused persons for the

aforesaid offences recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based

on sound and logical reasons.

22. Other material evidence placed on record are corroborative

in nature. Therefore, point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative

and point No.(ii) in the negative.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141

HC-KAR

23. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Since the incident has taken

place in the year 2011 and much water has flown under bridge,

accused Nos.1 and 2 are also now married and settled in life,

custody period of two and a half years undergone by accused

No.1 and 40 days custody period undergone by the accused No.2

post conviction, if treated as period of imprisonment for the

proved offences by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of

Rs.50,000/- each payable on or before 28.02.2026 would meet

the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

24. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this

Corut on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeals are allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable

under Sections 363, 366 and 504 r/w Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, the period of imprisonment

already undergone by the accused Nos.1 and 2 for

the proved offences is treated as period of