IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). of 2025 @ Diary No(s).50543/2025)

BEERESHA Etc… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 12.06.2025 in CRA Nos.942/2013 and 845/2013 (C) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

4. We are informed that appeals were preferred before the High Court by the instant appellants, assailing the Trial Court's judgment of conviction. The sentences imposed by the Trial Court on each accused were: (i) six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC; (ii) one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC; and (iii) eight years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The sentences were suspended during the pendency of the appeals.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 5. It appears that post passing of the said order of NAVEEN D Date: 2025.11.18 Reason:

suspension, none appeared on behalf of the appellants, more so at the time of hearing of the appeals on merits, in passing of the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeals.

6. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:

“14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before it in a proper perspective and proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following.

ORDER Crl.A No.942/2013 and Crl.A No.845/2013 are dismissed.

Registry is directed to send back Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, for information and to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if the Same is not yet issued.”

7. We are also informed that, at this point in time, post passing of the impugned judgment, the appellants were arrested and are in custody.

8. We are of the considered view that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Mod. Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam¹ and K. Muruganandam vs. State of T.N.², the High Court ought to have heard the appeals after appointing an amicus curiae, which was not done in the instant case.

1 (2011) 4 SCC 729

2 (2021) 20 SCC 642

9. As such, on this short ground, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2025 and restore the appeals before the High Court to its original number and file, with a direction to the parties to appear before the High Court on 17.12.2025.

10. We further request the High Court to decide the appeals on merits on an expeditious basis, preferably within a period of six months.

11. Needless to add, till such time the appeals are heard, the appellants shall continue to remain in jail. However, should there be any change in circumstance, application justifying modification of the order can be filed.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that duly appointed counsel shall appear on all dates which may be fixed by the High Court. Ordered accordingly.

13. The appeals are allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

..................J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI

03-11-2025 ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).50543/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-06-2025 in CRA Nos.942/2013 & 845/2013 (C) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]

BEERESHA Etc... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT(S)

FOR ADMISSION IA No. 274030/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 274027/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 03-11-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM