Dismissed¶61

Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2026CRL.RP/447/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scope of discharge under S.227 Cr.P.C.: strong suspicion sufficient; custody/admissibility objections to electronic evidence (screenshots) and hearsay/contentions about unseized mobile and unrecorded statements deferred to trial; no mini trial at discharge stage; abetment of suicide S.306 IPC with Ss.504 and 201 IPC; Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh J.) dismisses CRL.RP No.447 of 2026 challenging order dated 28.01.2026 of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in S.C.No.45/2022.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of consideration of a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the objection that screenshots were not seized from proper custody cannot be considered; admissibility of the document falls to be considered at the time of recording of evidence. ¶45

Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court correctly rejected the petitioner's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., i.e., whether the material collected by the Investigating Officer discloses sufficient/strong suspicion to proceed against him for offences under Sections 504, 201 and 306 IPC, notwithstanding objections as to custody of screenshots, hearsay statements, non-seizure of the victim's mobile and unrecorded statements.

¶33

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Contentions that the victim's colleagues' statements (C.W.22 to C.W.26) are hearsay, that her mobile was not seized, and that her statement/husband's statement were not recorded are matters that can be urged during trial, not at the discharge stage.

¶46

Key takeaways

On the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C., strong suspicion is enough to proceed against the accused; whether the accused's conduct was the proximate cause of the victim's suicide is a question for trial.ratio¶50
Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge of the accused.ratio¶56
While considering an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot consider the entire merits or conduct a mini trial; it may only see whether the material on record is sufficient to proceed against the accused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.) against rejection of the accused's discharge application under S.227 Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.45/2022 (offences under Ss.504, 201 and 306 IPC, arising out of abetment of suicide of a victim who made two earlier attempts and thereafter jumped into a canal): Held, objections that screenshots recovered through the victim's husband and mother-in-law were not seized from proper custody, that the colleagues' statements (C.W.22 to C.W.26) are hearsay, that the victim's mobile was not seized and her statement and her husband's statement were not recorded, are all matters for trial and not for the discharge stage; admissibility of documents cannot be relied upon at the time of discharge. On the scope of S.227 Cr.P.C., strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused; contradictions in witness statements cannot be examined and the Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Trial Court had passed a reasoned order noting the complaint, the statements under Ss.161/164 Cr.P.C. and the screenshots. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.447 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ANIL KUMAR, S/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HUCCHA GANGAMMA, STREET, 8^TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LAKKAVALLI P.S., TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶23

JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SC.NO.45/2022 DATED 28.01.2026 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED SEEKING DISCHARGE BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent/State.

¶28

This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.01.2026 passed in S.C.No.45/2022.

¶29

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in his arguments would vehemently contend that the material collected by the Investigating Officer is not fit to proceed against the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 201 and 306 of IPC. The learned counsel would contend that the mobile of the victim was not seized by the Investigating Officer. The screenshots seized from the motherin-law of the victim are not from proper custody and the same according to the prosecution was collected by the husband of

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶33

the victim and the same was handed over to the mother-in-law of the victim. The statements which the prosecution relies upon i.e., C.W.22 to C.W.26, are the colleagues of the victim and their statements are hearsay statements. The learned counsel would contend that the statement of the victim was not recorded when she made an attempt for suicide at the first instance till her second attempt. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that the husband of the victim was not cited as a witness and there is no any prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner and the Trial Court ought to have invoked Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused.

¶34

Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent/State would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of the statements of C.W.22 to C.W.26, who are the colleagues of the victim and they made the statement with regard to the very harassment meted out by the revision petitioner to the victim and also verbal abuse made to her and the same was spoken by the witnesses before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would submit that the screenshots were collected prior to the death of the

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶38

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶39

victim by her husband and the same was handed over to his mother and on account of the death of the victim, the same was handed over by the mother-in-law of the victim to the police at the time of the investigation and the contention that the same was not seized from proper custody cannot be accepted.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent/State, the offences which have been invoked against the revision petitioner is for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC with regard to the abuse, Section 306 of IPC with regard to abetment of suicide and Section 201 of IPC for screening of the evidence. Having taken note of the very material collected during the course of investigation i.e., screenshots of the mobile collected by the husband of the victim, the same was handed over to the mother-in-law of the victim prior to the death of the victim and the same was collected from the mobile of the victim. The very contention that the same was not seized from the proper custody, cannot be considered at the time of discharging of the accused and

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶44

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶45

whether that is admissible or not could be considered at the time of recording of evidence. Admissibility of the document cannot be relied upon at the time of discharge of the accused and hence, the first contention that the screenshots seized are not from proper custody, cannot be accepted while considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

¶46

The other contention of the revision petitioner that the statements made by the colleagues of the victim are hearsay statements cannot be accepted and the same must be recorded under oath and whether such statements are made before the colleagues and whether she was subjected to verbal abuse or harassment are also to be considered at the time of recording of evidence and not at the stage of consideration of application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The other contention is that the mobile of the victim was not seized and also her statement was not recorded. All these contentions urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner can be put forth during the course of trial. The other contention is that the statement of the husband of the victim was not recorded. The same is also an additional factor for trial and not at the stage of

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶50

consideration of application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The law is settled with regard to the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. that strong suspicion is enough to proceed against the accused. In the case on hand, an attempt was made by the victim twice for committing suicide and subsequently she jumped into the canal and committed suicide. Whether it was a proximate cause to the death of the victim and whether the conduct of the accused led her to take the immediate decision to end her life, also to be considered during the course of trial and not at the stage of consideration of the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

¶51

The Trial Court while considering the material on record, in paragraph No.15 taken note of earlier attempt made by the victim for committing suicide and in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 taken note of the contents of the FIR and also the statement of the father C.W.1, who lodged the complaint and statement of witnesses, particularly C.W.22 to C.W.26. The scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is discussed in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 and also discussed the judgments of the High Court and also the Apex Court with regard to the scope of

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:38255 CRL.RP No. 447 of 2026

¶55

CNR: KAHC010191412026

¶56

Section 227 in paragraph Nos.21 and 22. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked at the stage of discharge of the accused. It is also settled law that while consideration of application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., there cannot be consideration of the entire merits of the case. The Court can only see that whether material available on record against the accused is sufficient to proceed against him and the Court cannot conduct a mini trial at the time of consideration of application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Trial Court has committed an error. The Trial Court taken note of the contents of the complaint and also the statement of the witnesses made under Section 161 and under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and apart from that, the material collected i.e., screenshot also taken note of by the Trial Court and passed a reasoned order. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.

¶57