- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200157 OF 2017 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANMANTH S/O SHANKAR GAMPALE, NOW AGED:37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. WASAR, TQ. NARAYANKHED, DIST. MEDAK (AP)-502286. …APPELLANT (BY SRI ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH CHINTAKI POLICE STATION, TQ. AURAD(B) DIST. BIDAR, BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. 2. CHANNAPPA S/O LAXMAN, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. WASAR, TQ. NARAYANKHED, DIST. MEDAK (TELANGANA)-502286. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1 V/O DTD. 5.9.24 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.09.2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED: 09.10.2017 OF SPECIAL JUDGE AND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.38/2014 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT HEREIN FOR THE CHARGES FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant who is arraigned as accused in Crime No.12/2013, registered by the Chintaki Police Station, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 366(A) of IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO, Act and seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2017 and order on sentence dated 09.10.2017 passed in Spl. Case No.38/2014 by the Spl. Judge and Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and the victim are the residents of Wasar Village, Narayankhed Taluk, Medak District, Andra Pradesh. The victim girl had studied up to 7th standard and her parents come to Chintaki. On 12.02.2013 at about 9.00 am, the parents of the victim had been to work as usual, leaving the victim at home. They returned home at 5.00 pm., and they noticed that the victim was not found in the house. They started searching her. However, they did not find her. In the meantime, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 complainant was told that one person who is aged about 30 years had taken the victim on the pretext that her grand parents were hospitalized and she was told to accompanying him to the hospital as her parents were also present in the hospital. On receiving the said information, a complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences stated supra. 3. In support of the case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P12 and also marked one material object as M.O.1. 4. Heard Sri. Anil Kumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for respondent-State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and against to the facts. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 6. It is submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly of the witnesses viz., P.Ws.2, 4 and 15. It is further stated that the above mentioned witnesses are the interested witnesses and their evidence ought not to have been considered for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion. Since, the Trial Court has committed grave error in appreciating the evidence, resulting in passing the impugned judgments. Therefore, the same has to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently justified the judgment of the Trial Court and he further submitted that P.W.1 being a victim girl has supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the parents of the victim have also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 who accompanied the complainant in the jeep which was driven by P.W.7 to trace the victim and accused at Hydrabad and has supported the case of the prosecution that both the victim and the accused are traced at Hydrabad. 8. It is further submitted that P.W.15-Bheemaiah who is the neighbour of the complainant has stated that accused had taken the victim on the motor cycle and he has seen that both the accused and the victim went on the motor cycle. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 9. It is further submitted that P.W.16 being a sister of the complainant admitted that the victim and the accused had been to her house and stayed there. Later, the accused ran away from the spot after seeing P.W.2 and others who came in the jeep to trace them. On over all reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the accused is found guilty of the offence as stated supra. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interference with the said findings. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also findings of the Trial Court, it is appropriate to reassess all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the said appreciation is proper or not. 11. P.W.1 being a victim has deposed in her evidence that she studied upto 8th standard. Thereafter, she left the school since four years ago. She was staying along with her parents near Crusher Machine. She further deposed that she does not know about the accused and she did not go anywhere along with him. She has cross-examined by the prosecution, after treating her as hostile, nothing has been elicited to support the case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 12. P.W.2 being a complainant, P.W.3 being a brother of P.W.2 and P.W.4 being a mother of the victim, have supported the case of the prosecution. 13. All these witnesses being interested witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that the accused had kidnapped the victim and took her to Hydrabad to the house of P.W.16. There, the victim has been rescued. However, the victim herself has turned hostile and not supported the case. When the victim herself turned hostile, evidence of all the witnesses in respect of alleged kidnap and other offences cannot be sustained. However, the Trial Court based on the evidence of the related witnesses, opined that the accused had kidnapped the victim and confined her in the house of P.W.16 and also he was forcing her for marriage, which appears to be erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 14. In the light of the observation made above, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has committed error in acting upon the evidence of interested witnesses and recorded the conviction. Therefore, I inclined to interfere with the said findings and set aside the judgment of conviction. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1657 CRL.A No. 200157 of 2017 15. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2017 and order on sentence dated 09.10.2017 passed in Special Case No.38/2014 by the learned Spl. Judge and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar is set aside. iii) The appellant / accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 366(A) of IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO, Act. iv) The bail bond, executed if any, shall stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT:PK