- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200004 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KAMLAKAR S/O TIPPANNA KORVI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O TIPPANNA KORVI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, BOTH ARE R/O. HUVIN BAVI VILLAGE, TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. AMBIKA ISHWARAJ CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C.(OLD)/438 OF BNSS(NEW), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE INCLUDING FINE PASSED AGAINST THE REVISION PETITIONERS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.74/2019 BY IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 353, 427, 504, 506, READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC IS UPHELD AND THE SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. JMFC CHINCHOLI, DTD. 23-10-2019 IN C.C. NO.879/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353 AND 427 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA) The revision petitioners-accused in C.C. No.879/2015 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chincholli, is impugning the judgment dated 23.10.2019 convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 427, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, for the offence punishable under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 Section 341 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each; undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each; to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.74/2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedum [for short ‘First Appellate Court’] only altering the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 427 of IPC and sentencing the accused to undergo 2 months part rigorous/part simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and to undergo 2 months - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 part rigorous/part simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34 of IPC, with default offences. 2. Heard Smt. Ambika Ishwaraj Chowdapur, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record, including the Trial Court records. 3. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsels for the petitioners, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the revision petitioners have made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 REASONS 4. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 26.08.2015, PW5 being the Driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1671 was driving the same. The accused waylaid the bus, obstructed PW.5 in discharging his duty as driver, abused him and the Conductor in filthy language, humiliated them with an intention to instigate them to commit breach of peace, assaulted with hands, and club, pelted stones on the bus and caused damages and also criminally intimidated them and thereby committed the above mentioned offence. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution examined PW1 – the informant who was the injured eyewitness to the incident. PW5 being the Driver of the bus in question is also an eyewitness to the incident. PW8 is the Conductor of the bus, who is also the injured eyewitness. All these three witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The Wound Certificates pertaining to PW1 and PW8 disclose that they have sustained simple injuries - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 in the incident. Even though another eyewitness - PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs.1 and 8 being injured eyewitnesses and the evidence of PW5 being the Driver of the bus in question, assumes importance and I do not find any reason to disbelieve their version. Taking into consideration all these materials on record, the Trial Court proceeded to form an opinion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused. The said finding of the Trial Court is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. I do not find any reason to form a different opinion when there are sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought for showing leniency in favour of the accused while sentencing him. 6. The First Appellate Court considering such submission had reduced substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5827 CRL.RP No. 200004 of 2025 353 and 427 of IPC. I do not find any reason to further alter or modify the order of sentence, as maximum leniency is already shown and the accused are sentenced proportionately. Hence, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to entertain the petition. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G. UMA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:PK