Karnataka High Court
State By vs Hanumantharayappa on 2 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY
KUNIGAL POLICE - 572130
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
by DEVIKA M
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KUNIGAL TALUK,
KARNATAKA TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
2. NANJUUNDAIAH @ NANJUNDI @ AMBI
S/O LATE AMBALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
3. LAKSHMANA @ PAPA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKAHONNEGOWDANAPALYA,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
4. CHAMAIAH @ CHAMA,
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKAHONNEGOWDANAPALYA,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
5. KRISHNAMURTHY @ NANJA,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O SOBAGANAHALLI,
KOTHAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH , ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SMT. SHYLAJA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H. R. SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED AND UNREPPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
JUDGEMNT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 9.11.14
PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND S.C.NO.206/2012 BY
THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCHEDULE
CASETE/SCHEDULE TRIBE (POA) ACT 1989, TUMKURU,
THERBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366-A R/W 149 OF IPC; SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
9.11.14, PASSED IN S.C.NO.190/2012 AND
S.C.NO.206/12 BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 TUMAKURU ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
366-A R/W 149 OF IPC.(c) CONVICT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
366(A) R/W SEC.149 IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant-State, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and the learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 09.11.2014 passed in S.C.No.190/2012 and
S.C.No.206/2012, on the file of the III Additional Sessions
Judge and Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Tumakuru, acquitting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 366A read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that, on 23.06.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., victim girl was
proceeding near the land of Nanjundaiah on Shettigere-
Kempasagara road to go to college at Kunigal along with her
friends. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 with a common object
to kidnap Lakshmi Devi and forcibly marry to accused No.1,
kidnapped her in Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA-41-N-
319. Based on the complaint, case was registered and the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable under Section
366A read with Section 149 of IPC. The accused persons did
not plead guilty and claimed trial and hence, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked the documents at
Exs.P.1 to 5 and marked M.O.1 and closed the prosecution side
evidence. The portion of statement of P.W.1 is marked as
Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. The accused were subjected
to 313 statement and incriminating materials were denied by
the accused and the accused not led any defence evidence. The
Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence, comes to the conclusion that the evidence available
on record not inspires the confidence of the Court that P.W.2
was kidnapped by accused Nos.1 to 5. The Trial Court comes
to the conclusion that there are contra evidence available
before the Court and the very incident itself is doubtful and the
place of incident according to the prosecution is a public place
and it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that none came
to help them and extracted the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and comes to the conclusion that benefit of doubt
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
goes in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused
persons.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend
that P.W.2 is the victim girl and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are her
friends, who were present along with the victim at the time of
kidnapping her. The learned counsel would submit that
accused No.1 to 5 came in a car i.e. Marathi van and kidnapped
P.W.2 and when P.W.2 refused to marry accused No.1, she was
sent back. P.W.4 is the father of P.W.2, who lodged the
complaint and only on information, the case was registered at
the instance of P.W.4. The learned counsel would submit that
P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8 are the circumstantial witnesses.
P.W.7 is the driver of the Omni car. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the
witnesses to the seizure of the vehicle and both of them have
turned hostile. P.W.11 is the spot mahazar witness and he also
turned hostile. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. The evidence
of the prosecution witnesses has not been properly appreciated
by the Trial Court and comes to an erroneous conclusion that
the prosecution failed to prove the case. The conclusion of the
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
Trial Court with regard to the facts is palpably wrong and there
was an erroneous approach and the same led to miscarriage of
justice. The entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with
the evidence was patently illegal. The Trial Court has ignored
the oral and documentary evidence available on record and
comes to an erroneous conclusion that there are material
contradictions and also the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the
interested witnesses, who are the friends of P.W.2. The Trial
Court has failed to analyze and appreciate the evidence of
P.W.2, who is the victim in the above case who has clearly
narrated the overt-acts of all the accused persons who have
actually participated in the crime. The Trial Judge failed to
appreciate the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and
P.W.8 in its proper perspective and so also the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were present at the time of kidnapping of
P.W.2. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Judge
has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons and
hence, it requires interference of this Court. The learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.3 particularly and contend that their evidence is
consistent not only in respect of the incident of kidnap, but also
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
place of incident. But the Trial Court comes to an erroneous
conclusion that the place of incident itself is doubtful and the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses not inspires the
confidence of the Court, which led to miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
would vehemently contend that there was a dispute between
the family of accused No.1 and also the victim and the same is
suggested to P.W.2 while cross examining the same. Though
nothing is illustrated but the fact is that there was a dispute
between the family of victim as well as the accused No. 1 and
hence, respondent No.3 is implicated in the case. The Trial
Judge also having taken note of the material contradictions in
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also considering the
material on record comes to the conclusion that the very
incident is doubtful and even the statement of the witnesses –
P.W.1 to P.W.3 is contrary to the case of prosecution and the
statements are recorded on 24.06.2011. But the material
discloses that they had given the statement on the very day
before the Investigating Officer and all these contradictions
were taken note of by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
persons extending the benefit of doubt and hence, it does not
require any interference. In spite of this Court extending an
opportunity, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 5 did not choose to make any submission.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
State as well as the grounds urged in the appeal so also the
submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court
are:
[i] Whether the Trial Court has committed
an error in acquitting the accused
persons disbelieving the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and[ii] Whether it requires interference of this
Court to reverse the same.
[iii] What order?
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
and also considering the material on record, no doubt,
prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12. It is
the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 was kidnapped in the
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
Maruthi Omni van when P.W.1 and P.W.3 were present at the
time of the kidnapping. Hence, relies upon the evidence of PW1
and PW3, who are the friends of P.W.2 – victim. It is also
important to note that accused persons forcibly kidnapped
P.W.2 and when she refused to marry accused No.1, she
returned back to her house on the very same day. It is
pertinent to note that P.W.4, who is the father of the victim on
the information received from P.W.1 and P.W.3, registered the
case with the police.
8. The Trial Judge having considered the material
available on record in answering the point No.1 has taken note
of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 has stated in her
evidence that when they were proceeding near the land of one
Mr. Kempehonmaya, Maruthi Omni van came in front of them
and stopped and that Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Chamanna
kidnapped P.W.2 in the said vehicle and the other accused were
sitting in the vehicle. But P.W.2 deposes that when they were
proceeding near Nanjundaiah’s land, a vehicle came and
stopped and Mr. Lakshmana and Mr. Hanumantharayappa tried
to grab P.W.2 and when P.W.2 tried to escape, they kidnapped
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
her in a Maruthi Omni van. There are discrepancies in the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 has also deposed her
evidence in a line of evidence of P.W.2 but she deposes the
place of incident as near the land of Mr. Mariappa and Mr.
Nanjundaiah. There are material contradictions with regard to
kidnapping the victim and their evidence is contrary to each
other. Even with regard to the panchnama is concerned, the
alleged incident has taken place, but P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not
depose when they came near Kempasagara and P.W.2 was
kidnapped. If really P.W.2 was kidnapped on the alleged place,
P.W.1 to P.W.3 would have stated the same version in their
evidence.
9. With regard to the place of incident is concerned,
each one of P.W.1 to P.W.3 have given different statements.
Apart from that, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she has
given the statement before the police on 23.06.2011 itself and
the said statement was recorded between 12.00 p.m and 01.00
p.m. but on perusal of the records, P.W.1 did not make any
statement before the police on the very same day but actually,
her statement was recorded on 24.06.2011. P.W.12, the
Investigating Officer also categorically gives an evidence that
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
statement was recorded on the next day i.e. on 24.06.2011
and even P.W.1 also states that she has not given the
statement as per Exhibit D.1 on 23.06.2011. P.W.2 states that
she and her friends Ms. Lakshmidevi and Ms. Vanitha were
moving towards college from their house at 08.30 a.m. If P.W.1
and P.W.3 were accompanying P.W.2 at the time of her
kidnapping by the accused, definitely they would have known
who are the witnesses in this case. P.W.3 has stated that her
statement was recorded on the very same day i.e. on
23.06.2011 at 11 a.m. but statements are given on the very
next day and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are contrary to
each other and even the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 has
taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of
P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.12 and 19, wherein categorically
admitted the place of incident is the only road to go to Kunigal
and several people would move in that road.
10. The Trial Court, after taking note of all the factors
comes to the conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses
are contrary to each other and even while recording the
statement of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
as P.W.12, he categorically states that he did not verify the
attendance register in the college of P.W.1 to P.W.3 on whether
they attended the college on 23.06.2011 or not. Since the very
recording of the statement of these witnesses is contrary to
each other, the very kidnap is doubtful since P.W.2 says that
she was kidnapped by Mr. Lakshmana and
Mr. Hanumantharayappa but P.W.1 says that Mr. Lakshmana
and Mr. Chamanna kidnapped P.W.2. P.W.7 admitted in his
evidence that the circumstantial witnesses cannot state that
who have kidnapped the victim – P.W.2. If really accused
kidnapped P.W.2, P.W.7 would have known the person who
grabbed P.W.2 and who were sitting by the vehicle. Hence,
even considering the evidence of circumstantial witnesses i.e.
P.W.7, his evidence cannot be proved. P.W.5 also identified the
accused No.3 but he says that accused No.3 approached him to
get a car to go to the temple and he took the vehicle belonged
to P.W.5 stating that he would pay Rs.6 per kilometer but in
the cross examination, this witness says that he is not working
as an agent and also he cannot tell on what date accused No. 3
had approached him so also he came to know through the
police that car belonged to P.W.5 was used to kidnap and also
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
he cannot tell on what date he went to the police station and
gave the statement.
11. The Trial Court, having taken note of overall
documentary evidence available on record has come to the
conclusion that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1
to P.W.3 having witnessed the incident of kidnapping and also
the evidence of P.W.2 which does not inspire the confidence of
the Court even with regard to the place of incident. P.W.1 to
P.W.3 gives the description of different land owners and also
the evidence of P.W.12 is contrary with regard to the recording
of statement of P.W.4. P.W.4, who is the father of the victim is
only a hearsay witness. The records reveals that P.W.2 was not
married forcibly by accused No. 1 and also it discloses that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses that when she refused to
marry accused No.1, accused No. 1 himself left P.W.2 to her
house.
12. Having taken note of all the factors into
consideration, it is not a case to reverse the finding of the Trial
Court and Trial Court having taken note of material
discrepancies and also the contradictions in the evidence of
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18077
CRL.A No. 563 of 2015
HC-KAR
P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses, only circumstantial
witnesses and their evidence does not support the case of the
cross-examination and hence, the Trial Court has rightly
extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons.
13. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the
finding of the Trial Court and while reversing the finding of the
Trial Court also, the Appellate Court must come to the
conclusion that there is a consistent evidence of prosecution
witnesses and the present evidence available before the Court
is sufficient to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and unless
and otherwise question of reversing the judgment does not
arise in the absence of cogent evidence.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RB