- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100088 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: NINGAPPA S/O. SADEPPA HAMPANNAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. BARBER R/O. KADARAVALLI, BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHARSHAN PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KITTUR POLICE STATION KITTUR CIRLCE, BAILHONGAL, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVARADDIYAVAR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE RECORDED BY THE V- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, C/C OF VIII-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN S.C.NO.383/2012 DATED 15.03.2014 THEREBY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366 OF IPC AND SENTENCED HIM TO UNDERGO SI FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE RS.10,000/- ID TO PAY THE FINE SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO SI FOR 6 MONTHS, BY GIVING BENEFIT OF SET OFF U/S 428 OF CR.P.C. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Darshan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and the Sri.Praveena Y Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent3State. 2. The appellant is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 8the IPC9) in S.C. No.383/2012 and has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 344 and 376 read with Section 109 of the IPC. 3. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under: PW.1, a minor girl, was allegedly eloped by the accused on the pretext that he would marry her. PW.1, after informing the inmates of her house that she would be visiting the college to ascertain her results, came out of the house as per the pre-plan hatched by the accused. After checking the results at the college, she accompanied the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 accused, who eloped with her in a government vehicle, took her to different places, and had her physical company. 4. After lodging of the complaint, the police traced the accused and the victim girl, recorded further statements, and registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. After completion of a thorough investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for the said offences. 6. The accused did not plead guilty and, therefore, the trial was held. 7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, twenty witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.20, and twenty-nine (29) documents were produced and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.29. 8. The prosecution also placed on record fifteen material objects comprising the clothes worn by the victim girl, the clothes worn by the accused, and samples collected during the medical examination of the victim girl. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 9. Upon conclusion of recording of evidence, the learned Trial Judge, on proper appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the accused of the remaining offences and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, holding that the custody of the minor girl was taken away from her parents by the accused. 10. The learned Trial Judge thereafter imposed the sentence for the proved offence, which reads as follows: <ORDER Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., of the offences punishable under Section 344, 376 R/w.109 of of IPC. Accused No.1 is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., of the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. Call on for hearing on sentence. ORDERS ON SENTENCE The Learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused person has committed very grave and serious offence and prayed to impose sentence as well as fine as provided under law. That on the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused submits that accused is younger - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 in age, poor in condition having age old parents and thereby prayed for lenient view as against the accused. Therefore, looking to the submission made by both the Counsels and facts, circumstances of the case the accused person is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/, in default to pay the fine shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The period of imprisonment already undergone if any by the accused shall be set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Office is directed to furnish the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.= 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in the present appeal on the following grounds: i. <The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts and material evidence on record and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. ii. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous and as such, he has slipped into an error and thereby reached a wrong - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 conclusion resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of the Appellants. iii. It is submitted that admittedly to prove Ex-P-11 which is Birth Certificate is marked by Pw-8, who is not having any personal knowledge regarding the entry. And admittedly prosecuting agency has also failed to produce the register which is alleged to have maintained by Pw-8. And also SSLC marks card is not produced to prove the age of PW-1. iv. It is submitted that it was duty cast on the prosecution to prove the age of the victim Pw-1. However no cogent & convincing evidence is produced to prove the age of the victim. It ought to have seen by the Court below that when the Radiology Report as per Ex-P-15 coupled with evidence of Pw-14, shows the age of victim as 18-19 years, the conviction of appellant would not sustain. v. Further interestingly Pw-14/Doctor himself admits in his cross-examination that he cannot consistently state that the victim had undergone any sexual intercourse. Further the medical evidence coupled with oral deposition of Pw-13 & 14, rules out case any case of rape. vi. Even admitting the entire case of prosecution the very deposition of the victim goes to show that she was consenting party & had accompanied the appellant without any resistance. The very thing that victim accompanied the appellant from Kittur to Hubli - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 thereafter to Bangalore & Hosakote, shows that she was very much consenting party to the alleged act. vii. When the Court below has acquitted the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 344,376, it ought not to have convicted him for offence under section 366 of IPC. viii. It is submitted that the evidence of the victim is further not corroborated with medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence and as such, the evidence of the victim was not acceptable. ix. The Appellant humbly submit that the case of the prosecution is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and in the absence of acceptable evidence, the conviction of the Appellant is unsustainable in law. x. The appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witness by the Trial Judge is not in its proper perspective and as such, the learned Judge has reached a wrong conclusion and convicted the Appellant. xi. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is even otherwise illegal, erroneous and unsustainable and as such, the same are liable to be set aside. xii. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that the evidence of Complainant/victim was not credit worthy and the same had not received corroboration from any of the independent witnesses. That being the case the learned Sessions Judge has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the Appellant/accused. xiii. That the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not in proper perspective and as such the learned Sessions Judge has reached a wrong conclusion and convicted the appellant and that has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of the appellant.= 12. Sri Darshan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, vehemently contended that there was a love affair between the appellant and PW.1, pursuant to which PW.1 voluntarily accompanied the accused. It was contended that there was no forcible removal of the minor girl from the custody of her parents and, therefore, none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 366 of the IPC are attracted. On these grounds, he sought for allowing the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW.1, wherein she has specifically stated that she refused to accompany the accused, but it was the accused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 who enticed her and thereafter eloped with her from the custody of her parents. It was further contended that PW.1 was aged 17 years on the date of the incident and, therefore, all the ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 366 of the IPC stand established. 14. It is further argued that the findings of the learned Trial Judge are just and proper and do not call for interference, and accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. In reply, Sri Darshan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that even if this Court were to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, the Court may take note of the fact that the victim has since married the accused and that the incident occurred when both were of a young age. 16. It is submitted that the incident occurred due to attraction in the young age and, therefore, the custody already undergone by the accused may be treated as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 sufficient imprisonment by suitably enhancing the fine amount. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has carefully perused the material on record. Upon such perusal, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the prosecution has successfully established the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC? ii. Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity calling for interference? iii. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive and, if so, whether it requires modification? iv. What order? 18. Regarding Point Nos. 1 and 2: In the present case, the deposition of PW.1 assumes great significance. PW.1 has categorically stated that she refused to accompany the appellant, but it was the appellant who enticed her and took her away with him. 19. Insofar as the allegations relating to physical relationship are concerned, for want of evidence, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 learned Trial Judge has acquitted the accused. The said order of acquittal has not been challenged either by the victim or by the State and has thus attained finality. 20. The learned Trial Judge has meticulously analysed the evidence on record and recorded a clear finding that the victim girl was aged 17 years and that she was enticed by the accused and removed from the custody of her parents. 21. These facts sufficiently establish the ingredients required to constitute the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. This Court finds no fault with the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. 22. Thus, even upon re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. 23. Regarding Point No. 3: The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused and the victim - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 are now married and have settled in life. It was urged that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence and that the custody already undergone by the accused may be treated as sufficient punishment by enhancing the fine amount. 24. Taking note of the fact that the accused and PW.1 were of young age at the time of the incident and that the incident appears to have occurred at the spur of the moment, this Court is of the considered opinion that modifying the sentence by enhancing the fine amount to a sum of Rs.50,000/- and treating the period of custody already undergone by the accused as the period of imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 25. Regarding Point No. 4: In view of the findings on point Nos. 1 to 3, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:385 CRL.A No. 100088 of 2014 ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, the period of custody already undergone by the accused is treated as the period of imprisonment. iii. The fine amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, payable on or before 10.02.2026. iv. In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount on or before 10.02.2026, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall stand restored automatically. v. The Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for issuance of a modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 1