- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 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.100005 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100056 OF 2020 IN CRL. R.P. NO.100005 OF 2020 BETWEEN: NAGAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA MATTIHALLI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/COOLIE, R/O: KURUBAGONDA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION. …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 ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2015, PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6/2016 DATED 11.11.2019 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FROM CHARGES UNDER SECTION 392 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,. IN CRL. R.P. NO.100056 OF 2020 BETWEEN: BASHEERSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB AGASIBAGIL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: MASON, R/O: HOSALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION. …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 ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.86/2011, BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION DATED 11.11.2019, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2016 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1, FROM CHARGES UNDER SECTION 392 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri A.M. Gundawade for the revision petitioners, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. Accused No.1 has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100056/2020 and Accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100005/2020. Both revision petitions are directed against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.86/2011 dated 25.11.2015 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2016 and Criminal Appeal No.6/2016 by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). Since common orders have been passed by both the trial Court and the appellate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 Court, these revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.04.2007 at about 7:15 p.m., while the complainant was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 15/9368 along with his wife and an 8-year-old relative, near Jogihalli Cross, another motorcycle came from behind and dashed their vehicle. As a result, the complainant, his wife, and the child fell to the ground. The accused persons, who were on the said motorcycle, allegedly snatched the gold mangalasutra worn by the complainant’s wife and threw chilli powder on the complainant. It is further alleged that the accused persons also snatched a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant’s pocket. Based on the said incident, a complaint came to be lodged, and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, who were cited as PW.1 to PW.16, and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P1 to P21. Additionally, 4 material objects were produced and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4. 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.2-the complainant, as per Ex.P2, the evidence of PW.3-the wife of the complainant, as well as the evidence of PW.4-the panch witness, and PW.5-the eyewitness, held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial Court recorded the conviction of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 6. Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.34/2016 and Accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.06/2016. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The present revision petitions have been filed challenging the said judgment and order passed by the appellate Court. 7. Sri A.M. Gundawade for the revision petitioners, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 392 of IPC. It is contended that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain the conviction for the charged offence. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution examined PWs.2, 3, and 5 as material witnesses; however, all three witnesses have given - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 inconsistent and contradictory versions. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable and cannot be safely acted upon. It is further submitted that the test identification parade conducted by PW.11, as per Exhibits P8 to P13, is not in conformity with the settled procedure of law. The said identification parade was conducted after a delay of one month from the date of arrest of the accused, which casts a serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation. It is also submitted that PWs.8, 9, and 10, residents of Jogihalli Cross who allegedly offered water to PWs.2, 3 and 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, it is submitted that the prosecution primarily relies on the recovery of stolen property, however, PW.12, the alleged receiver of the stolen article, has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the case of the prosecution has been duly established through the evidence of PWs.2, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 3 and 5, who have identified the accused persons in the test identification parade conducted by PW.11, as per Exhibits P8 to P13. It is contended that although PW.12 has not supported the prosecution case insofar as recovery is concerned, his signature on Ex.P14 stands admitted. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, have recorded concurrent findings of fact. It is submitted that there is no material on record to indicate any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, submits that the revision petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 10. The alleged incident that occurred on 01.04.2007 at about 7:15 p.m., while PWs.2, 3, and 5 were traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 15/9368, is not in dispute. According to PW.2, as narrated in the complaint marked as Ex.P2, the accused persons came on a motorcycle, dashed their vehicle, causing them to fall to the ground. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly attacked and threw chilli powder on PWs.2 and 3 and snatched Rs.3,000/- from the pocket of PW.2, and a gold mangalasutra from the neck of PW.3, the wife of PW.2. PW.1 is the panch witness to Ex.P1, which records the recovery of chilli powder from the place of the incident. 11. The testimony of PW.1 corroborates Ex.P1, and the use of chilli powder in the commission of the offence stands proved by the prosecution. PWs.2, 3 and 5 have given a detailed account of the incident. All three witnesses have consistently stated that chilli powder was thrown on them and that the mangalasutra was stolen. The chilli powder was recovered and marked as M.O.1, and the mangalasutra was recovered and marked as M.O.2. The mangalasutra was recovered at the instance of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 the accused persons. The recovery is recorded in Ex.P4, which pertains to the seizure made from the shop of PW.12. Ex.P4 stands proved. PW.4 was examined to prove Ex.P4. Though he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in its entirety, he has admitted his signature on Ex.P4. PWs.2 and 3 identified the accused persons in the test identification parade conducted by PW.11, which is proved through Exs.P8 to P13. PWs.6 and 7, the Police Constables, have deposed regarding the arrest of the accused persons on suspicion and the recovery of a rope, chilli powder and knife from their possession. 12. Though PW.12 has not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence on record clearly establishes that M.O.2 was recovered from the possession of PW.12. The fact that PW.12 did not fully support the prosecution does not materially affect the case, in view of the other corroborative evidence available on record. The trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence in its entirety, held that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 the seizure was effected at the instance of the accused persons and that the same stood corroborated by other material evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court concluded that the accused persons had committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The appellate Court, while considering the appeals preferred by the petitioners, confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and dismissed the appeals. 13. This Court also perused the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by both the Courts. The findings of the trial Court are based on duly proven evidence and are supported by reasoning given therein. The evidence relied upon by the trial Court sufficiently corroborates the occurrence and involvement of the accused in the offence. Minor inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, if any, do not go to the root of the matter so as to discredit the prosecution case. This Court is of the considered view that the concurrent findings recorded by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 both the trial Court and the appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and are well-reasoned. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued to point out errors in the impugned judgments, no material irregularity or perversity is demonstrated so as to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submitted that considering the year of the incident and the age of the accused person, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the imposition of sentence is concerned. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the said request, submitting that the accused persons are habitual offender and are involved in multiple criminal cases. The submission of the learned AGA is well-founded and finds support in the material available on record. It is pertinent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9224 CRL.RP No. 100005 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100056 of 2020 to note that, apart from the present revision petition, the petitioners are also arrayed as accused in two other criminal revision petitions, namely, Criminal Revision Petition Nos.100005/2020 and 100056/2020. The material placed on record, particularly at page No.275, indicates that the accused persons are habitual offenders involved in similar offences. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that imposition of a substantive sentence is warranted in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the request for modification of sentence is rejected. 15. In view of the aforementioned, this Court finds no merit in these Criminal Revision Petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5