STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR vs JAYANNA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.952 OF 2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
BIRUR POLICE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-1
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
AND:
1. JAYANNA
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O OBALAPPA,
TRACTOR DRIVER,
R/O JODI BOKIKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577101.
2. VINAY @ VINAY KUMAR,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
R/O CHANNANNA KOPPALU VILLAGE,
NIDAGHATTA POST,
SAKRAYAPATNA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577101.
3. M RAJAPPA @ KAYI RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
S/O MURUGENDRAPPA,
AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS,
R/O SHYANU BOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH., ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. M. G. KANTHARAYAPPA, ADV. FOR R3,
V/O DATED: 6/2/23 MAHESH Y.N., APPOINTED AS AMICUS
CURIAE FOR R2.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1)(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
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 IN
S.C.NO.123/2013, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366 R/W 34 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 10.10.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.123 of
2013 by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for
short, the "trial Court").
2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal are that the Sub
Inspector of Police, Birur Police Station, submitted charge-sheet
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
against the accused for offence punishable under Section 366
with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged bys the prosecution that on 11.06.2013 at
about 5:30 pm, CW1 (victim), after finishing her examination,
was going home and when she came on TankBund of K
Gollarahalli Village, accused No.1 with the help of accused 2
and 3, with an intention that she may be compelled to marry
accused No.1, kidnapped her in tempo traveller bearing
registration No.KA-18/A-8739. Thus, the accused has
committed the offence.
4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC
No.510 of 2013, and after committing of case to the Court of
Sessions, it was registered as SC No.123 of 2013. Accused
appeared before the trial court and were enlarged on bail.
Upon hearing and charges, the trial court has framed charges
against accused for the alleged offences. The same were 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 15 witnesses were examined as
PWs1 to 15 and 19 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
P19. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of
accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Accused have
totally denied the prosecution witnesses appearing against
them. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted accused. Being aggrieved by the
judgement of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for the
appellant-State, would submit that the judgement of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is illegal, invalid, and contrary to the
evidence and material and record. He would submit that the
trial Court has failed to appreciate the material evidence
adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence of
PW1-victim who has categorically stated about the offences
committed by the accused. She being the complainant,
specifically explained the entire incident in her complaint and
has also corroborated the same in her evidence. Nothing
worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination so as to
give a complete go-by to her evidence. PW1 has also identified
the respondents i.e. accused 1 to 3 in test identification parade
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
conducted by PW15-Tahsildar. The same is supported by the
evidence of PW15-Tahsildar and also PWs11 and 12, who are
mahazar witnesses to identification parade. The Court below
ought not to have rejected the evidence of PW6 and 7 on the
ground that they were not witnesses to the incident. They
being the father and uncle of victim, have supported the case
of the prosecution. The Court below has acquitted the accused
on the ground that there is delay in lodging in the complaint.
The delay has been sufficiently explained by PW1 in her
complaint as also in her evidence. Trial court has not
appreciated them in accordance with law and facts and has
acquitted the accused. On all these grounds, it is sought to
allow appeal.
6. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for
respondents submitted the trial Court has properly appreciated
the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and
absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgement of acquittal. Hence it is sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of record, the following points would arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the Appellant-State has made out a
ground to interfere with the judgement 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
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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2023)9 SCC 581, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the principles governing exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. That, 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
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
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. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as PWs1 to
15. The trial Court at paragraph 22 of its judgment, has
discussed the evidence of PWs1 to 15 in detail, and has
observed as under:
"22. The accused No.1 and victim girl both hail
from the same native place and they are neighborers. The
material witnesses P.W.4-the driver of the vehicle,
allegedly used for commission of the offence and P.W.5
the friend of victim girl, who was with the victim girl at
the time of alleged offence have turned hostile and not
supported the case of the Prosecution. P.Ws.6 and 7 are
not the eye witnesses. They are father and uncle of the
victim girl and their evidence is ear say evidence. The
evidence of ear-say witnesses without corroboration by
independent witnesses cannot be acceptable. There is a
delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The
Prosecution has not properly explained the delay in
lodging the complaint. It is fatal to the case of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60965
CRL.A No. 952 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010172512018
Prosecution. The prosecution evidence clearly goes to
show that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Under the benefit of
doubt, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, I am
inclined to answer point No.1 in the negative."
11. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence and record,
I do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the
judgments of Supreme Court aforestated, I answer Point No.1
in negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
For the reasons 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.: 63