State appeal seeking leave to reverse an acquittal of five accused charged with kidnapping a college girl under Sections 366A and 149 IPC. The court found material contradictions among eyewitnesses on place, participants and timing, and upheld the Trial Court's benefit-of-doubt acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY
KUNIGAL POLICE - 572130
&APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
HC-KAR
S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O SOBAGANAHALLI, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH , ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SMT. SHYLAJA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H. R. SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED AND UNREPPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
HC-KAR
JUDGEMNT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 9.11.14 PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND S.C.NO.206/2012 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCHEDULE CASETE/SCHEDULE TRIBE (POA) ACT 1989, TUMKURU, THERBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366-A R/W 149 OF IPC; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 9.11.14, PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND S.C.NO.206/12 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 TUMAKURU ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366-A R/W 149 OF IPC.(c) CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366(A) R/W SEC.149 IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
HC-KAR
police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 149 of IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5 and marked M.O.1 and closed the prosecution side evidence. The portion of statement of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. The accused were subjected to 313 statement and incriminating materials were denied by the accused and the accused not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the evidence available on record not inspires the confidence of the Court that P.W.2 was kidnapped by accused Nos.1 to 5. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there are contra evidence available before the Court and the very incident itself is doubtful and the place of incident according to the prosecution is a public place and it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that none came to help them and extracted the evidence of prosecution witnesses and comes to the conclusion that benefit of doubt
HC-KAR
goes in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused persons.
HC-KAR
Trial Court with regard to the facts is palpably wrong and there was an erroneous approach and the same led to miscarriage of justice. The entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal. The Trial Court has ignored the oral and documentary evidence available on record and comes to an erroneous conclusion that there are material contradictions and also the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the interested witnesses, who are the friends of P.W.2. The Trial Court has failed to analyze and appreciate the evidence of P.W.2, who is the victim in the above case who has clearly narrated the overt-acts of all the accused persons who have actually participated in the crime. The Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 in its proper perspective and so also the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were present at the time of kidnapping of P.W.2. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons and hence, it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 particularly and contend that their evidence is consistent not only in respect of the incident of kidnap, but also
HC-KAR
place of incident. But the Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that the place of incident itself is doubtful and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not inspires the confidence of the Court, which led to miscarriage of justice.
HC-KAR
persons extending the benefit of doubt and hence, it does not require any interference. In spite of this Court extending an opportunity, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 did not choose to make any submission.
HC-KAR
Maruthi Omni van when P.W.1 and P.W.3 were present at the time of the kidnapping. Hence, relies upon the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are the friends of P.W.2 - victim. It is also important to note that accused persons forcibly kidnapped P.W.2 and when she refused to marry accused No.1, she returned back to her house on the very same day. It is pertinent to note that P.W.4, who is the father of the victim on the information received from P.W.1 and P.W.3, registered the case with the police.
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
her in a Maruthi Omni van. There are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 has also deposed her evidence in a line of evidence of P.W.2 but she deposes the place of incident as near the land of Mr. Mariappa and Mr. Nanjundaiah. There are material contradictions with regard to kidnapping the victim and their evidence is contrary to each other. Even with regard to the panchnama is concerned, the alleged incident has taken place, but P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not depose when they came near Kempasagara and P.W.2 was kidnapped. If really P.W.2 was kidnapped on the alleged place, P.W.1 to P.W.3 would have stated the same version in their evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
statement was recorded on the next day i.e. on 24.06.2011 and even P.W.1 also states that she has not given the statement as per Exhibit D.1 on 23.06.2011. P.W.2 states that she and her friends Ms. Lakshmidevi and Ms. Vanitha were moving towards college from their house at 08.30 a.m. If P.W.1 and P.W.3 were accompanying P.W.2 at the time of her kidnapping by the accused, definitely they would have known who are the witnesses in this case. P.W.3 has stated that her statement was recorded on the very same day i.e. on 23.06.2011 at 11 a.m. but statements are given on the very next day and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are contrary to each other and even the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.12 and 19, wherein categorically admitted the place of incident is the only road to go to Kunigal and several people would move in that road.
HC-KAR
as P.W.12, he categorically states that he did not verify the attendance register in the college of P.W.1 to P.W.3 on whether they attended the college on 23.06.2011 or not. Since the very recording of the statement of these witnesses is contrary to each other, the very kidnap is doubtful since P.W.2 says that she was kidnapped by Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Hanumantharayappa but P.W.1 says that Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Chamanna kidnapped P.W.2. P.W.7 admitted in his evidence that the circumstantial witnesses cannot state that who have kidnapped the victim - P.W.2. If really accused kidnapped P.W.2, P.W.7 would have known the person who grabbed P.W.2 and who were sitting by the vehicle. Hence, even considering the evidence of circumstantial witnesses i.e. P.W.7, his evidence cannot be proved. P.W.5 also identified the accused No.3 but he says that accused No.3 approached him to get a car to go to the temple and he took the vehicle belonged to P.W.5 stating that he would pay Rs.6 per kilometer but in the cross examination, this witness says that he is not working as an agent and also he cannot tell on what date accused No. 3 had approached him so also he came to know through the police that car belonged to P.W.5 was used to kidnap and also
NC: 2026:KHC:18077 CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
he cannot tell on what date he went to the police station and gave the statement.
HC-KAR
P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses, only circumstantial witnesses and their evidence does not support the case of the cross-examination and hence, the Trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons.
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
RB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for kidnapping under Section 366A/149 IPC despite prosecution witnesses' evidence.
Whether the appellate court should reverse the acquittal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State by Kunigal Police
Hanumantharayappa
Nanjuundaiah @ Nanjundi @ Ambi
Lakshmana @ Papa
Chamaiah @ Chama
Krishnamurthy @ Nanja
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
