H.P.Lingappagowda, Vs State by Aldur

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2013 (C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.P. LINGAPPAGOWDA, SON OF H.H. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HUNASEMAKKI KOTEVOORU(V) VASTHARE HOBLI CHIKKAMANGALORE TALUK - 577 101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. S. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY ALDUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 04.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.75/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 354 AND 307 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶18

YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504 OF IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.S.Shankarappa, learned counsel for the

¶23

appellant.

¶24

Appellant who has been convicted in SC No.75/2011 dated 04.04.2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru for the offences punishable under Section 504, 354 and 307 of IPC and is sentenced as under:

¶25

“Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC.

¶26

Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶27

Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is further sentenced to undergo

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶30

simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

¶31

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

¶32

Further, by exercising the powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. it is ordered that out of the fie amount realized, Rs.80,000/be paid to P.W.1, Smt.H.T.Sudha, as compensation and the remaining amount be credited to the State exchequer. The period of detention undergo by the accused during investigation and trial shall be given set off as required under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

MO.1 Kathi is ordered to be confiscated to the State.

¶34

MOs.2 and 3 being worthless and useless, are ordered to be destroyed.

¶35

The order regarding disposal of properties shall take effect after the appeal period is over and if a appeal is preferred, then after the disposal of such appeal.”

¶36

Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this appeal.

¶37

Sri.S.Shankarappa, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in respect of the same incident, there was a counter case filed which is still pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate in CC No.95/2011. He further submits that, learned Special Judge having noted that there was a counter case filed, did not take necessary steps to secure the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶40

file in CC No.95/2011 and try together in terms of the principles of law enunciated by Full Bench judgment of this Court in State

¶41

of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others reported in

¶42

ILR 2012 KAR 509 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and with a direction to retry the present case and CC No.95/2011 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru and pass appropriate orders in terms of the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka

¶43

v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra.

¶44

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the judgment came to be passed on 04.04.2013 and none of the parties brought to the notice of learned Special Judge about the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in

¶45

State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra. Therefore, learned Special Judge was justified in passing the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in respect of the incident that has occurred on 30.10.2010, there was a case and counter case filed by the respective parties.

¶50

In fact, the case that has been filed by the present appellant is in Crime No.187/2010 and later on, the complaint in the case on hand, came to be filed by Smt.H.T.Sudha in Crime No.188/2010.

¶51

Learned Special Judge has noted that there is a counter case filed in paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment. Despite the same, there was no trial of both the cases together in terms of principles of law enunciated by Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra.

¶52

Therefore, there is sufficient force in the submission of the appellant that there is a miscarriage of justice occurred in not following the judgment of the principles of law enunciated by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra and

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶55

passing impugned judgment, warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶56

It is also noticed that in good number of cases, the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra has not been followed.

¶57

Since, it is a Full Bench judgment of this Court, as to how to try the case and counter case; it is incumbent on all the Judicial Officers in the District Judiciary to follow the principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka

¶58

v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra meticulously. Violation of said direction would result in miscarriage of justice and consequences there on should follow. All the Courts in the District Judiciary while dealing with the case and counter case, is required to follow the principles of law enunciated in State of

¶59

Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra in stricto

¶60

sensu .

¶61

It is necessary that Director of Prosecution and Home Secretary are required to issue necessary circulars in this regard to enlighten the Prosecutors/Assistants of Special Public

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶64

Prosecutors to bring it to the notice of the concerned Judges in the District Judiciary, where a case and counter case is filed.

¶65

So also the copy of this order shall be circulated among all the Judges in the District Judiciary by Registrar (Judicial) through Judicial Academy after obtaining necessary permission from Hon’ble The Chief Justice.

¶66

Accordingly, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶69

ii. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.75/2011 dated 04.04.2013 on

¶70

the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru is hereby set aside.

¶71

iii. Further, learned Special Judge is directed to withdraw CC No.95/2011 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru and try the same along with SC No.75/2011 afresh in terms of the guidelines issued in the case of State of Karnataka v.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶74

Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509.

¶75

iv. Parties are directed to file necessary application seeking withdrawal of CC No.95/2011 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru and to file it before the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, to be tried in SC No.75/2011. So also they may file necessary application or memo with regard to de novo trial if required.

¶76

v. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to Director of Prosecution, Judicial Academy. Further, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place copy of this order along with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra and obtain necessary permission from Hon’ble The Chief Justice to circulate the present order through Judicial Academy to all the members of District Judiciary.

¶77

9 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:4019 CRL.A No. 423 of 2013

¶79

vi. Further, copy of this order shall be forwarded by Special Public Prosecutor to Home Secretary and Director of Prosecution for issuing necessary direction/circular among the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors across the State.

¶80

vii. Appellant shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 17.02.2025.

¶81

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶82

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK

H.P.Lingappagowda, v. State by Aldur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.P.Lingappagowda, v. State by Aldur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinchandra S/O Manohara Vs State by Beechanahally Police Station

K Anand Rao Vs State CBI Police

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmana @ Lachi Vs State of Karnataka

S M Mahesh Vs Union of India

Sri. Vijaykumar Vs State by Dibburahalli Police Station