- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100044 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. RIYAZ S/O. HUSENSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. CHAMANSAB S/O. HUSENSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE 3. IMTIYAZ S/O. HUSENSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, 4. IMAMSAB S/O. GOUSUSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, 5. ALTAF S/O IMAMSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE 6. SHAMSHER S/O. REHAMANSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 7. ANSAR E/O. REHAMANSAB KAPPANAHALLI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, ALL ARE R/O. KODAMAGGI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRL. APPEAL NO.133/2018 DT. 06/11/2019 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO IMPOSING FINE AGAINST ALL THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED, WHILE MODIFYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.03/2017 DT 08/08/2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS, FROM THE CHARGES OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, ALONG WITH EXEMPLARY COST. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri P.G. Mogali, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State. 2. The accused persons in C.C. No. 3/2017 have preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.08.2018, and the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 133/2018. 3. A complaint came to be filed against the accused persons alleging that on 22.09.2016 at about 7:15 p.m., near the field of Nazeersab Mettikote, the accused persons, with a common object, formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the complainant, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with hands, a knife, and a club, caused grievous hurt, and threatened him with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered, and a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 107, 323, 324, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9, marked 7 documents as Exhibits P1 to P7, and produced 1 material object marked as MO1. The trial Court, based on the evidence of PW1 – the complainant, PWs.2 and 3 – the mahazar witnesses, and PWs.4, 5, and 6 – the eyewitnesses, held that the accused persons were guilty of the charged offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period one month to three months. 5. Being aggrieved, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.133/2018. The Appellate Court, upon re- assessment of the evidence referred to by the trial Court, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment to payment of fine ranging from ₹200/- to ₹500/-. 6. Sri P.G. Mogali, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submits that it was, in fact, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 complainants whose crops were damaged by the accused persons. He contends that another complaint has been filed in this regard, the details of which have not been produced by the prosecution. This omission, it is submitted, undermines the prosecution’s case against the accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that the present case arises out of a land dispute and is a case and counter-case situation. It is further contended that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not based on properly established evidence. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the registration of case and counter-case by the complainant and the accused persons against each other would, in fact, support the case of the prosecution and establish the commission of the offence. It is submitted that in the counter-case, the complainant has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine, and the said conviction has attained finality. It is further submitted that the evidence in both cases is substantially identical. The testimony of PW1 and PWs.4 to 6 – the eyewitnesses, it is contended, is sufficient to prove the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 charged offences against the accused persons. It is also submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As is evident from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the alleged incident dated 22.09.2016 at about 17:00 hours stands established. If the incident had not occurred, the question of registration of case and counter-case would not arise. An important aspect to be noted is that the complainant has been convicted in the counter-case and sentenced to pay a fine, which conviction has attained finality. The trial Court, relying on the evidence of PW1 and the eyewitnesses – PWs.4 to 6, rightly held that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons. Furthermore, the evidence of PW7 – the Medical Officer – corroborates the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 4. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8906 CRL.RP No. 100044 of 2020 10. Though the trial Court imposed sentences of imprisonment, the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and considering the possibility of the incident having arisen out of an existing land dispute between the parties, has taken a lenient view and modified the sentence to imposition of nominal fines ranging from ₹500/- to ₹2,000/- on each of the accused persons. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court indicates that the same is based on established evidence and supported by cogent reasoning. No infirmity or error has been pointed out in the said judgment. The examination of the relied evidence and the findings recorded therein, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial Court is justified, being based on proved evidence and supported by proper appreciation and discussion of the material on record. 11. In the light of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, the same being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK_CT:ANB