Allowed

Sangappa Naregal v. State by Bannerghatta Police

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024CRL.P/12373/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC setting aside trial Court order rejecting witness recall. Held that Section 33(5) POCSO bar does not apply when victim attained majority, allowing cross-examination upon payment of fees.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.11.2023 set aside; application for recalling P.Ws.1 to 3 allowed at cost of Rs.2,000 each.

Sangappa Naregal Vs State by Bannerghatta… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2057 CRL.P No. 12373 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12373 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANGAPPA NAREGAL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAPPA NAREGAL, R/AT: JANATA COLONY, BANNERGHATTA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 560 106.

¶9

ALSO R/AT: LAKKALAKATTE VILLAGE, NAREGAL HOBLI, GAJENDRAGHADA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. YODH SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

GOPAL S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.211, GOVINDAPPA BUILDING,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:2057 CRL.P No. 12373 of 2023

¶18

JANATA COLONY, BANNERGHATTA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 083.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANTING PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO CROSS EXAMINE PW 1, 2, 4 IN SPL.C.NO.528/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL (FTSC III) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

¶25

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Spl. C. No.528/2023, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of cross examination.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶27

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶28

Issuing notice to R2 is dispensed with.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:2057 CRL.P No. 12373 of 2023

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he is facing trial before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 of IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J) and 6 of POCSO Act in Crime No.6/2023 registered by the respondent No.1-police. The trial has commenced and three witnesses have been examined. The petitioner said to be not properly cross examined P.Ws.1 to 3. Hence, he moved an application for recalling the witness, which came to be rejected by the trial Court.

¶32

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

¶33

Of course, P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined by the petitioner. However, it is said that they are not properly cross examined and some important points are left out at the time of their cross examination. Of course, there is a bar under Section 33(5) of POCSO Act for repeatedly calling the victim child for evidence. The petitioner submits that the victim was aged 17 years 11 months at the time of commission of the offence. Now, she has attained the age of majority. Considering the facts of this case, this Court in the similar

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2057 CRL.P No. 12373 of 2023

¶35

circumstances has taken a view that, merely a bar for recalling the victim under Section 33(5) of POCSO Act itself, is not a ground to reject the application for cross examination. Such being the case, the trial court has committed an error in passing the impugned order.

¶36

The criminal petition is allowed. The order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl. C. No.528/2023, is set aside, and the application for recalling P.Ws.1 to 3 is allowed at the cost of Rs.2,000/- each to be payable to P.Ws.1 to 3. The petitioner shall not seek further adjournment when the witnesses are present before the Court for the purpose of cross examination.

¶37

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:SK

Sangappa Naregal v. State by Bannerghatta Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangappa Naregal v. State by Bannerghatta Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nithin S Kasliwal Vs Fashion Matrix Overseas

Sri Aruna Naga Devadiga Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Vs Shankarlal Choudary

Sharath Kumar K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Ovimulla @ Abhi Mulla @ Bappi Vs State of Karnataka