- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2017 BETWEEN: P H KUNHI MOHAMMED S/O. HASSAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT CHENNANGOLLI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DIST - 571105 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GONIKOPPAL POLICE, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGLAURU 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATE 09.08.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.21/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2014 IN C.C.NO.190/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C PONNAMPET IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.190 of 2010 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014 dated 09.08.2017 by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu - Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC by Gonikoppa Police Station, Kodagu District in Crime No.51 of 2005 and was tried for the charge sheeted offences in C.C.No.190 of 2010 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet, Kodagu District. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.08.2005 at about 1.00 p.m, the petitioner had kidnapped the minor daughter of CW1/PW1 and took her to Bengaluru. Based on the first - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 information lodged by CW1, father of the victim girl/CW2, Gonikoppa Police had registered FIR in Crime No.51 of 2005 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. During the course of investigation, petitioner and the victim girl were traced together in Bengaluru and brought back to their village at Gonikoppa. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The petitioner who appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in C.C.No.190 of 2010 had claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate its allegation against the petitioner had examined thirteen charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW13 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Two material objects produced and were marked as MO.1 and MO.2. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of ₹.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The said judgment and order of conviction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.190 of 2010 has been confirmed by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2017. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that prosecution has failed to prove that the victim girl was a minor as on the alleged date of incident. He submits that material charge sheet witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence. He submits that petitioner is a married man having family and therefore the Courts below are not justified in sentencing him to undergo imprisonment. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that concurrent findings have been recorded against the petitioner, based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record. He submits that age of the victim - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 girl has been proved by the prosecution by producing Ex.P10- Admission Register Extract. PW.9 - Headmaster of the school in which the victim girl was admitted has stated that entry in the admission register was based on the information given by the parents of the victim. PW1, who is the father of the victim girl has stated that based on the birth certificate of the victim he had given necessary information at the time of admitting his daughter in the school. He submit that victim girl has made allegations against the petitioner that she was kidnapped and confined at Bengaluru. The Courts below having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the charge sheeted offence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Section 363 of IPC provides for punishment for kidnapping. Kidnapping is defined under Section 359 of IPC and perusal of the said provision of law would make it very clear that kidnapping is of two kinds, a) kidnapping from India. b) kidnapping from the lawful guardianship. 7. In the present case allegation against the petitioner is that he had kidnapped the victim girl, who was a minor from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 the lawful guardianship of her parents. To prove the charge sheet allegations against the petitioner, the prosecution has in all examined 13 charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and also got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. PW1 is the father of victim girl / CW2. During the course of his deposition, he has stated that in the month of July-August-2005, when he returned home, he found that his minor daughter was not inside the house. On verification, he came to know that she had accompanied the petitioner, who was their neighbour. Immediately thereafter he had gone to the police station and filed a complaint, based on which, FIR was registered against petitioner. He has stated that petitioner and the victim girl were traced together at Bengaluru and subsequently they were brought back to their village. He has also spoken about the mahazar that was drawn inside his house. 8. PW2 is the victim girl, who has stated during the course of her deposition that, petitioner was her neighbour and she was conversant with him. She has also stated that petitioner had induced her to accompany him to Bengaluru and he had assured her that he will make arrangement to secure a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 job for her in Bengaluru. Accordingly, on 10.08.2005 she had accompanied the petitioner to Bengaluru and had stayed in the house of one Sardar, who is the friend of the petitioner for a period of 3 days. She has stated that she was aged about 16 years as on the alleged date of incident. This witness has also stated that petitioner had not allowed her to contact her parents and he did not allow her to make any phone calls. She has stated that when she was in house of the Sardar in Bengaluru, Gonikoppa Police came to the house in which she was staying with petitioner and after enquiry she was brought back to Gonikoppa. 9. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is very clear that victim girl was induced by the petitioner to accompany him to Bengaluru. Undisputedly, parents of the victim girl had no knowledge of the victim girl accompanying the petitioner on the alleged date of incident and only after it was found that the victim girl was missing, on verification they came to know that she had accompanied the petitioner and thereafter, a FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.51 of 2005 by Gonikoppa Police. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution has failed to prove that victim girl was a minor as on the alleged date of incident. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Ex.P11, which is the age certificate issued by the Senior Doctor, Govt. Hospital, Virajpet, the age of the victim was between 17 to 18 years as on 17.08.2005. Ex.P11 appears to have been issued by Dr.Shivaram-PW.11, based on the X-ray report of the victim girl. 11. The prosecution to prove the age of the victim girl has placed reliance on the School Admission Register Extract at Ex.P10. As per Ex.P10, the date of birth of CW2 is 01.06.1989. The alleged date of incident had taken place on 10.08.2005. Therefore, as on the said date, victim girl was aged about 16 years. 12. PW9 - Muddappa was the Headmaster of the High school, in which the victim girl was admitted. Ex.P10 was got marked by the prosecution through this witness. This witness has stated that based on the transfer certificate of the students, entries were made in the admission register. He has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 also stated that victim girl was studying in 8th standard in their institution during the Academic Year 2002 - 2003. From the evidence of PW9, it is apparent that prior to she being admitted in the High School, she had completed her primary school in some other institution and based on the entries found in the transfer certificate of the student, the entries were made in the admission register of the High School. 13. PW1, who is the father of the victim girl, during the course of his cross-examination has stated that, victim girl was admitted to the school in year 1993 and at the time of admission of the victim girl in the school, he had furnished her birth certificate issued by Mananthavady Panchayath. Therefore, it is apparent that based on the birth certificate furnished by PW1, the date of birth of the victim girl was entered in the primary school in which she was admitted in year 1993. This witness also has stated that his daughter had studied only up to 8th standard and thereafter she was staying at home. 14. The Courts below having appreciated the oral evidence of PW1, PW9 and also the documentary evidence at - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 Ex.P10 have recorded the finding that the prosecution had successfully proved that the victim girl was a minor as on the alleged date of incident. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said finding recorded by the Courts below. Since the victim girl was a minor as on the alleged date of incident, her consent to accompany the petitioner is of no consequence. 15. During the course of cross-examination of PW2, certain suggestions were made to her which would indicate that she was staying at Bengaluru in the house of Sardar along with the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had kidnapped the victim girl from her house without the knowledge or consent of her parents and therefore he had committed the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC is punishable up to seven years of imprisonment. 16. The Trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available and also considering the fact that petitioner was a married man, has sentenced him to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4529 CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2017 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. In my considered opinion, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is also just and proportionate, which does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this revision petition. 17. Accordingly, Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS