- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200061 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA KARIGOUDAR, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 2. GIREPPA S/O NINGAPPA KARIGOUDAR, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH R/O MARALBHAVI VILLAGE, TQ.HUNASAGI, DIST.YADGIRI-585401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, HUNASAGI POLICE STATION, DIST.YADGIRI, IT’S REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH, DIST.KALABURAGI-585 107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR IN CRL.APPEAL NO.24/2019 DATED 06.06.2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHORAPUR IN C.C.NO.572/2015 DATED 01.08.2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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) Heard Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. The revision petitioners are the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.572/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, which confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.24/2019. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 3. The order of sentence passed by the Trial Judge is culled out hereunder for ready reference: “The accused are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under section 341 of IPC. In default to pay the fine, the accused shall under go the simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. In default to pay the fine, the accused shali under go the simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused are sentenced to under go rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. In default to pay the fine, the accused shall under go the simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The accused are sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC. In default to pay the fine, the accused shall under go the simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The accused are sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. In default to pay the fine, the accused shall under go the simple imprisonment for a period of four months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 Acting under section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the victim CW1 as compensation and remaining sum of Rs.23,000/- shall be remitted to the Government.” 4. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by Goudappa S/o Hanamantraya Makashi, Hunasagi Police have registered the case and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. The gist of the prosecution case as per the charge sheet material is that on 06.11.2015 at about 08-30 p.m., at Maralbhavi village, when the complainant was proceedings near Rakshana Vedike Katta, both the accused persons with a common intention, picked-up quarrel with the complainant, restrained his free movement and abused him in filthy language. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 Accused No.1 assaulted with stone on his chest, head and caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted with hands on his back and both accused gave a life threat to the complainant. 6. After due trial, both the accused were convicted and sentenced for the offences as stated supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.24/2019. 8. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, allowed the appeal of the accused persons in part, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and confirmed the sentence for the remaining offences. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused persons are before this Court in this revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 10. Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences resulting in miscarriage of justice. 11. He would further contend that in the event this Court holding the order of conviction, this Court may take a lenient view with regard to the sentence, as the accused persons are the first time offenders and the injuries found on the body of P.W.1 are simple in nature and sought for allowing of the revision petition to such an extent. 12. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 13. He would further contend that the oral testimony of the injured eyewitness has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and the same has been re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 Appellate Court which requires no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 14. Insofar as the alternate submission of the revision petitioners is concerned, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that when P.W.1 was moving towards Rakshana Vedike Katta, without any provocation whatsoever, both the revision petitioners have voluntarily picked-up quarrel and assaulted on the chest of P.W.1 with a stone which shows that they had intention to take away the life of the complainant. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that not only P.W.1 supported the case of the prosecution but also the other witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution, whereby the incident stands - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 established. Spot mahazar, seizure of stone and the wound certificate substantially corroborated the oral testimony of the injured witness. 16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court except for the offence under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC needs no interference. 17. The very fact that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC shows that there is sufficient application of mind by the First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the material on record. 18. Therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC needs no interference in this revision. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 19. Having said thus, admittedly, the accused persons are the first time offenders and they did not have any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, especially, when the Court is passing the order of sentence, taking note of the language employed by the statute and punishment prescribed for the proved offences, the Trial Court/Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and obtained report from the probation officer. Unfortunately, Trial Court failed to do so. 20. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the role to be played by the Court while passing an order of conviction is altogether different from the role to be performed by the very same Judge while passing the appropriate sentence. 21. In the case on hand, both the Courts have failed to do so, calls for interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction taking note of the fact that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. Thus, by enhancing the fine in a sum of Rs.20,000/- payable by each of the petitioners, a portion of which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1 by setting aside the imprisonment period for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, would meet the ends of justice. 22. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (a) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (b) While maintaining the conviction order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the sentence order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: (i) The revision petitioners are directed to pay enhanced fine of Rs.20,000/- each on or before 30.06.2025 before the Trial Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2814 CRL.RP No. 200061 of 2020 (ii) On receipt of the enhanced fine, the Trial Court shall secure the presence of P.W.1 and pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- to him and balance enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. (iii) Failure to pay enhanced fine amount as per this order would automatically result in restoration of sentence of order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH/RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73 CT:PK