IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13^TH 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)

Digitally signed by C LA H X A M N A D N RASHEKAR KATTIMANI L C o o c u a r t t i o o n f : High THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.

Karnataka, Dharwad Bench 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:

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 respondent–State.

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, ‘the IPC’) 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 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.

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