STATE OF KARNATAKA vs K R LOKESH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
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.1821 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUSHALNAGAR P S
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-01
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. K R LOKESH
SON OF K T RANGAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
CENTERING WORK
MALENHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDIGE-571232
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
2. CHENNAMALLAMMA
WIFE OF K T RANGAPPA
AGED 71 YEARS
COOLIE
MALLENHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDIGE - 571232
3. GEETHA R
WIFE OF RAVI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
COOLIE, ARASUNAGAR
VIRAJPET - 571218
…RESPONDENTS
(BY V/O DATED: 28/09/2026 SRI. PRUTHVEEN KATTIMANI,
AMICUS CURIAE FOR R1 TO R3.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR
THE STATE/APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN
S.C.NO.43/2010 DATED 28.01.2016 THEREBY ACQUITTING
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,306
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 this appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 28.02.2016 passed in SC No.43 of 2010
by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at
Madikeri (for short hereinafter referred to as “the trial
Court”).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are
referred to as per rank and status before the trial Court.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
3. Facts leading to this appeal are that, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Kushalnagar Police Station filed
charge-sheet against the accused for the offence,
punishable and Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
No.1 married Jayalakshmi about 12 years back. Accused
1, 3 and 4 along with deceased-accused No.2, in
furtherance of common intention that accused No.1 had
illicit relationship with accused No.4, and as such, accused
No.1 gave physical and mental torture to the deceased-
Jayalakshmi, telling her to go elsewhere and die. Being
unable to tolerate the torture given by the accused,
Jayalakshmi committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom
of her house on 15.04.2009 in the early morning. Thus
the accused committed the alleged offences.
5. After investigation, investigating officer submitted
charge-sheet against the accused. Case was registered in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
CC No.77 of 2010. Thereafter, it was committed to the
Court of Sessions where it was registered as SC No.43 of
2010. Accused appeared before the Court and was
enlarged on bail. Upon hearing, the trial Court framed
charges for the alleged commission of offences. The same
were read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same, accused pleaded, not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution, in all, has examined 13 witnesses as PWs1 to
13, got marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1 to 8 and 9
material objects as MOs1 to 9. On closure of the
prosecution side evidence, statement of accused was
recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC. Accused have totally
denied the incriminating evidences appearing against
them, however, did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on
both sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal, State has
preferred this appeal.
7. Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing
for the appellant-State, would submit that the impugned
Judgment of acquittal is contrary to law, facts of the case
and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the
Court below while passing the Judgment of acquittal are
erroneous and improper. The learned trial judge has
acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant
has turned hostile and PW2 the mother of the deceased,
PW3 son of the deceased, PW6 brother of the deceased,
PW12 father of the deceased and PWs4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, who
were the neighbours of the deceased, have not supported
the case of the prosecution. The trial judge has failed to
appreciate the evidence of the complainant who is the
brother of the deceased who has totally supported the
case of the prosecution during his examination-in-chief.
During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions
put forth by the defence and subsequently in his further

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
cross-examination, he has turned hostile, which clearly
shows that the complainant was made to turn hostile
subsequently.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader
would further submit that the trial Court has failed to
apply the principles laid down by this Court in the case of
KRISHNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2010
Crl.LJ. 1515 wherein it is held that, even if witnesses
turned hostile during cross-examination, the evidence of
such witnesses rendered in examination-in-chief
supporting the case of the prosecution, has to be accepted
as true. The learned trial judge has not scrutinized the
evidence of PW1 who is none other than the brother of the
deceased and proceeded to say that PW1 has turned
hostile and the Court below should have weighed the
evidence of PW1 with more care and caution and ought to
have arrived at a correct finding. It is because of the ill-
treatment given by the accused, the deceased was left
with no option except committing suicide. The learned

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
trial Judge, without appreciating the evidence on record,
simply proceeded to say that the relatives and neighbours
have turned hostile and hence the prosecution has not
established its case, and by making the said observation,
acquitted accused which is not just and proper. He would
submit that the trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting
the accused and the reasons assigned for the same are
not legal, proper and convincing. On all these grounds, it
is sought to allow the appeal.
9. Despite service of notice, respondent remained
absent and unrepresented. Hence, Sri Pruthveen
Kattimani, the learned Advocate was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae
would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated
the evidence in accordance with law and facts. The trial
Court has clearly observed that the deceased-Jayalakshmi
was not keeping well prior to her death. The accused No.2
is no more. Accused 1, 3 and 4 have not caused abetment
to the deceased to commit suicide. Further, he would

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
submit that the prosecution has failed to place, essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence in according with law and facts.
He would also submit as to the scope of the Court in
interfering with the Judgment of acquittal. On all these
grounds, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. To buttress
his arguments, he has relied on the following Judgments:
1. CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND -
(2025)5 SCC 433;
2. BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2024)8
SCC 149;
3. CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2007)4 SCC 415; and
4. H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2023)9 SCC 581

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of materials on record, the following points
would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the State has made out ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal?
2. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
12. I have the examined materials placed before the
Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
No.1 married Jayalakshmi about 12 years back. Accused
No. 1, 3 and 4 along with deceased-accused No.2, in
furtherance of common intention, gave physical and
mental torture to the deceased-Jayalakshmi, telling her to
go elsewhere and die. Being unable to tolerate the torture

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
given by the accused, Jayalakshmi committed suicide by
hanging in the bedroom of her house on 15.04.2009 in the
early morning. Thus the accused committed the alleged
offences. To prove the accused, the prosecution has
examined 13 witnesses as PWs1 to 13 and got marked 8
documents as Exhibits P1 to P8 and 9 material objects as
MOs1 to 9.
13. PW1-Satisha is the younger brother of the
deceased-Jayalakshmi. He has deposed as to the
averments made in the complaint-Exhibit P1. He has also
deposed as to the inquest Panchama conducted by the
police. During the cross-examination, PW1 has not
supported the case of the prosecution. Hence the Public
Prosecutor has treated this witness as hostile witness with
the permission of the Court and cross-examined him.
During the cross-examination of PW1, he has clearly
admitted that the accused and the deceased were in
cordial terms. Accused 1 to 3 were looking after the
deceased well. Further, he has clearly admitted that the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
deceased who is his elder sister, was suffering from
disease and being fed up with the same, she has
committed suicide.
14. PW2-Puttagowramma, mother of the victim has
not supported the case of the prosecution. PW3-
Madhusudan son of the deceased and accused No.1, has
not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4-Kumara
and PW5-Annappa, who are the neighbours have not
supported the case of the prosecution. PW6- Ramesh, the
another brother of the deceased, has also not supported
the case of the prosecution. PW7-Srinivasa, PW8-Nagappa
and PW9-Chikanna, who are the neighbours, have also not
supported the case of the prosecution. PW10-Kathija,
Woman Head Constable and PW11-R. Manchaiah,
Assistant Sub-Inspector, have deposed as to their
respective investigation. PW12-Kalashetty, father of the
deceased has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW13-Basavaraj, Police Inspector has
deposed as to his part of investigation.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59063
CRL.A No. 1821 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010458172016
15. On careful examination of the entire material on
record, this Court has noticed that all the material
witnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution.
Hence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. I do not
find any legal or factual error in the impugned Judgment
of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
16. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass
the following:
O R D E R
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) Registry to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
to Sri Pruthveen Kattimani, learned Amicus
Curiae.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78