Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCivil Procedure and Evidence

Karnataka HC Sets Aside Acquittal In Threat Case After Trial Court Gave Neither Side A Chance To Argue

GOVINDAPPAv.THIMMARAYAPPA

Karnataka HC Sets Aside Acquittal In Threat Case After Trial Court Gave Neither Side A Chance To Argue. GOVINDAPPA vs THIMMARAYAPPA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the complainant had established grounds to remand the case so that the parties could be given an opportunity to present final arguments.

The court held

The Court answered the remand issue in the affirmative, allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal.

It also directed

It remitted the case to the Magistrate with directions to hear arguments from both parties and proceed in accordance with law.

The parties were directed to appear on 30 November 2026, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within three months of their appearance.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that, on 2 September 2009, the respondent followed him at a bus stand while carrying a sickle, abused him and threatened his life.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

The complaint led to proceedings in C.C. No. 399 of 2009 for offences under Sections 504 and 506(b) IPC.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

After recording the complainant’s evidence and the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, the Magistrate acquitted the accused on 5 November 2016 without hearing final arguments, despite the complainant’s counsel seeking time to make submissions.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

The complainant appealed against the acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC

pp. 2–3, 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the complainant had established grounds to remand the case so that the parties could be given an opportunity to present final arguments.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

ii.2. What order should follow from the determination of that issue.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 378(4) CrPC, under which the complainant pursued an appeal against acquittal.

p. 1

It also referred to Section 244 CrPC, concerning the recording of prosecution evidence before charge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, and Section 313 CrPC, under which the accused’s statement had been recorded.

p. 5

The Court applied the principle of natural justice that parties must be afforded an opportunity to present their arguments before judgment is delivered; it cited no precedent.

p. 6 · ¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 200Section 244Section 313Section 378

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307Section 504Section 506

04Reasoning

The trial court recorded the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the accused’s Section 313 CrPC statement, then delivered its judgment on the same day without hearing arguments from either side, notwithstanding the complainant’s request for time.

p. 6 · ¶ 9

The High Court held that denying the complainant an opportunity to address the merits violated the principles of natural justice.

p. 5 · ¶ 8 · p. 6 · ¶ 9

It also noted procedural matters concerning the absence of evidence before charge under Section 244 CrPC and the framing of charges, but its stated ground for setting aside the acquittal was the failure to hear arguments.

p. 5 · ¶ 8 · p. 6 · ¶ 9

05Holding

The Court answered the remand issue in the affirmative, allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal.

p. 4, 7 · ¶ 7, 9

It remitted the case to the Magistrate with directions to hear arguments from both parties and proceed in accordance with law.

pp. 7–8

The parties were directed to appear on 30 November 2026, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within three months of their appearance.

pp. 7–8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

GOVINDAPPAvsTHIMMARAYAPPA

Karnataka High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment