- 1 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104054 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528 (BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. FAYAZ S/O. BABASAHEB KHONDUNAYAK, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SAI NAGAR, MUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TAL. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ARZOO M.MULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-560001. 2. MRS. GEETA W/O. NIRANJANAYYA HIREMATH, - 2 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. H.NO.9, BASAV NAGAR, ANCHATGERI LAYOUT, PB ROAD, BIDNAL, HUBBALLI-580028. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.MUTTGIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON DEPOSITION OF PW- 1/CW-6 DATED 27/09/2025 BY REJECTING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE DEFENCE COUNSEL IN VIDYA NAGAR PS CRIME NO.47/2024 SC NO.5066/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 341, 506 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL IN PRESENCE OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH - 3 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 passed in S.C No.5006/2024 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad Sitting at Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), wherein, the application filed to discard the evidence of P.W.1 has been rejected. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Geeta Hiremath mother of the deceased Neha lodges a complaint stating that the her daughter deceased Neha, was studying M.C.A 1st year at BVB College, Hubballi. Thereafter, she joined P.C Jobin College, Hubballi and she was studying final year M.C.A. The accused was happened to be the classmate of the deceased. It is stated that he was having affection towards the deceased and he was insisting her to marry him. It is further stated that four months back from the date of incident, the husband of - 4 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 the informant – Niranjanayya met the accused and informed him that his daughter Neha was not having any affection towards him and he has informed the accused that he should study hard by leaving all those misdeeds. However, the accused was adamant and he was not in a position to mend his ways. 3. It is further stated that the accused was insisting the deceased and was calling her over phone and also he was informing the family members of the deceased to perform the marriage of their daughter with him. It is further stated that, on 18.04.2024 at about 8.00 a.m, the brother of the deceased had dropped the deceased on his motorcycle to her college. It is further stated that, on the same day at about 4.30 p.m., the informant in her car had been to college along with the driver to bring back her daughter and she was waiting in the college campus. The deceased Neha was coming from the college from one gate and the accused came through another gate. It is seen that the accused was talking with Neha. However, after some time, he removed one knife from the bag and started assaulting the deceased Neha with the said knife - 5 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 on her neck, stomach and legs seven to eight times and ran away from the spot. 4. It is further stated that, immediately after the incident, the college staff had taken her in the car and went to the hospital. Immediately, the informant called his son, who was in college and they followed the car and went to Shushruta Hospital, where the doctors advised them to take the deceased Neha to KIMS hospital. The deceased was shifted to KIMS hospital, where she was declared as brought dead. 5. A complaint came to be registered against the accused in Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi. Based on the said complaint the respondent - Police registered a case in Crime No.47/2024 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 506 of I.P.C. During the investigation, they arrested the accused on 19.04.2024. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. 6. Heard Sri.Z.M.Hattarki and Sri.Arzoo M.Mulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Raghavendra S.Muttgikar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. - 6 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the trial of the case was held on 27.09.2025. The Trial Court had examined P.W.-1. During the course of examination-in-chief. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner had raised an objection stating that the trial has to be conducted in the presence of the accused as contemplated under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has rejected the objection on the same day. 8. It is further submitted that when the Act provides certain privileges to the accused that the trial has to be conducted in his presence, which cannot be curtailed by the Trial Court. As the trial Court has committed serious error in recording the evidence without accused being present, the order has to be set aside and evidence of PW-1 has to be discarded. 9. It is further submitted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short BNSS, 2023), provides the facility to produce the accused before the Trial Court to face the trial through video conference. However, the said Act is prospective in nature. Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, 2023, makes it clear that appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed - 7 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as in force immediately before such commencement as if this Sanhita had not come into force. Therefore, Section 273 of Cr.P.C mandates that accused must be present before the Court to face the trial. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently submitted that the order sheet would indicate that the accused was present and produced through video conference and he was watching the proceedings. The production of the accused through video conference is also considered as the presence of the accused. Therefore, Section 273 of Cr.P.C has been complied. Therefore, there is no infirmity in recording the evidence of PW-1. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order passed by the Trial Court and also the - 8 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 order sheet made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Prosecutor, who was conducting the case of the prosecution, has consented to proceed with the case when the accused was produced through video conference, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised an objection stating that the accused must be present before the Court to face the trial as contemplated under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. 12. On considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is appropriate to refer Section 273 of I.P.C, which reads thus: “273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.—Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader: [Provided that where the evidence of a woman below the age of eighteen years who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual offence, is to be recorded, the court may take appropriate measures to ensure that such woman is not confronted by the accused while at the same time ensuring the right of cross-examination of the accused.] - 9 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 Explanation.—In this section, “accused” includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code.” 13. On reading of the above said provision, it indicates that all evidence taken in the course of trial or other, proceeding shall be taken in the presence of accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. 14. The legislature has concisely enacted the said provision that the accused shall be present during the trial. In case, if, the attendance of the accused is dispensed with, the trial can be conducted in the presence of the pleader also. 15. On going through the order sheet made available in SC.No.5066/2024, wherein, it is clarified that the accused has been produced before the Trial Court through video conference. The presence of the accused through video conference can also be considered as compliance of Section 273 of Cr.P.C for the reason that no where in the said Act it is stated that accused must be present physically. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said order for the purpose of - 10 - CRL.P. No.104054 of 2025 interpretation before the appropriate forum. At this stage, the trial of the case has to be conducted on day to day basis for the purpose of securing the ends of justice by way of providing speedy trial. 17. Mere non production of accused physically before the Court to face the trial could not sufficient to hold that Section 273 of Cr.P.C has been violated. It is needless to state that alternative method of production of accused can also be recognised and it has been practicing in the State of Karnataka prior to enactment of BNSS, 2023. 18. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. This Criminal Petition stands rejected. ii. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and expedite the trial and complete it not later than six (06) months. NM Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE