Dismissed¶36

The State of Karnataka v. Kumar

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025CRL.A/197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 456 days' delay in filing State appeal; section 5 Limitation Act; S.378(1) and (3) Cr.PC; leave to appeal against acquittal; acquittal dated 16.06.2023; Special Case No.321/2018; IPC Sections 323, 354, 504 r/w 34; SC/ST (PoA) Act Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995; III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge Tumakuru; Women Police Station Udupi; High Court of Karnataka; Justice G Basavaraja; 24 October 2025; IA.I/2025 rejected; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no proper explanation in the affidavit for the inordinate delay of 456 days in preferring the appeal; the authorities casually filed the affidavit without assigning any proper or acceptable reason. ¶36

The State of Karnataka Vs Kumar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42169 CRL.A No. 197 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 197 OF 2025 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, O/O HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

KUMAR, S/O SUNKADARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT OBALI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU.

¶17

N.RAJASHEKHAR, S/O NARASEEYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT OBALI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU.

¶18

NARASEEYAPPA, S/O SUNKADARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT OBALI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42169 CRL.A No. 197 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JAYALAKSHAMAMMA, W/O PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCU: COOLIE, R/O BILIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.PC BY THE SPP AND CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT FOR STATE PRAYING TO 1) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.321/2018 IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 354 AND 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(1)(w) OF SC/ST ACT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard on IA.I of 2025 filed under section 5 of Limitation

¶29

Act by the State seeking to condone the delay of 456 days in preferring this appeal. The application is supported by the affidavit of Sri B.P. Manjunatha, Law Officer (Senior) (Criminal) SC/ST Opinion Section from 04^th September, 2024 in the Office of the Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigations, Bengaluru. It is stated in the affidavit that Special Case No.321 of 2018 was conducted by Public Prosecutor of III Additional

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42169 CRL.A No. 197 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur and on 17^th June, 2023 it was applied for certified copies of judgment and the same was received on 21^st July, 2023 and sent his opinion on 26^th July, 2023 to the Law Officer (Senior) at Bangalore and the Law Officer (Senior) has received the same on 07^th August, 2023 and sent his opinion on 14^th September, 2023 to the office of the Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigations and the same has been received by the Office on 25^th September, 2023 and the Law Officer (Senior) has given her opinion on 26^th September, 2023 and the entire opinion file was sent to Government on the same day for final decision, since all have opined that the case is fit case for preferring appeal. The Government also opined the same on 14^th March, 2024 in its letter No.HD 10495 HCP-II 2024 by authorsing State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka to prefer the appeal. Further it is stated that the file was required to pass through so many officers and Sections and also Government Secretariat before passing an order to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order and the delay of 456 days has caused due to above reasons. On all these grounds it is sought to allow the Application IA.I of 2025 and to condone the delay.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:42169 CRL.A No. 197 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

I have examined the material placed before me. There is no proper explanation in the affidavit as to condone the inordinate delay of 456 days in preferring this appeal. Though the offences are punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act, the concerned authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the said act and also the provisions of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The concerned authorities have failed to understand the seriousness of the offence and casually have filed the affidavit without assigning any proper or acceptable reason to condone the abnormal delay of 456 days. I do not find any sufficient cause to allow this Application. Accordingly IA.I of 2025 is rejected. Consequently appeal is also dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶38

lnn

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

The State of Karnataka v. Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gadigesh H M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Varuna Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka by Vs Huchharaya

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.T.N.Kalegowda Vs Sri Thimmappa