- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100082 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))] BETWEEN: DUGGESH @ DUGGA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA DAVANGERE @ TALAWAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. DAVANGERE, NOW AT HONDADA ONI, HALEPTE, BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI-581106. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, BY PSI BYADAGI POLICE STATION, BYADAGI-581106. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE SENTENCE ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BYADAGI IN CC NO.20/2010 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.457 AND 380 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST HIM., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.21 14:32:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This revision petition is filed by accused no.3 (petitioner) challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2020 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.no.23/2019 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2019 passed by JMFC Court, Byadagi in C.C.No.20/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. Sri Shivasai M.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned judgments and orders by both Courts were unsustainable and contrary to law. It was submitted case of prosecution was that, a complaint was filed by Basappa Doddarudrappa Malenahalli on 19.07.2009 that complainant had two shops i.e., one Muppanna Hoolihalli and Mrutyunjaya Commission Agencies APMC yard. That at night on 18.07.2009 there was trespass by unknown persons by breaking open door of shops with intention to commit theft. Computer and its accessories along with UPS (battery) etc., worth Rs.24,000/- were stolen. Based on same, Byadagi Police registered Crime - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 no.107/2009 and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against four accused for offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 3. Petitioner/accused no.3 was apprehended on 01.01.2010. Even, accused no.1 was arrested, but accused no.2 and 4 absconded. Thereafter charge sheet was split up against absconding accused and proceeded with trial against accused no.1 and 3 only. 4. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P.18. It was submitted PWs.8 to 12 turned hostile. Despite same, trial Court proceeded to convict petitioner along with accused no.1 for both offences and passed judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It was further submitted both petitioner as well as accused no.1 had attended Court on all dates of hearing and cooperated. While accused no.1 was in custody for a total period of 2 years 14 days, petitioner was in custody for 3 months 3 days. Petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents and he was aged 33 years with dependents in family. Without appreciation of same, trial Court convicted him imposing harsh sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year 6 months on each of offences and also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each and further sentence for 3 months simple imprisonment in case failure to pay fine amount. 5. It was contended there was time gap of about 6 months for arresting petitioner from date of recovery. Prosecution depended on deposition of PW.9 to establish recovery of stolen items from petitioner. However, PW.9 had deposed that she was not aware when police visited her house and recovered stolen articles. 6. It was contended such time gap would give scope for false implication of petitioner and substantiate case for extension of benefit of doubt. It was further submitted entire case of prosecution depended on two panchanamas namely Exs.P.9 and P.10. In view of PWs.8 to P.12 turning hostile, same could not be held to be proved beyond reasonable debt. Consequently, petitioner was entitled to be acquitted. It was submitted there was no direct evidence implicating petitioner and even order on sentence was harsh and excessive. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 7. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath learned High Court Government Pleader on other hand opposes petition. It was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 submitted while Ex.P.9 - panchanama was supported by PWs.4 and 6, Ex.P.10 - panchanama was supported by PWs.5 and 7 respectively, in addition to deposition of PW.2, 4 to 7 and 13 to 16, 18 and 19. Both Courts on due appreciation of same had passed judgment of conviction and order on sentence. 8. It was submitted after passing judgment of conviction, trial Court had given opportunity to petitioner to have his say on sentence and all grounds urged insofar as sentence were duly considered. It was submitted, maximum punishment for offence under Section 457 was for 14 years and 7 years in case of offence under Section 380 of IPC. Trial Court convicted both petitioner as well as accused no.1 for said offences and imposed reformative and proportionate sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months only. Therefore there was no scope for interference. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused record. 10. From above, it is seen this revision petition is by accused no.3 questioning judgment of conviction and order on sentence. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, scope for interference in revision would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 be extremely limited normally only to questions of law and not finding of fact. The first ground urged namely time gap of 6 months for arrest after recovery, records reveal date of incident as 18.07.2009, complaint filed on next day i.e., 19.07.2009, recovery of stolen articles by drawing panchanamas at Exs.P.9 and P.10 respectively on 01.01.2010 and arrest of petitioner on same day. Therefore there would be no substance in petitioner’s contention that there was time gap of more than 6 months for arresting petitioner after recovery. 11. Insofar as contention that PWs.8 to 12 turned hostile and therefore judgment of conviction was without sufficient basis, perusal of judgment passed by trial Court as well as Appellate Court would reveal, prosecution case was supported by PWs.1, 4 to 7, 13 to 16, 18 and 19. 12. While it may be that there is no direct evidence against petitioner, recovery of stolen articles from house of petitioner would be a strong circumstantial evidence. Recovery is by drawing Exs.P.9 and 10 - panchanamas. As noted by both Courts, PWs.4 and 6 supported Ex.P.9 – panchanama, while PWs.5 and 7 supported Ex.P.10 – panchanama. Therefore there - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:877 CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023 would be no substance in contention that judgment of conviction passed by both Courts suffered from any perversity. 13. Insofar as quantum of sentence, while passing order on sentence, trial Court has taken note of fact that both petitioner as well as accused no.1 had maintained good conduct and attended Court on all dates of hearing. It also considered their status with family having old aged parents, wife and children etc. When offence under Section 457 of IPC carries maximum period of sentence at 14 years and Section 380 of IPC at 7 years, imposition of sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months cannot be stated to be harsh or excessive. It is also relevant to note that no ground against sentence appears to have been urged in appeal before Appellate Court. Hence no ground to interfere, revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM,CLK CT:PA :LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32