- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8567 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O LATE B.S. VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.163, 4TH CROSS BABUSABPALYA, BANASAWADI BANGALORE – 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJANAKUNTE P.S. REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. N. ANANDA @ ANANDAKUMAR S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE 952 RAJANUKUNTE P.S. BENGALURU – 560 064 R/O BACHAREDDYHALLI “D” PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK C/O SURESH BABU, V V PURAM GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA.R, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.41/2013. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the victim is directed against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.41/2013 by II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, being part of deposition of PW19 dated 06.07.2024 whereby the Trial Court refused to admit the oral and documentary evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 is arraigned as an accused in Spl.C.No.41/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 307 and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the said proceedings, prosecution examined several witnesses including one B.V.Srinivas as PW19, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 who is said to be the Mahazar witness. During the course of evidence of PW19, prosecution sought to adduce oral and documentary evidence in relation to the alleged bad character of respondent No.2 – accused, which was opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 – accused on the ground that the same was inadmissible under Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 – accused was upheld / sustained by the Trial Court, which proceeded to reject the request of the prosecution for permission to adduce the said evidence. Though, the prosecution did not deem it fit to challenge / assail the said impugned order dated 06.07.2024 refusing to permit the prosecution to adduce the aforesaid evidence, the petitioner, who claims to be the victim – wife of the deceased and examined and cited as CW4 has preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another – (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1 in order to point out / contend that the Trial Court ought to have permitted the party to adduce all oral and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 documentary evidence and except in case of objection regarding stamp duty, all other objections would necessarily have to be dealt with and decided at the time of final disposal of the case and not at the stage when objections are raised. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the prosecution to adduce oral and documentary evidence by noting objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 – accused and postponed adjudication of the same including all issues / questions regarding admissibility, proof, relevance, probative value, etc., to be decided at the time of final disposal of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the admissibility of the proposed evidence has to be considered not only with reference to Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, but also with reference to the Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mangal Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Bharat – AIR 1957 SC 199. It is therefore contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would invite my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court subsequently, in the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others – (2021) 10 SCC 598 in order to point out that subsequent three Bench Judgment of Apex Court had categorically held that earlier judgment in Bipin’s case should not be treated as binding precedent and it is for the Trial Court to decide all objections raised regarding probative including admissibility, proof, relevance, etc., at the time when the evidence is sought to be adduced and not postpone the same to a subsequent point in time so as to de-clutter the records, which otherwise would be-cluttered with the inadmissible evidence. It is submitted that the said judgment was followed by the Kerala High Court in Sundaran Vs. State of Kerala and another – Crl.MC No.3922/2023 so as to bar the prosecution to adduce oral and documentary evidence as regards the bad character of respondent No.2 – accused and that the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 7. A perusal of the material on record and rival submissions would indicate that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to consider the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 bearing in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments and by applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. However, a perusal of the impugned order would clearly indicate that the same is cryptic, laconic, unreasoned order without assigning any valid or cogent reasons as to why the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 was being upheld or sustained by the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to both sides to put-forth their respective contentions and to enable the Trial Court to pass a speaking / detailed order, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19822 CRL.P No. 8567 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.41/2013 by II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11