Sharana S/O Shivappa @Shivanand Havinahala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025CRL.RP/100401/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench — S. Rachaiah, J. (05.11.2025), CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025: revision against rejection of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; murder case (Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, 143, 147, 323 r/w 149 IPC), Crime No. 31/2024, Guttal Police Station, Haveri; Sessions Case No. 66/2024; purely circumstantial evidence; prima facie materials found in charge-sheet; revision filed u/ss. 438 & 442 BNSS (vs S.397 Cr.PC); petition dismissed; accused directed to face trial.

What did the court decide?

Discharge of an accused can be made only when the materials produced by the investigating agency are not sufficient to proceed against him; equivalently, where the charge-sheet averments do not disclose a prima facie case, the accused may be discharged. ¶9

Sharana S/O Shivappa @Shivanand Havinahala Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶OPERATIVE ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10.07.2025 in Sessions Case No. 66/2024 rejecting the petitioners' (accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5) discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. calls for interference, i.e., whether the petitioners ought to be discharged of the alleged charges. +1 more

¶Cause title / prayer

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Though the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, the investigation conducted on the complaint of the deceased's father established the involvement of the petitioners, leading to filing of the charge-sheet.

¶8

Key takeaways

On reading of the entire charge-sheet, there are prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners in respect of the murder of the deceased; consequently there is no occasion to interfere with the reasoned order of the Trial Court rejecting discharge.ratio¶10
The alleged murder being heinous in nature, the petitioners are required to face the Trial.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025) under Section 438 r/w Section 442 BNSS (captioned against S.397 Cr.PC) by accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Crime No. 31/2024, Guttal Police Station, Haveri — charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 364, 120B, 323, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC — assailing the order dated 10.07.2025 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Sessions Case No. 66/2024 rejecting their discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Held, dismissing the petition: discharge is permissible only where the materials produced by the investigating agency are insufficient or the charge-sheet does not disclose a prima facie case; although the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, investigation initiated on the father's missing-person complaint established the petitioners' involvement and the charge-sheet discloses prima facie materials to proceed against them for the murder of the deceased; the alleged offence being heinous, the petitioners must face trial; no occasion to interfere with the Trial Court's reasoned order. (S. Rachaiah, J., 05.11.2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100401 OF 2025

¶7

(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHARANA S/O SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HAVINAHALA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: HOSAMELMURI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI – 581 213.

¶10

VINAYAK K.S. S/O SATISH K.U AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: NITAVALLI, DAVANAGERI – 577 004.

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

LINGARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HAVINAHALA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: HOSAMELMURI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI – 581 213.

¶13

MALLIKARJUN @ ANUF S/O SHIVAYOGI HUDDAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER R/O: BETTADAMALLESHWAR NAGAR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. V M BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GUTTAL POLICE STATION, HAVERI

¶21

R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD – 580 011.

¶22

SRI. CHANNABASAPPA FAKKIRAPPA ARALI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: HOSAMELMURI TQ: DIST: HAVERI – 581 213.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. JAYARAM SIDDI, HCGP) (STATE)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W 442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 IN S.C.NO. 66/2024 PASSED BY PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND ALLOW THE APPLCATION FILED U/SEC. 227 OF CR.P.C. AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1, 3, 4 AND 5 AGAINST THE ALLEGE CHARGES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 364, 120B, 323, 302, 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶33

The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.31/2024 registered by the respondent - Police. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2025 in Sessions Case No.66/2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Haveri, wherein the Trial Court rejected discharge application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘Cr.P.C’ ).

¶34

Factual matrix of the case:

¶35

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by one Sri. Channabasappa S/o Fakkirappa, resident of Hosamelmuri stating that, on 20.02.2024, his son had been to Havanur Dyamavva fair. However, he did not return till 22.02.2024. Having considered that his son had not returned till 22.02.2024, a missing complaint came to be registered before the respondent police. After

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

registering the case, the respondent police started investigation. On the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant had received an information that a dead body was found on Guttal - Ranebennur Road near Devaragudda, Tungabhadra Water canal. On receiving the said message, the complainant and his relatives went to the spot and identified the dead body of his son. After they found the dead body, the complainant remembered the whole incident of a quarrel that had taken place between the petitioner and his son in respect of reducing the volume of D.J sound system. Suspecting the involvement of the petitioner, he lodges a complaint against Sharanappa, Lingaraju and other persons.

¶39

The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.31/2024 and started investigation. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶40

The averments of the charge sheet would indicate that the present petitioner along with the accused, committed the murder of the deceased.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Heard Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶45

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the names of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 did not find a place in the F.I.R. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The involvement of the present petitioners cannot be assessed by the circumstantial evidence. The case has been registered and investigation has taken place on the basis of the voluntary statement of the co-accused. Such being the fact, proceeding with the case against the petitioners would not serve any purpose. Therefore, the petitioners may be discharged from the case. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that C.W.10 – Ganesh has been threatened and induced by the accused.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The specific allegations are made out against accused Nos.1 to 7. There are sufficient materials to indicate that

¶50

the petitioners have committed the murder of the deceased on account of the enmity that existed prior to the incident. In fact, the prosecution has proved the motive for the murder. Hence, at this stage, it is not appropriate to discharge the petitioners. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court has to be sustained. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. No doubt, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, the Investigating Officer has conducted an investigation. During the investigation, the involvement of the present petitioners was established. Hence, the charge sheet has been filed. Prima-facie , there are materials to proceed against the petitioners in respect of the murder of the deceased. The petitioners are allegedly involved in the murder of the deceased, which is

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15109 CRL.RP No. 100401 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

heinous in nature. Therefore, I am of the considered

¶56

opinion that the petitioners are required to face the Trial.

¶57

It is well settled principle of law that, discharge of the accused can be made only when the materials produced by investigation agency are not sufficient to proceed against him (or) in other words, on reading of the averments of the charge-sheet, if, it does not disclose prime-facie case against the accused, the accused may be discharged.

¶58

In the present case, on reading of the entire charge-sheet, prima-facie there are materials to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶59