- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200055 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NABI S/O MOHAMMED SAB CHAPPARESI, AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KUMNUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIR-584101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WADGERA P.S, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI, REPTD. BY ADDL. SPP, HCK, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHAHAPUR, IN C.C.NO.48/2013 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.7/2017 DATED 10.09.2020 ON THE FILE OF DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR AND TO ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.48/2013 and sentenced as under: “ ORDER Acting U/sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/sec. 324 and Sec. 504 of IPC. Acting under S.248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 323 and Sec. 326 of IPC.” 3. The validity of the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2017, wherein by Judgment dated 10.09.2020, the Judgment of conviction and order of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 sentence is upheld by the first appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4.1. A complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Mahiboob with Wadagera Police Station on 28.05.2012 alleging that, on 27.05.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., the complainant and his wife Mehboobbi and their children Moula Patel and Chand Patel were sitting in front of their house and were consuming tea, the accused came there and told the complainant that, he is interested in selling his share of property to the extent of one acre and told the complainant whether the sister of the complainant is interested in purchasing the same. 4.2. The complainant replied that, he is not aware of the where abouts of his sister as she has gone to Bengaluru to eke out livelihood and at that juncture, being enriched by such an answer, accused got enriched and abused the complainant in filthy language and in this scuffle he has beaten the middle finger of the complainant’s left hand, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 resulting in causing grievous injury. On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, Sayyad Patel, Nabisab and others came there an pacified the quarrel. 4.3. Upon receipt of the complaint, Wadagera Police registered the case in Crime No.49/2012 and visited the place of incident, conducted spot mahazar and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after thorough investigation filed the charge-sheet. The accused voluntarily appeared before the Court and he was enlarged on bail. 5. Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable against the accused under Sections 323, 504 and 326 of IPC and framed the charge. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. Prosecution in order to establish its case, examined eleven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 comprising of complainant-injured, spot mahazar witnesses, eyewitnesses to the incident, Doctor who examined the complainant and issued wound certificate and Investigating Officer. Prosecution also placed on record four documentary evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, comprising of complaints, spot mahazar, FIR and wound certificate. After due trial, learned trial Judge convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. The trial Judge did not consider the grant of probation though urged on behalf of the accused. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2017. 9. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in the light of the appeal grounds and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on merits. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 10. Sri. Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that, both the courts have not properly appreciated the material on record and a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion in filing a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 false complaint against the petitioner and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Alternatively, Sri. Manvendra Reddy would submit that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, a lenient view may be taken having regard to the fact that, the accused is a first time offender and has been convicted only for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the impugned Judgment. She would further contend that, accused is not a stranger to the complainant and when the complainant replied that, he does not know about the where abouts of his sister, accused got enraged and voluntarily caused grievous hurt by biting the left hand middle finger of the complainant which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts. Therefore, no lenience can be shown to the revision petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, when the complainant and his family members were sitting in front of their house and consuming the tea, it is the accused who voluntarily appeared there on 27.05.2012 at about 8.00 p.m, and enquired the complainant that whether the sister of the complainant is interested in purchasing one acre of the property of the accused. 15. The complainant replied to the accused that he does not know where abouts of his sister. In that regard, the quarrel has begun and in the quarrel, accused not only abused the complainant in filthy language but also bitten the left middle finger of the complainant. Immediately, complainant raised hue and cry and the neighbors namely Sayyed Patel and Nabisab came there and they pacified the quarrel. There is no loss of time in lodging the complaint and wound certificate marked at Ex.P.4 depicts the injury caused - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 to the left middle finger of the complainant which sufficiently corroborates the testimony of complainant and eyewitnesses. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also the fact that, the injury caused to the complainant cannot be classified as grievous injury as is contemplated under Section 320 of IPC, learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, but recorded an order of conviction and sentenced the accused as referred supra. 17. It is pertinent to note that, the State did not challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and therefore, it has become final. 18. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material evidence, did not find any legal infirmity or perversity so as to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. 19. Both the Courts have failed to note that the accused is a first time offender. No proper reasons are - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 recorded by the learned trial Magistrate for not affording the benefit of the probation of offenders Act. 20. Taking note of the fact that, under the statute for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, there is no compulsory punishment prescribed, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if the accused is directed to pay enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/-, of which Rs.20,000/- can be paid as compensation to the P.W.1, ends of justice would be met in the facts and circumstances of the case by setting aside the imprisonment period. 21. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed in part; (ii) While maintaining the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, the order of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the proved offences - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378 CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020 under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (iii) Time is granted to pay the enhanced fine amount till 30.07.2025. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court. (v) Out of fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured-P.W.1 under due identification. Balance amount shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. (vi) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with a copy of this order for issue a modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:PK