- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200086 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SIDRAMAPPA S/O BASVANAPPA, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. UTTARKUMAR S/O SIDRAMAPPA, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 3. ASHOK S/O BHIMSHYA BAPURE, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SRISHAIL S/O SHANTAPPA BAPURE, AGE:66 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 5. VAIJINATH S/O SHANTAPPA BAPURE, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 6. JAGANNATH S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA BAPURE, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 7. PRAVEEN S/O SIDRAMAPPA BAPURE, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, ALL ARE R/O. KALMANDARAGI, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI-585104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KAMALAPUR P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.1831/2008 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRL.A.NO.59/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2016 passed in C.C.No.1831/2008, by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation judgment and order dated 25.11.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No.59/2016 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (for short ‘Appellate Court’), wherein the petitioners/accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case are: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.05.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., when the complainant was returning from Kirana shop to go to his house, the buffalo belonging to accused No.1 was tied and when the complainant pushed the said buffalo to the other side and proceeded to his house, the accused having seen the said incident, went to the house of the complainant and abused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 him in filthy language and assaulted him with wooden club. Immediately, the complainant and his relative went to the Kamalapur police station in a jeep to lodge a complaint against the accused persons. At that time, the accused persons followed the complainant and others and attacked and stopped the jeep by abusing them. Further, the complainant and his team were attacked and assaulted with stick and iron rod, as a result of which, the complainant had sustained grievous injuries. C.Ws.1, 4 to 6 sustained injuries. The said quarrel had been pacified by the intervention of the CWs.7 to 9. The complainant and C.Ws.1, 4 to 6 have admitted to the hospital and after having taken treatment, their statements have been recorded by the police. Thereafter, they registered a case in Crime No.68/2008 against the accused persons. The respondent – police having registered the case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and also identified 5 material object as MOs.1 to 5. On behalf of the accused, the portion of the evidence of P.W.2 has been marked as Ex.D1. 5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the accused persons for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 6 Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. There is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to connect the petitioners/accused to the alleged crime. 8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 properly. In spite of several contradictions and omissions, the impugned judgments are passed, which are required to be set aside. 9. It is also submitted that P.W.2 though claimed to be the witness to the alleged incident, he was not an eyewitness. Similarly, C.Ws.7, 8 and 9, who are claiming to be the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. CW.6, who is the owner of the Kirana shop admitted in the cross- examination that he had not seen the incident. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 10. It is further submitted that though there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the injured witnesses, the Courts below have committed error in appreciating their evidence properly and accordingly, the findings recorded by the Courts below are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction. He further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses have been considered properly by the Courts below. There are some injured eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and their evidence is proper. Therefore, interference with the said concurrent findings may not be proper. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is very clear - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 that P.W.1 is the complainant and an injured in the alleged incident. He deposed in his evidence that, on 31.05.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., when he was returning from Kirana shop, he pushed the buffalo, which was tied in front of the house of accused No.1 and it was standing midst of the road. As the complainant had pushed the said buffalo and went to his house, accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 came to the house of the complainant/P.W.1 and abused and assaulted him with iron rods and clubs. The complainant and other injured persons have decided to lodge a complaint against the accused persons. When they were proceedings towards Kamalapur police station, they were apprehended and assaulted by accused Nos.1 to 7. He has supported the case of the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 13. P.W.2 is another eyewitness to the incident and he had supported the case of the prosecution. He also deposed about the overt-acts attributed against the accused persons. P.W.3 is also another eyewitness to the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 incident and though he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted the incident. P.W.5 is another eyewitness and he has supported the case of the prosecution and also deposed about the overt-acts attributed against the accused persons. P.Ws.4 and 6 are also the eyewitnesses to the incident. According to them, they have pacified the quarrel. 14. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who treated the injured persons and submitted the wound certificates as per Exs.P8 to P11. According to him, some of the injuries are grievous in nature. On perusal of the evidence of these witnesses and also the documents available on record, it would indicate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are proper. This Court being a revisional Court having a limited jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence, did not find any error committed by the Courts below. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the said findings. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2576 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2019 15. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:PK