Karnataka High Court
Sri Murali @ Muralidhar vs State By Amruthahalli on 4 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7005
CRL.A No. 520 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2015
IN CRL.A No. 520/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI MURALI @ MURALIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O DEVARAJ
R/AT 5TH CROSS,
LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE-570021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N STATE BY AMRUTHAHALLI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-570095.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:15.4.2015, PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.348/2013-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 364 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7005
CRL.A No. 520 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 574/2015
BETWEEN:
JAYARAMU @ VELU
S/O BALARAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO. 32, 18TH MAIN ROAD,
J C NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATHISH E.P., ADV. - ABSENT)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:15.4.2015, PASSED BY THE LIX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN
S.C.NO.348/2013 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7005
CRL.A No. 520 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April 2015, passed in SC No.348 of 2013 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court"). Accused No.3-Murali has preferred Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2015 and accused No.1-Jayaramu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, the Sub- Inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station filed charge-sheet against Accused 1 to 3 alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15th September, 2012 at about 9.00 pm, Accused 1 to 3 came in an Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-02/AB-5258 and kidnapped PW4 with an intention to commit her murder. When the said autorickshaw was proceeding near AK colony, Sampige Halli, PW4 started shouting for help and neighbours came and -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR rescued her. Accused No.3 fled the place in the said Autorickshaw and thereby accused have committed offences punishable under Section 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian penal code.
4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.24071 of 2012 and committed to the court of Sessions which came to be registered as SC No.348 of 2013. Accused were enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, charges were framed for the offence under Sections 363, 364 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same were read over and explain to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got 10 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial court acquitted accused 1 and 3 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the accused no.2 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has sentenced the accused 1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, Accused 1 and 3 have preferred these appeals.
6. Learned Counsel Sri B.R. Vishwanath, appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2015, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave error in accepting and acting upon the evidence of PWs1 to 9. It is submitted that none of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, categorically stated that the appellants are involved in the alleged kidnapping of complainant. The learned judge has failed to appreciate the fact that PW4-Anushree, the complainant had already filed a complaint against her husband -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR i.e., accused No.1 under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and there was a misunderstanding and ill-will between the complainant and accused No.1, who is none other than her husband. The accused No.1 is not at all known to appellant herein. The appellant is only an auto driver and he has no necessity or occasion to kidnap the complainant. There is no evidence to show that appellant is involved in the affairs of the complainant and accused No.1, at any point of time. However, the trial court has convicted the accused which is not sustainable under law. He would submit that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
7. Sri E.P. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2015, would submit that that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence regarding the place of incident. He would submit that there is a contradictory version, no witnesses would speak about the specific place of the incident. But the trial court was has not at all discussed on this point. He would submit that the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR complainant-Anushree has filed false cases against the appellant, but she herself has not come before the court and all the matters were disposed against her complaint. According to the story narrated by the prosecution, complainant was rescued from the neighbours. But the Investigating Officer has failed to examine the neighbours and no reason is furnished in this regard. According to the complainant, she has launched the complaint at between 11.00 and 11.30 pm but in the FIR registered, the time is shown as 10:30 pm. He would submit that in the wound certificate, it is mentioned that the injuries were in simple in nature, but the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
8. As against this, Sri B Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would support the judgment of conviction and order on sentence and submits that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and facts. He further submits that the there is no ground to interfere with the same in these appeals and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeals. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration:
"Whether The trial Court is justified in convicting the Accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code?"
10. I have examined the material placed before this court. On the basis of complaint filed by Anushree, wife of accused No.1, Amruthahalli Police registered case in Crime No.578 of 2012 against Jayaram, Saravana and Murali for offence punishable under sections 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under aforesaid sections. The trial court has framed charges for offence punishable under Section 364 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has not framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, trial Court has convicted accused No.2 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has also acquitted accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with section 34 of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR Indian Penal Code, though no charges were framed against accused 1 and 3 for the aforestated offences.
11. The Genesis of the case arise out of the complaint filed by Anushree-PW4 as per Exhibit P6. In the complaint, it is stated as under:
" ಷಯ: ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ಜಯ ಾA ರವರ ರುದ ದೂರು;
ಾನು ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ಾಸ ಾ ದು! FUÉ15 ವಷ"ದ
#ಂ$ೆ &'ೕ() ಮದು ೆ+ಾ $ೆ!. ನನ-ೆ ಇಬ0ರು ಮಕ 2ರು3ಾ4 ೆ . ಮದು ೆ ಆ$ಾ 6ಂದ ನನ-ೆ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಒಂದಲ ಒಂದು 8ೕ(9ಂದ :ರುಕುಳ 6ೕಡು3ಾ4 ಬಂ<ದು! ಈ =ಾರ ಾ ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ಗಂಡನ ರುದ ಅಮೃತಹ2B CಾDೆಯ 20-8-2012ರಂದು ದೂರನು FೊGHರು3ೆ4ೕ ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡನ ರುದ ದೂರನು $ಾಖJೆ KಾLದು! ಅ ೆMH KಾLರು3ಾ4 ೆ. ಈ =ಾರ ಾ ನನ ಗಂಡನು ಒಂದಲ ಒಂದು 8ೕ(9ಂದ ಮ ೆಯ ಹ(4ರ Nಾಗೂ ಅಂಗL ಹ(4ರ ಬಂದು ಗJಾOೆ KಾLರು3ಾ4 ೆ. ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ಇದರ ಬ-ೆP ಪRS G ನ ಪ'=ಾರ ಾ ರುತ4$ೆ. ಅದ8ಂದ ಬಹಳ Fೋಪ-ೊಂಡ ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ-ೆ Tಾ'ಣ Vೆದ8Fೆ Nಾ:ದು! ಈ <ನ < ಾಂಕ 15-9-2012 ರಂದು ಾ(' 9.00 ಯ KA02 AB 5258 AUTO TVSನ PÉgÉ gÉÆÃqï, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è ನನ ಗಂಡ ಾದ ಜಯ ಾA Nಾಗೂ ಅವರ Wೆ ೕ#ತ ಸರವಣ ಮತು4 ಆOೋ =ಾಲಕ ಮುರ2 ಈ ಮೂವರು ನನ ನು ಎ(4Fೊಂಡು ನನ Vಾ9 R +ಾ ಉ)ರು ಕಟುHವಂ3ೆ KಾL Wಾ9ಸುವ ಉ$ೆ!ೕಶ<ಂದ ಅಮು: #Lದು ಆOೋನ Nಾ:ದರು. ನನ ರುದ G ಯ ಪ'=ಾರ KಾL<!ೕ+ಾ? ನನ-ೆ ]ೈ_ೕM" Fೊಡು(4<ೕ! +ಾ? JAzÀÄ Nೇ2 ಆOೋದ ೖಸೂರು gÉÆÃqïUÉ `ಾWಾH ನ]ೆ98 ಎಂದು Nೇ2ದ. ಾನು :ರುa ಆOೋ 6 ) ಎಂದು Nೇ2$ಾಗ ಆOೋ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄ 6 ಸ$ೆ ಓL)ದ ಆಗ ಸಂ&-ೆ ಹ2Bಯ ಹ(4ರ ಜನರು ನನ :ರು=ಾಟ Fೇ2 ಆOೋ 6 ) ನನ ನು
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR ಬದು:)ದರು. ನನ ಗಂಡ ಜಯ ಾA Nಾಗೂ ¸ÀgÀªÀt ಆOೋ<ಂzÀ ¥ÀgÁjAiÀiÁ ರು3ಾ4 ೆ. ಆದ!8ಂದ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಜಯ ಾA Nಾಗೂ ಸರವಣ ಮತು4 ಮುರ2 ರುದ Fಾನೂನು ಕ'ಮ ಜರು ಸVೇFೆಂದು Fೇ2FೊಳcB3ೆ4ೕ ೆ.
#ೕ-ೆ ನನ ನು ¥ÀÄ£À: ¥ÀÄ£À: PÉÆ®è®Ä ಪ'ಯ( ಸು(4ರುವ ನನ ಗಂಡ ಜಯ ಾA 6ಂದ ನನ-ೆ ಬಹಳ Tಾ'ಣ ಭಯ $ೆ ದಯ ಟುH ಇವರ ರುದ ಕ'ಮ ಜರು ಸVೇFೆಂದು Fೋರು3ೆ4ೕ ೆ."
12. To prove the contents of Exhibit P6, Anushree is examined as PW4. She has deposed in her evidence that accused No.1-Jayaram is her husband and accused No.3 is autorickshaw driver and she did not know accused No.2 Saravana. Her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 17th December, 1997 and out of their marriage, they begot two daughters. Accused No.1 looked after her well for three years and they were residing at Jakkur and she is doing tailoring work. From 2002, her husband started demanding money from her for his bad-vices, and she used to pay him ₹300 to 500 per day. If she failed to pay the same, accused used to assault her. In this regard, she has also lodged complaint with the police. Police have arrested her husband. In order to take revenge, her husband again started to ill-treat her and threaten her life with dire consequences. This was telecasted in Public Television Channel. Hence, her husband, getting enraged with
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR the same, on 15th September 2012, at about 9:30 PM when she had closed her shop and was proceeding to her house, when she came near her house, one autorickshaw came and in that autorickshaw, her husband, Jayaramu and accused No.2 Saravana were there and accused No.3-Murali was driving the autorickshaw. Her husband Jayaram dragged her into the autorickshaw, and Saravana tied her legs, her husband tied her hands to her back and thrust a waste cloth into her mouth. Accuse No.3 drove autorickshaw towards Mysore Road as instructed by her husband. Her husband has abused her ¤Ã£ÀÄ "¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ¢ÝÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ n.«.AiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁr¹¢ÝÃAiÀÄ. CzÀPÁÌV ¤£ÀߣÀÄß fêÀ¸À»vÀ G½¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ ºÉýzÀ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£À PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄ CAvÀ CAzÀ. ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆUÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ eÉÆÃgÁV »rzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ®è®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀ." As a result, she has sustained injuries on her forehead, right thigh, her legs and also sustained abrasions on her face. While they were proceeding towards Sampige Halli, she removed the waste cloth from her mouth and started to shout and assaulted the driver of the autorickshaw. Upon hearing her scream, people came there and rescued her. The accused fled in the autorickshaw. Then she lodged the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR complaint to the police as per Exhibit P6. She has identified the autorickshaw. On the next day, Police came to the spot and conducted spot panchanama as per Exhibits P1 and P2.
13. PW2-Shekhar said to be the attester to panchanama, has not supported the case of prosecution.
14. CW3-Papanna examined as PW1, has deposed with regard to mahazar conducted as per Exhibit P1.
15. PW2-Babajan said to be attester to mahazar-Exhibit P2 and PW3-Shanthakumar set to be attester to mahazar-Exhibit P4, have not supported the case of the prosecution.
16. PW5-Shekhar has not supported the case of the prosecution.
17. CW2-Veerabhadra Gowda examined as PW6 is a hearsay witness.
18. PW7-T.C. Chandrashekar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, PW8-K. Veeranna, Police Sub-Inspector, have deposed as to their respective investigation.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR
19. PW9-Dr. Leela R.P. has deposed as to the treatment extended to injured Anushree and issuance of Exhibit-P10 wound certificate.
20. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention as to the essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. The same reads thus:
"An offence under Section 364 has following essential ingredients:
i) that the accused kidnapped or abducted any person;
ii) that such kidnapping or abduction was committed so that, a. such person may be committed; or b. be put in a danger of being murdered"
21. Exhibit-P6 is the complaint. It is stated in the complaint that on 15th September, 2012 at 9.00 pm, Accused No.1- Jayaram, Accused No.2-Saravana and Accused No.3-Murali, have kidnapped PW4-Anushree in an autorickshaw. PW4 has clearly deposed that she did not know accused No.2-Saravana. But she has stated that one Saravana who is accused No.2 tied her legs. When she has not identified accused No.2, the trial
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR Court has acquitted accused No.2 Saravana. Though, PW4- complainant does not know and is not acquainted with accused No.2 Saravana, she has lodged complaint without any basis. It is admitted by the investigating officer that he has not examined the neighbours near the place of alleged kidnap. The Investigating officer has also not examined any of the witnesses near Jakkur Tank or near Sampigehalli. Admittedly, there is a dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant. It is also admitted that prior to this, the complainant had lodged complaint against accused No.1 for the offence under 498A of Indian Penal Code and he was acquitted in that case for the said offence. PW4 has admitted in her cross- examination that she had filed divorce petition against accused No.1 in MC No.3406 of 2012 and the same came to be dismissed. Further, she has clearly admitted that she has filed maintenance petition under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act against accused No.1 and the same also came to be dismissed. The Investigating Officer has not placed any material to show that the complainant PW4 has published the harassment given by accused No.1 in Public Television Channel. PW4 has not disclosed anything as to whether divorce petition
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR filed by her was dismissed prior to the alleged incident or not. The wound certificate-Exhibit P2 given by Dr.Leela, disclose that PW4 was brought by PC No.7483 with the history of assault by her husband-Jayaram with hands at about 9.00 pm at Keregod. The injured has sustained the following injuries:
Contusion over the right for arm, 4×4 cm in size; Confusion over the right thigh measuring 2×2 cm; Confusion over the right leg anterior part measuring 2×2 cm;
Abrasion around the mouth, two in number measuring 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.
Doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in nature.
22. In the wound certificate, the Doctor has not disclosed the name of the accused. Even the PW4 has not deposed in her evidence that accused have attempted to commit her murder. The sole interested testimony of PW4 has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses. Since the sole interested testimony of PW4, who is the wife of accused No.1 has not been corroborated, it is not safe to believe the evidence of PW4, as she is having enmity with accused No.1 prior to the alleged incident. The non-examination of independent eye- witnesses by the investigating officer itself will create doubt as
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR to the alleged incident. Accordingly, the sole interested testimony of PW4, without any supporting evidence of other witness cannot be believed. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused 1 and 3 for commission of offence under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I answer point that arose for consideration in the negative.
23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeals are allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April, 2015, passed in SC No.348 of 2013 by LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is set aside;
iii) Appellants/accused 1 and 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code;
iv) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any in deposit by the accused, upon
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7005 CRL.A No. 520 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2015 HC-KAR proper identification and in accordance with law.
Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records, to the concerned court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54