- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100263 OF 2017 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100292 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100263/2017 BETWEEN: LIYAKAYTHALI S/O ABDULVAHABSAB TUMMINAKATTI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS OF PLASTIC MATERIALS, R/O: NAGAVANDA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI, (NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL JAIL) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K M SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BYY RANEBENNUR P.S., R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO. 59 OF 2013 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI SITTING AT RANNEBENNUR, UNDER SECTION 363, 365, 366-A AND 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT HIM, FOR THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100292/2017: BETWEEN: SHERU @ SHER KHAN NURULLAKHAN HARIHAR AGE:21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR 4TH CROSS, NEAR BY AMANULLA KIRANI SHOP RANEBENNUR, AT PRESENT YALIVAL, TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA DEVAREDIYYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO. 59 OF 2013 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 365, 366-A, 506 READ WITH SEC. 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT HIM FOR THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri K.M.Shiralli and Sri Vijay M. Malali, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.100263/2017 and accused No.1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.100292/2017, challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in S.C No.59/2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur. 3. The operative portion of the sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge reads as under: Sl. No. S.C.No.59/2013 Offence punishable under Section Imprisonment Fine 1 363 r/w 34 of IPC Simple imprisonment for four years each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year each. Rs.10,000/- each 2 366 r/w 34 of IPC Simple imprisonment Rs.10,000/- each - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 for five years each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year each. 3 506 r/w 34 of IPC Simple imprisonment for one year each, in default, simple imprisonment for two months each. Rs.2,000/- each 4. Being aggrieved by the same, both the accused persons have preferred these appeals challenging the very conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants opposed the impugned judgment on the ground that victim girl voluntarily eloped with the accused No.1. Accused No.2 had only lent the helping hand for them by providing his motorcycle. 6. Alternatively, it is contented that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period already undergone by the accused No.1 for a period of two and a half years, and post conviction of 40 days custody undergone by accused No.2 be treated as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there is no material on record to establish that it is the victim girl who voluntarily eloped with the accused No.1. 8. On the contrary, in the examination-in-chief itself, victim girl has specifically deposed that on 13.08.2011 when she was returning from Cholamurudeshwara temple, near the KEB grid on Halageri Road, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle. It is further deposed that accused No.1 forcibly took her on the motorcycle belonging to accused No.2. Accused No.2 also sat behind the victim girl where by all the three went on the motorcycle. When she tried to escape from the clutches of accused Nos.1 and 2, both of them gave threat to her that if she tries to escape she would be pushed from the motorcycle. Therefore, the conviction is just and proper. 9. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that admittedly the victim girl was minor and kidnapping her from the custody of her parents and keeping her in the relative's house of the second accused for two days and then taking the victim girl to Goa by the first accused, would complete all the ingredients of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, no lenience can be shown to the accused persons. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record, following points would arise for consideration. (i) Whether the prosecution successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian penal Code? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive and needs modification? (iv) What Order? 11. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) and (ii): In the case on hand, victim girl is examined as PW-4. Admittedly, she was a minor as on the date of the incident. She was married to her maternal uncle. She was staying in her parental house. Accused No.1 used to pester the victim girl for love affair right from the time when the victim girl was in 10th Standard by sending messages to her mobile telephone. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 12. However, when the victim girl had been to Cholamurudeshwara Temple on 13.08.2011, near KEB grid on Halageri Road, when she alone was returning to her house by walk, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle and forcibly took her on the motorcycle belonging to accused No.2. 13. When the victim girl tried to escape from the clutches of the accused persons, both of them threatened her that she would be pushed out of the motorbike. 14. Thereafter, she was taken to Yelivala Village of Hirekarur Taluk, wherein victim girl was kept for two days in the relative’s house of accused No.2. 15. Thereafter, victim girl was eloped by accused No. 1 to Goa. Missing complaint was lodged by the parents of the victim girl. Thereafter, accused persons again brought the victim girl to Yelivala village. From there, victim girl escaped from the clutches of the accused and came to her house and narrated the incident to her parents. Later, on 18.08.2011, complaint was lodged. Victim girl has identified the motorcycle on which she was kidnapped by the accused persons. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 16. In the cross-examination however, victim girl has stated that Lakshmi is her close friend. She has also answered that Cholamurudeshwara temple is situated at a distance of about 1 km from B.A.J.S.S College. She admits that it is on a small hillock near the outskirts of Ranebennur. She denied that she alone out of her volition accompanied the accused No.1 on the motorcycle of the accused No.2. She denied that she did not seek the help of the others when the motorcycle passed through Rattihalli. She denied that accused Nos.1 and 2 are innocent. She also denied that accused No.2 was not present at the time of the incident. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and motorcycle on which the victim girl was abducted did belong to accused No.2 and the house in which the victim girl was housed is the relative’s house of accused No.2, all the ingredients required to attract the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code stood established. 18. Sufficient explanation has been given by the victim girl in her evidence itself as to all her attempts to escape from the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 clutches of the accused have failed because of the life threat given by the accused Nos.1 and 2. 19. It is pertinent to note that three people have travelled on a motorcycle from KEB electric grid situated near Cholamurudeshwara temple on Halageri road till upto Yelivala Village in Hirekerur Taluk passing through Rattihalli which is about 30 to 35 kms. 20. All these factors would make it clear that the victim girl was kidnapped by accused No.1. Accused No.2 gave a helping hand not only in terms of providing his motorcycle, but also accompanying accused No.1 and the victim girl on the very same motorcycle and also providing the shelter in his relative's house at Yelivala Village. 21. Therefore, conviction of the accused persons for the aforesaid offences recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based on sound and logical reasons. 22. Other material evidence placed on record are corroborative in nature. Therefore, point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative and point No.(ii) in the negative. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 23. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Since the incident has taken place in the year 2011 and much water has flown under bridge, accused Nos.1 and 2 are also now married and settled in life, custody period of two and a half years undergone by accused No.1 and 40 days custody period undergone by the accused No.2 post conviction, if treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offences by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each payable on or before 28.02.2026 would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 24. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this Corut on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the proved offences is treated as period of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1141 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 100292 of 2017 imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each payable on or before 28th February 2026. (iii) Failure to pay the fine amount, the order of sentence stands restored automatically. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 24