Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Arun Murgan

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.A/2437/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bengaluru dismissed the State's appeal against an acquittal on merits. The prior judgment acquitting the accused was protected by law. The State's application to condone a 259-day delay was dismissed for failure to substantiate the alleged bona fide reasons with supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 2437 of 2025 is dismissed as the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act is dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Arun Murgan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2437 OF 2025 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUNGANAGARA POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI M. DIWAKAR MADDUR.,HCGP)

¶10

AND:

¶11

ARUN MURGAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYA, R/O 'KASTURI SUBRAMANYA NILAYA' OPPOSITE KHB COLONY, NEAR VINAYAKA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378 CR.PC (419 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A. NO.35/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 325 AND 506 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is against the judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No.35/2024 by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, whereby the accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 325 and 506 of IPC. There is delay of 259 days in filing the appeal.

¶22

The appellant has filed I.A. No.1/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 259 days in filing this appeal. This application is supported with the memo of facts by Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader, in which it is stated that the above appeal is filed against the judgment impugned allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused for the charged offences by reversing the judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned V Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga in C.C. No. 4627/2017. The Criminal Appeal No. 35/2024 came to be disposed of on 06.12.2024; copy was applied

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

on 07.12.2024; the copy was ready on 19.12.2024 and

¶27

was delivered on the same day. Thereafter, the papers were placed before the Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court, to furnish his opinion regarding filing of

¶28

appeal. Accordingly, he has given his opinion on 26.12.2024 regarding filing of appeal. Thereafter, the case papers were placed before the Law Officer (Junior Division), to give his opinion regarding filing of the appeal. Accordingly, he gave his opinion on 18.02.2025. Thereafter the papers were placed before the Senior Law Officer, Davangere to furnish his opinion regarding filing of the appeal. Accordingly, he gave his opinion to prefer appeal. Again, the matter was placed before the Government for giving its opinion regarding filing of the appeal and the Government has issued Government Order on 19.02.2025 to prefer the appeal before this Court and

¶29

sent the papers to the Office of Advocate General on 28.02.2025. Thereafter, the Office of the Advocate General has sent the papers to the Office of the State

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Public Prosecutor on 03.03.2025. Thereafter, the case papers were handed over to him for drafting the appeal. During the first week of April 2025, he was working as a Law Officer before the Single Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Matters. This Court had directed him to file objections to applications filed for condonation of delay and suspension of sentence. Hence, he was busy in drafting the statement of objections and attending the Court Halls regularly. As such, he could not immediately prepare the appeal memo and file the same. However, he has drafted the above appeal in the month of October 2025 and after getting the appeal memo, he has sent the same to the filing section. Thereafter, the appeal was filed in the first week of December 2025. The delay, if any in filing the appeal, is for the above bonafide reasons and not an intentional one. That if the application is allowed and delay is condoned, no harm and injustice would be caused to the respondent and if the same is not condoned, the State as well as the complainant will be put to great loss,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

which cannot be compensated otherwise and the State has

¶37

got very good case on the merits. On all these grounds, sought to allow the application.

¶38

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, has passed the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2024 on 06.12.2024; the copy was applied by the State on 07.12.2024; the copy was ready on 19.12.2024 and was delivered on the same day. The present appeal is filed on 03.12.2025.

¶39

The appellant/State has not placed any materials before this Court to show that the Public Prosecutor has given his opinion on 26.12.2024 and same was placed before the Law Officer (Junior Division), to give his opinion regarding filing of the appeal and he gave his opinion on 18.02.2025. The State has also not produced the Government Order dated 19.2.2025. Thus, the State has failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:3845 CRL.A No. 2437 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the contents of memorandum of facts. Accordingly, the State has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing this appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

IA No. 1 for 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the

¶46

appeal is also dismissed .

¶47

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶48

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

The State of Karnataka v. Arun Murgan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Arun Murgan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.v.N.Shivananda Vs Smt.Indra

Sri M G Melanta Vs Sri T P Shaji

Sri. Madhu H S Vs Sri Shivakumar K

Sri Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Planters Recreation Association (Regd) Vs Sri N a Ajith Kumar

Sri C Harish Vs Smt. Manjula