- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100288 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: LAKSHMANA @ KONGALAKSHMAN S/O. LATE ANNAMALAI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: BEHIND BUS DEPOT, AZAD NAGARA, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BY HOSPET TOWN P.S.), BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5015/2017 DATED 12.10.2017 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSAPETE, IN C.C.NO.452/2014, DATED 04.10.2016 AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.07.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. Accused No.1 in C.C. No.452/2014 has preferred this criminal revision petition assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), and the judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5015/2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 3. The prosecution has alleged that, during the night hours between 00:55 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 23.01.2014, the accused, with the intention of committing theft, lurked and trespassed into the house of the complainant by breaking open the lock of the door, entered the said house and committed theft of an H.P. gas cylinder and three bags of rice weighing 75 kg. Based on the evidence of PW.1-the complainant as per Ex.P1, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9, marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5, and produced 1 material object as M.O.1. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PW.1–the complainant, PW.2-the mahazar witness to the recovery recorded under Ex.P2, and PWs.4 and 5-the seizure mahazar witnesses relating to Ex.P4, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 held that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5015/2017 before the appellate Court. 6. The appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner–accused, submits that the conviction recorded for the alleged offences, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, is not sustainable in law. He further submits that all the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffer from non-appreciation and misreading of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 evidence on record. It is further submitted that the conviction is unsupported by any admissible evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State, submits that the prosecution has established its case through the evidence of PW.1-the complainant as per Ex.P1, and the testimony of other mahazar witnesses. The recovery of the stolen articles has been proved through Ex.P2 by examining PW.2. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 also supports the prosecution's case in relation to Ex.P4. It is contended that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on duly proven evidence. It is further submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below do not warrant interference, as no perversity or error has been demonstrated. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that between 00:55 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. on 23.01.2014, the accused committed theft of an HP gas cylinder and three bags of rice by forcibly entering the house of PW.1 by open the door lock. The complainant was examined as PW.1, and the complaint is marked as Ex.P1. Initially, the complaint was lodged against unknown persons. However, the evidence of PW.2, coupled with Ex.P2–the recovery mahazar connects the accused to the alleged theft. The prosecution has successfully established the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused. It is also to be noted that the recovery was made at the instance of the accused. The evidence of PWs.6 to 8, who were on patrolling duty, further supports the prosecution case by detailing how the accused came to be apprehended. PW.9-the Investigating Officer has provided - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 a complete account of the investigation, including the recovery process. 11. On overall consideration of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that the accused committed theft of the HP gas cylinder and three bags of rice from the house of PW.1. It is also the case of the prosecution that other stolen articles were found during inspection, suggesting that the accused is a habitual offender. Be that as it may, the trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly recorded the conviction of the accused for the charged offences. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, has rightly affirmed the conviction. 12. This Court, upon perusal of the evidence referred to above, is of the considered view that the material on record clearly establishes the commission of the offences by the accused. The finding recorded by the trial Court is based on duly proved evidence. Though the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner has extensively argued regarding the insufficiency and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, this Court finds that the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The contradictions pointed out are minor and do not materially affect the case of the prosecution or the findings recorded by the trial Court. The finding of both the courts below is justified. Hence, conviction is upheld. 13. At this juncture, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, prays for modification of the sentence by either substituting the sentence of imprisonment with a fine or, in the alternative, by reducing the term of imprisonment. 14. The learned Additional Government Advocate, inviting the attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed on 15.02.2020, submits that the accused is involved in more than 13 similar cases and, therefore, the present case does not warrant a lenient view. This Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9222 CRL.RP No. 100288 of 2019 has also perused the material placed on record by the learned Additional Government Advocate, which clearly indicates that the accused is a habitual offender involved in more than 13 similar offences. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with or modify the sentence. Considering the nature of the offence and the number of offences committed by the accused, the sentence imposed is found to be just and proper. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The honorarium to Amicus Curiae Sri V.M. Banakar, is fixed at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee for assisting the Court in this revision petition. Pending I.A.’s if any stands disposed of. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4