STATE OF KARNATAKA vs KARTHIK
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1805 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. KARTHIK
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDING BEHIND CHURCH,
AMARAVATHI LAYOUT,
NELAGADARANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 57
NATIVE PLACE NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE,
ANANDAPURA, WARD NO. 24,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. K B K SWAMY., ADVOCATE)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE
P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.02.2016
PASSED BY THE L ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU IN
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
SPL.C.C.NO.548/2014 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
State has preferred the appeal against the Judgment
of acquittal dated 24.02.2016 passed in Spl. CC No.548 of
2014 by the L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for short, the “trial Court”).
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their status
and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Peenya
Police, Bangalore City, submitted charge-sheet against the
accused for offences punishable under Section 366-A of
Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that the
accused has kidnapped CW2-minor daughter of CW1-
Sunita on 16.04.2012 from her house with an intent to
marry her against her wish. Thus, the accused committed
the alleged offence.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in
CC No.16706 of 2012. Upon committal of case to the
Court of sessions, it was registered as Spl.CC No.548 of
2014. Accused appeared before the Court and enlarged
on bail. Upon hearing, trial Court framed charges for the
alleged offence and the same was read over and explained
to the accused. Having understood the same, accused
pleaded, not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the
guilt of the accused, in all nine witnesses were examined
as PWs1 to 9, 6 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to
P6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded.
Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses appearing against him, however, did not choose
to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard
the arguments on both sides, the trial Court acquitted the
accused. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal,
State has preferred this appeal.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
5. Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the State, would submit
that the impugned Judgment of acquittal is contrary to
law, facts of the case and the evidence on record. He
would submit that the reasons given by the Court below is
erroneous and improper and has reached a wrong
conclusion, which has resulted in substantial miscarriage
of Justice. the learned trial judge has not properly
considered the evidence of PW2, who is the mother of the
victim girl who has deposed that the roommates of the
accused came and informed her that accused has
kidnapped the victim and thereafter, PW2 lodged a
complaint. PW2 went along with the police to
Gowribidanur and brought the victim back and the victim
has identified the accused both in the police station as also
in the Court. His further submission is that that the trial
Court has not properly considered the evidence of PW5-
victim who has deposed that the accused came and
th
kidnapped her alleging that her father is at 8 Mile at
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
Bengaluru, and thereafter it took her to Gowribidanur and
kept his hand on the head of victim then she became
unconscious and does not remember what happened later.
When regained conscious, she was in Gowribidanur and
she informed the same to her mother and her mother and
police came and rescued her. In spite of this categorical
statement, granting an order of acquittal is not in
accordance with law. Further, the trial Court has failed in
appreciating the evidence of PW8 and 10, which
corroborates with the evidence of PWs2 and 5. His further
submission is that the evidence of prosecution witness
makes it clear that on the date of kidnapping the victim,
she was minor and the accused, knowing fully well about
the same, kidnapped her with an intention to marry her.
Hence, the prosecution has proved its case connecting the
crime to the accused. He submits that the appreciation of
evidence by the trial Court is not in its proper perspective.
On all these grounds it is sought to allow the appeal.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
6. As against this Sri K.B.K. Swamy, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent-accused would submit that
there is a serious contradiction in the alleged date of
kidnap. Further, he would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts, and absolutely there are no grounds to
interfere with the Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of records, the following points arise for
consideration:
1. Whether the State has made out ground to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal?
2. What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: as per final Order
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
Regarding Point No.1:
9. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC
433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2024)8 SCC 149;
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4
SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. The principles governing
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of
Criminal Procedure are, th e acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence; the appellate court,
while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; the appellate
court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-
appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the
view taken by the trial court is a plausible view which could
have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; if the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
view taken is a plausible view, the appellate Court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and the appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence
on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond
a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. The
interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused
has to be exercised only if the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity; the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record.
10. I have examined the materials place before the
Court. To prove the guilt of accused to the prosecution has
examined nine witnesses as PWs1 to 9, 6 documents as
Exhibits P1 to P6.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
11. PW1-Lokesh and PW3-Manoharan said to be the
attesters to mahazar-Exhibit P1, have not supported the
case of the prosecution. PW2-Sunitha, mother of victim,
has clearly deposed that she do not know about the
accused. However, she has deposed as to the mahazar
conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2. PW4-
Ponnuswamy has not supported the case of prosecution.
PW5-victim girl has clearly deposed that she do not know
about the accused. PW6-Dr. Basappa Hoogar, has
deposed as to the medical examination of the victim and
also as to issuance of Exhibits P3 and P4. PW7-
Nagegowda, has not supported the case of prosecution.
PW8-Byregowda has deposited nothing as to the alleged
commission of offence by the accused. PW9- Sunil HB,
Police Sub-Inspector has deposed as to his investigation.
12. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
the trial Court has acquitted the accused. On re-
examination, re-appreciation and reconsideration of the
entire material on record, I do not find any legal or factual
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59066
CRL.A No. 1805 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010526272016
error committed by the trial Court. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the
aforestated decisions of the Supreme Court, I answer Point
No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
13. For the reasons and discussions afore, I proceed
to pass the following:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77