Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/754/2026 of ANITHA YADAV Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AMRUTHAHALLY P S on 6 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33568-DB CRL.A No. 754 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2026 (C) BETWEEN: ANITHA YADAV W/O SUMITH MOHAN AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2026 (C)
BETWEEN:
ANITHA YADAV
W/O SUMITH MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.714, 2ND FLOOR
JAGADAMBA ENGINEERING WORKS,
KAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560092.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
AMRUTHAHALLY P S
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
2.
SUMIT MOHAN @ SUMITH @ MOHAN
S/O HARSH MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.714, 2ND FLOOR,
KAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU,
NOW UNDERGOING SENTENCE AT
CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-560100
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
SINGANIVALA, SHARPUR POST,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
CHAKMANJA MANDAL, DEHARADUN,
UTTRANCHAL-248003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP II FOR RESPONDENT-1)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S
415(2) BNSS) PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE FILE OF L ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHILDRENS COURT (SPL.)
BENGALURU CCH-51 DATED 01.04.2025 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEATH FOR
THE CHARGE UNDER SEC.103(1) OF BNS.
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
1
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) The defacto-complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 372 of Cr.PC) praying to modify the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Court of L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Children's Court (Special), Bengaluru (CCH-51) in Spl.CC No.69/2025, wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 01.04.2025 and order on sentence dated 05.04.2025, has convicted respondent
HC-KAR
No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of three months.
2. The appellant is seeking modification of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and prays for enhancement of sentence to death penalty.
3. Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 372 of Cr.PC), reads as under: "413. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."
4. The above provision enables the victim to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The proviso of Section
HC-KAR
372 Cr.PC does not enable the victim to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Appeal No.228/2018 c/w Criminal Appeal No.211/2018 disposed on 07.03.2024, to contend that a victim is also entitled to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PARVINDER KANSAL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4044 has held that, "reading of the proviso (372 Cr.PC) makes it clear that so far as victim's right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused, conviction of the accused for lesser offence, or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is
HC-KAR
no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate".
7. Even though the above judgment finds a reference in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant, there is no discussion in the findings recorded regarding the same. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PARVINDER KANSAL (supra), the instant appeal preferred by the de- facto complainant/victim, seeking enhancement of sentence is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
KBM., List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10