- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1118 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJA S/O. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS COOLIE WORKER. 2. SURESHA S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS COOLIE. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT YEREHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 245. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY HOSAMANE SHIVAJI CIRCLE POLICE STATION BHADRAVATHI REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, H.C.G.P.) * * * Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5-12-2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BHADRAVATHI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.2234 OF 2013 AND CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5035 OF 2016 DATED 7-9-2018. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vishwanath R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, and Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 5-12-2016 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadravathi, (for short, 'trial Court'), in Criminal Case No.2234 of 2013, which is confirmed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi (for short, 'First Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No.5035 of 2016 dated 7-9-2018. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 5-12-2012 around 2:30 p.m., while PW1/victim was working in the agricultural land bearing Survey No.20/21 situated at Mosaralli Village of Bhadravathi Taluk, accused Nos.1 and 2 took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, outraged her modesty, assaulted her with sickle and also made criminal intimidation and threatened her with dire consequences. Thus, her oral - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 statement was recorded, which led to registration of an First Information Report and investigation. 5. Soon after registration of the charge-sheet, the trial Court secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, took cognizance, framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 354, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.5035 of 2016 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective. The Courts below have totally ignored the bristling inconsistencies and improvements in the evidence of PW1, who is an injured witness. Further, the Courts below have given undue weightage to insufficient evidence adduced by PW1. PW1 has given the exaggeration evidence before the trial Court. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the admission of PW1 with regard to existence of civil dispute between her and the accused and non-appreciation of the said admission has resulted in giving a perverse finding. Further, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the admitted close relationship between PWs.3, 8 and 9 as they are close relatives of the victim and they are interested witnesses. Further, various contradictory statements given by PWs.8 and 9 with respect to presence of PW3 at the time of alleged incident - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 in the complaint and in the examination-in-chief have been overlooked by the Courts below. Further, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral testimony of PW2, who claimed to be an eyewitness, admitted in the evidence that he has not seen the assault on the victim/injured. When PW2 was unable to identify MO1-sickle and the accused while he was in the witness box, the trial Court ought to have discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. As the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt should be exercised in favour of the accused. Further, there is contradictory evidence in the testimonies of PWs.2 and 3 with regard to scene of offence, the presence of PWs.2 to 4 and scene of offence was doubtful as per the evidence of PW1. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any witnesses. The oral testimony of PW1 is full of omissions, contradictions and improvements and there is civil litigation pending between the parties. Thus, PW1 has filed a false case against the accused in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 order to take advantage in civil litigation. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that PWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated about the incident. More particularly, PW1 has clearly stated about the individual overt acts of the accused at the scene of occurrence and the manner they behaved with her and they outraged her modesty. Hence, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 8. On the basis of the above, the following point arises for consideration of this Court: i. Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court calls for interference? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNNA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2001) 9 SCC 631 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. held at paragraph No.3 as under: "3. xxx xxx xxx. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. R. SOUNDIRARASU AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768 at paragraph No.79 held as under: "79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475 at paragraph No.16 held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx. Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular court of appeal." 12. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings, or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. On perusal of the material on record, PW1- Manjula has deposed on oath that accused Nos.1 and 2 are well-known to her. On the day of incident, she had been to her land at about 2:30 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 took quarrel with her, they outraged her modesty and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 assaulted her with their legs and sickle. In the cross- examination, she has categorically admitted that there is civil dispute in respect of land bearing Survey No.20/21, i.e. between her father-in-law and the accused. She also admitted that the land in question was granted in favour of the father of accused No.1. The Assistant Commissioner directed PW1 to vacate it and deliver the possession of the land in question in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 and there is civil litigation between both families in respect of the said land. In her evidence, she has stated that incident took place between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. She has stated that at the time of incident, accused No.1 was holding sickle on his waist, took the same and assaulted on her right hand, right leg and caused bleeding injuries. She has not stated that at the time of the incident, her sister-in-law, PW3-Sumithra was present and pacified the quarrel. On the contrary, she has stated that PWs.2- Theerthakumara and 4-Sarasamma pacified the quarrel. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 14. From perusal of oral testimony of PW2, it appears that on the day of incident, he heard the voice of PW1 and thus, he visited the land of PW1, at that time, PW1 was unconscious and accused Nos.1 and 2 were raising hue and cry. Except this, nothing has been elicited. Hence, he has treated as partly hostile. 15. PW3-Sumithra, sister-in-law of PW1. According to her, she is an eyewitness to the incident, who pacified the quarrel, but the trial Court disbelieved her evidence. 16. PW4-Sarasamma is also alleged to be an eyewitness to the incident, but she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 17. PW5-Dr. Hanumanthappa, Medical Officer, who treated PW1 and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P4. As per Ex.P4, PW1 sustained injuries on her right hand and right leg. 18. PW6-R. Suresha, Head Constable, who received the complaint and registered the case. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 19. PW7-Keerthikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. 20. PWs.8-Chandrashekara and 9-Ramesha are witnesses to the spot mahazar, but they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 21. In this case, only the evidence of PW1 is available. The trial Court as well the First Appellate Court have not appreciated the oral evidence of PW1 in a perspective manner. The First Appellate Court has not discussed about the admission made by the prosecution witnesses. 22. Perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 8 and 9, it goes to show that they are close relatives. Further, there is contradictory statement with regard to presence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence at the time of alleged incident. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate that PW2, who claimed to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 be an eyewitness to the incident, clearly admitted that he has not seen the alleged assault on the injured and he is unable to identify MO1-sickle, which is stated to be used by the accused for assault on the victim. 23. Further, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ought to have acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. More importantly, Investigating Officer has not seized the saree in question, which is the subject matter of the case. Further, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. PW2 has deposed that he heard the voice of PW1/victim and thus, he visited the land of PW1, at that time, PW1 was unconscious. PW3 is the sister-in-law of PW1 and is stated to be an eyewitness. PW3 has deposed that accused No.1 pulled PW1 by holding her saree, kicked with legs on her abdomen, but in the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited. Therefore, the oral testimonies of PWs.2 and 3 do not inspire confidence. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 24. In order to attract Section 354 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove assault or force on woman to outrage her modesty. In the instant case, oral evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses, there is civil litigation pending between the parties, and there are omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the oral testimony of PW1, which does not inspire confidence. Further, the sole testimony of a complainant can be sufficient for conviction, but the testimony must be credible, reliable and trustworthy. While there is no legal impediment to convict on the testimony of a single witness, but the evident must be strong enough to remove all doubt and fit into the chain of events. In the case on hand, the testimony of the sole witness contains contradictions and unreliable and hence, it is deemed insufficient for a conviction. Hence, there is a glaring error in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 of the IPC. Thus, the same requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court passes the following: O R D E R i. Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 5-12-2016 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadravathi, in Criminal Case No.2234 of 2013 and confirmed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi in Criminal Appeal No.5035 of 2016 dated 7-9-2018 are hereby set aside. iii. The petitioners are acquitted of the charge levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41981 CRL.RP No. 1118 of 2018 iv. The bail bonds of the petitioners and that of their sureties stand cancelled. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court along with its records. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40