Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/2588/2025 of THE STATE BY Vs SRI. SIDDA @ SIDDARAJU on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010839892025 NC: 2026:KHC:47987-DB CRL.A No. 2588 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2588 OF 2025 (377(Cr.PC) /
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2588 OF 2025 (377(Cr.PC) /
418(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY
NANJANAGUD RURAL POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAKESH RAI, HCGP)
AND:
1.
SRI. SIDDA @ SIDDARAJU
S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
ASHOKA PURAM, NANJANGUD,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001
2.
SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAKANAPURA VILLAGE,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.
3.
KUM. SHANKUNTALA
D/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAKANAPURA VILLAGE,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMARA K. G., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 377 CR.PC (FILED U/S 418 OF
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THAT
PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.10.2024
AND SENTENCE DTD 06.01.2025 PASSED IN S.C NO.146/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU THEREBY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- RESPONDENT
FOR
THE
OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE
UNDER
SECTION 114, 504, 307, 354, 326 AND 324 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND IMPOSE ADEQUATE SENTENCE TO
THE ACCUSED FOR THE CONVICTED OFFENCES.
THIS
APPEAL,
COMING
ON
FOR
HEARING
ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
1. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order passed in SC No.146/2018, by the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has released the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 on Probation of Offenders Act.
HC-KAR
2. There is a delay of 332 days in preferring the appeal. IA. No.1/2026 is preferred to condone the delay.
3. The appeal is preferred under Section 377 of CrPC seeking enhancement of the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has found accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 114, 504, 307, 354, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. After securing the report of the Probation Officer and hearing the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused and taking into consideration the circumstances under which the incident took place and also considering that there are no previous antecedents against the accused, the learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released accused Nos.1 to 3 on Probation of Good Conduct for three years, by imposing conditions. The accused were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each to the injured/CW2.
4. We have perused the affidavit filed by I/c, Deputy Director of Prosecution, Litigation-1, O/O the Director of Prosecution and Government Litigations and also the affidavit
HC-KAR
filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader, in support of the application seeking to condone the delay of 332 days in preferring the appeal.
5. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 22.10.2024 and 06.01.2025. The appeal is filed on 18.12.2025. In the affidavit filed by I/c, Deputy Director of Prosecution, Litigation-1, reasons for the delay of 88 days have been explained. In the affidavit filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader, we find absolutely no explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, for the subsequent delay that occurred in filing the appeal. There is an inordinate delay in preferring the appeal, which we are not inclined to condone, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after the order was passed by the trial Court, the respondents have executed the bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with sureties for the likesum, for keeping good behavior for three years, as directed by the trial Court. Further, compensation has also been paid to the injured. He further submitted that the parties are from the same village.
HC-KAR
They are living harmoniously. We have also taken note that no appeal has been preferred by the victim against the impugned judgment.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
IA. No.1/2026 is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3