- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2022 BETWEEN: BASAVARAJU @ KRITHITTU S/O LATE SHAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKABUVALLI VILLAGE T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE - 560 036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY T NARASIPURA POLICE MYSORE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.163/2012 DATED 06.04.2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT T.NARASIPURA AND IN CRL.A.NO.117/2021 DATED 18.07.2022 Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIOINS JUDGE AT MYSORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government. Pleader. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian penal Code in CC No.163/2012 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Tirumakoodalu Narasipura, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.117/2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mysore is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition as under : - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by PW1, - Nanjundaiah on 24.02.2012 alleging that on 22.02.2012 at about 08.30 a.m. daughter of the complainant studying in 9th Standard aged about 15 years was kidnapped in the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-11-A-3396. Auto rickshaw was driven by the present petitioner. Later on the accused and victim girl were traced and police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.2 Learned Trial Magistrate after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the material evidence on record collected by the Investigation Agency, charge sheet came to be filed only for Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 3.3 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, sixteen witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW16 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 fifteen documentary evidence on record were relied upon which were marked as Exhibits P1 to 15 besides marked mobile as MO.1. 4. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances. 5. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and noted that victim girl was aged 15 years as on the date of incident and she was found in the company of the accused when the police apprehended her which would be sufficient enough to conclude the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC inasmuch as lawful custody of the victim girl was with her parents and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two and half years and to pay fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.117/2021. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 18.07.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated that it is the case of love affair and victim girl voluntarily eloped with the accused. Therefore, there was no ingredient to attract the offence under Section 363 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 10. Alternately, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period of three months already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC by enhancing the fine amount reasonably as the accused and victim girl have married separately. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. He would further contend that no leniency can be shown to the accused as it would send a wrong message to the society and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that victim girl was aged about 15 years as on the date of incident. She has specifically deposed before the Court about the incident that has occurred with graphic details. In a matter of this nature, oral testimony of the victim girl if not shaky which would inspire confidence in the Court, would be sufficient to record the guilt of the accused. 15. In the case on hand, though there are suggestion as to the effect that there was a love affair between victim girl and accused, same is categorically denied by the victim girl in her cross-examination. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and the very fact of taking away the lawful custody of the victim girl from her parents is established, all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 363 of IPC stood proved. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 17. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court on the factual aspects of the matter needs no interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 18. Having said so, the alternate submission made on behalf of the accused needs consideration inasmuch as the accused has already spent three months in the judicial custody during the time of investigation. 19. Taking note of the fact that accused is now married and having a separate family to maintain; so also the victim girl is married to some other person and they are leading a happy married life, no useful purpose would be served by directing the accused to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, as the incident has occurred when accused and the victim girl was in young age. 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, if the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 under Section 363 of IPC by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- which can be paid as compensation to the victim girl in addition to sum of Rs.8,000/- already ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., would meet the ends of justice. 21. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, custody period of three months is treated as period of imprisonment by setting aside the remaining portion of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17912 CRL.RP No. 1137 of 2022 Rs.50,000/- payable by the accused on or before 30.04.2026. iii. After receipt of the enhanced fine amount, same shall be paid as compensation to the victim girl under due identification. iv. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount by the revision petitioner on or before 30.04.2026, revision petitioner shall undergo remaining period of sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC from paragraph Nos.1 to 3.3, KAV from paragraph Nos.4 to end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33