THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs VEERESH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2017 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALORE - 560 001.
…APPELLANT







(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA,HCGP)

AND:

VEERESH,
S/O. VENKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT MASIDI ROAD,
L.B. SHASTRI NAGAR,
HAL, BENGALURU - 560 008.
…RESPONDENT



Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

(VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2026
SMT. NIRMALA ARALI, AMICUS CURIAE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED:01.12.2016 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.358/2015 ON THE
FILE OF L ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE THEREBY

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFECES
P/U/S 366 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Non-bailable warrant not executed by the concerned
police.

2. The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the L Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.358/2015
dated 01.12.2016.

3. The parties are referred to the same rank what
they had before the trial Court.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, HAL Police Station
submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. It is alleged by
the prosecution that on 14.08.2011, at about 05.30 p.m.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


the accused knowing fully well that CW-2 is a minor,
th
forcibly kidnapped her in front of House No.67, 5 Cross
Vibhuthipura, on the guise that he is in love with her and
he would look after well by marrying her and on
15.08.2011, victim escaped from the hands of accused
and informed the same to her parents. Thus, the accused
has committed the alleged offence.

5. After filing the charge sheet, case was
registered by X Additional ACMM Bengaluru and thereafter
case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
registered in Spl.C.No.358/2015. Accused appeared before
the Court and was enlarged on bail.

6. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has
framed the charge for the commission of 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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


7. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
has examined 7 witnesses as PW-1 to 7 and 6 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On closure of prosecution
side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded, accused has totally denied the evidence of
prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead
any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, trial
Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by this
judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.

9. Learned HCGP Sri.K.Nageshwarappa would
submit that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the trial Court is contrary to the law and evidence on
record and same is able to be set aside. Though PW-1
victim girl has deposed before the Court that 2 years prior
to the examination, accused came on a two wheeler and
asked for water. After getting water he did sexual act
against her. By then her age was 16 years. The evidence

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


of PW-1 is corroborated with the evidence of mother of the
victim i.e., PW-2 and uncle of victim PW-4. The trial Court
has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts and sought to allow this
appeal.

10. As against this, learned Amicus Curiae would

submit that all the witnesses have not supported the case
of prosecution. The trial Court has properly appreciated
the evidence on record. That there are no materials to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
perusal of material placed before this Court, the following
points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the State has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal?
(ii) What order?

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


12. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order.

13. 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

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


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
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.

14. In the case on hand, the prosecution has
examined 7 witnesses as PWs-1 to 7. CW-2 Victim who
was examined as PW-1 has not fully supported the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


prosecution witnesses. All the other material witnesses
have not supported the case of prosecution. On careful
examination of the evidence on record, the trial Court has
observed in paragraph Nos.26 to 34 as under:

" 26. In this case the victim who is examined as PW.1 had
categorically stated that the accused who was also
working in Krishna Apartment called her under the pretext
of dropping her in two wheeler, but he had taken her to
his house and when she requested for water, he had
given and thereafter she lost conscious and she regained
conscious on the next day and thereafter she came back
to her house. She had specifically stated that the accused
was just looking at her and she is not aware of his
intention. She was aged 12 years at the time of the
incident. According to this witness, she was not aware of
the work which the accused was doing in that apartment.
She had specifically stated that she lost conscious after
consumption of water.
27. PW.2 is the mother of the victim who had given
complaint regarding missing of her daughter had stated
that when she had been to the Police Station, she found
the accused in the Police Station and her daughter told
that the accused had taken her to his house and after
Spl.C.C.No.358/201514 consumption of water she lost
conscious and on the next day she gained conscious. Even
she is also not aware as to why the accused has taken her

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


daughter. However she admitted that her daughter
informed her that the accused who was driver in that
apartment was known to her from one month and he
intended to marry her and also on 14-08-2011 he had
taken the victim to Majestic bus stand under the pretext
of taking her to his village. However this victim escaped
from that place. She was not aware of the accused prior
to the incident.
28. PW.3 is the father of the victim had specifically stated
that he saw the accused in the Police Station and the
police have kept him in the Police Station. He has
admitted that his daughter was very much afraid of him
and she told about the act of the accused to her mother.
He had specifically stated that he is not aware of as to
what had happened and his wife is aware of it, but he saw
the accused in the Police Station.
29. PW.4 is the uncle of victim who had stated that when
he was called in the year 2011 by saying that the victim
was kidnapped and raped, he came to the Police Station
and found the accused in the Police Station. This witness
also stated that on 14-08-2011 the victim was found
missing and on the next day they found her. The accused
was also driver in the same apartment wherein the victim
was working. Even he admitted that the accused had
taken the victim to Majestic bus stand and thereafter she
escaped from that place. However PW.5 and PW.6 who
are witnesses to the mahazar have stated about putting
their signatures. PW.7 is the Investigation Officer, who
registered the case.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


30. However in this case on perusal of the statement of
the victim, she had specifically stated that the accused
had taken her on 14-08-2011 at 05.30 p.m., near her
house and he has taken her to the Majestic Bus stand in
order to take her to Raichur and thereafter she escaped
from that place. However in her examination in chief she
had stated that the accused had taken her to his house
and after consumption of water she lost conscious and
she was not aware as to what had happened in between
and she escaped from that house.
31. The other witnesses have admitted the suggestions
regarding taking of the victim by the accused from near
the house of the victim to Majestic Bus stand. None of the
witnesses have stated that the victim was taken to the
house of the accused. These witnesses are aware of the
information given by the victim. Why the victim had
changed her version is not explained. Even the intention
of the accused is also not stated by the victim, but the
mother of the victim says that the victim told that the
accused was working as driver in the apartment, had told
that he is going to marry her and he wanted to take her
to his native place. In this case even that suggestion is
suggested to the victim, but she denied it.
32. There is contradiction in the documentary as well as
oral evidence of the victim because she is the person who
is aware as to where the accused had taken her. When
she herself had changed the version and why she has not
stated as to why the accused had taken her, the Court
cannot come to the conclusion that it is a case of kidnap

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


for any purpose. When there is material contradiction, the
Court cannot ignore it. The statement of other witnesses
is only second hand information. The only person who is
aware of the real incident is the victim, who has taken a
different stand in documentary and oral evidence and that
cannot be brushed aside.
33. Whatever she has stated to her mother, father and
uncle, the same is stated by them. Hence when the
material witnesses herself have not supported her
complaint averments and stated a different version in her
evidence, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that
the prosecution has established its case. However the
accused was found in the Police Station, when these
witnesses went to the Police Station.
34. Further there is one more discrepancy in the evidence
of mother of the victim who had stated that on the next
day she was called to the Police Station and she found
that the accused was in the Police Station. However the
victim had returned home herself and she herself had
taken the victim to the Police Station. Hence there is no
material to connect that the accused and the victim were
together on that night and they have secured by the
police. Even the officials who arrested the accused are not
examined before the Court. The mahazar witnesses have
turned hostile. The complaint is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. There is a serious material
contradiction in this case and that benefit to be given to
the accused. Hence, I answer this Point in the Negative". "

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56449
CRL.A No. 467 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010270562017


15. On re-appreciation/reconsideration and re-
examination of the entire material on record, I do not find
any factual or legal error in the impugned judgment of
acquittal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also keeping in mind of the aforesaid decisions, I
answer point No.1 in the Negative.

16. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
i) Appeal is .
ii) Appreciating the valuable services rendered
by the learned Amicus Curiae, her
remuneration is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Registry to pay the remuneration to the
learned Amicus Curiae.

Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE

RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10