Sri Shivamurtyappa Vs Sri Ningappa

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30-1-2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA AND TO PASS AN ORDER REVERSING THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL INTO AN ORDER OF CONVICTION, CONVICTING THE RESPONDENTS FOR HAVING COMMITTED AN OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 504, 324, 325, 326, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:151-DB CRL.A No. 1297 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶43

Heard Smt. Archana K.M. learned Amicus Curiae

¶44

appearing for appellant No.2/complainant No.2, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.4-State.

¶45

There is no representation on behalf of appellant No.1/complainant No.1 when the matter was called in the morning session or during post-lunch session.

¶46

There is a delay of 808 days in filing the present appeal and the reasons assigned by the appellants/complainant Nos.1 and 2 in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the application is that against the judgment of the trial Court acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 3, criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.15/2023 was preferred before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, which came to be dismissed as not maintainable and the remedy was to file a criminal appeal and that appellant No.2/complainant No.2 was suffering from serious injuries sustained by her in the assault by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and hence, the appeal could not be filed

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:151-DB CRL.A No. 1297 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

in time. However, it is to be noted that no details are available

¶50

as to whether the injury sustained by appellant No.2/complainant No.2 was subsequent to the dismissal of revision petition or earlier to the filing of criminal revision petition and the inordinate delay of 808 days in filing the appeal has not been explained properly.

¶51

Further, on perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that initially a private complaint was filed against the accused and the police investigated the matter and filed the 'B' report and against the said 'B' report, the complainants filed statement of objections. The trial Court considering the material available on record, after trial, came to the conclusion that there is no material available to convict the accused and hence acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainants preferred a revision petition and the appellate court dismissed the revision petition by order dated 05.07.2024, on the ground that revision petition is not maintainable and an appeal lies against acquittal. It also transpires that even after dismissal of the revision petition on 05.07.2024, there is delay in filing the present appeal, which is

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:151-DB CRL.A No. 1297 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

filed on 17.06.2025, i.e., almost lapse of one year. When such being the case, we do not find any ground to condone the inordinate delay of 808 days in filing the appeal and hence I.A.1/2025 stands rejected, consequently the appeal is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶57

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶59

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Shivamurtyappa v. Sri Ningappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivamurtyappa v. Sri Ningappa

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Bharatha H a

Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chan Pasha Vs National Investigating Agency