- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100442 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MARUTI S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BAILWAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEREDKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SAVADATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. THROUGH SAVADATTI POLICE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., IS SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO CC NO. 814/2004 FROM JMFC COURT, SAVADATTI AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153/2007 FROM FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI AND EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF FINDING IN PASSING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE AND TO ALLOW THIS CRL. REVISION PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER/A.1 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 04.07.2007 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.07.2007 PASSED BY JMFC COURT, SAVADATTI IN CC NO. 814/2004 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 326 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT OF FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 153/2007 DATED 30.09.2021. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.03 10:52:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.B.S.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction after due trial in C.C.No.814/2004 and sentenced as under: “The accused 1 and 2 are sentensed to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-each for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further S.I. for two months Further the accused 1 and 2 are sentensed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and indefault of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of one month. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 On realisation of the fine amount.P.W.10 be paid Rs.4,000/- as compensation. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. M.0.1 axe be confiscated to the State after the appeal period is over. M.Os 2 to 4 be destroyed as worthless, after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 5th day of July 2007).” 3. Conviction was based on the testimony of the eye witnesses and the injured eye witness. 4. Validity of the said conviction order was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.153/2007. 5. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the second accused noting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 that he was no more and confirmed the order of conviction insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. 6. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitioner are as under: 6.1 In Teredakoppa village, complainant-Suresh Hanamanthappa Bailwad was residing with his parents and the family of his uncle. They owned family properties and in respect of the same, there were some disputes. Accused in respect of the boundary dispute and watering the lands, picked up the quarrel and abused the complainant in filthy language and threw a stone which hit on the head of the complainant. Complainant immediately raised the alarm seeking help. 6.2 At that juncture, father of the complainant came there and questioned accused No.1 as to why he has assaulted his son. At that juncture, accused No.2 brought an axe and handed it over to accused No.1 and told him to take away the lives of complainant and his father. Being encouraged with such provocation, accused No.1 again - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 assaulted the complainant on the neck of the father of the complainant with the axe. In order to rescue them, mother of the complainant raised alarm. Fakkirappa Bailwad and Gadigeppa Bailwad who were working in the neighboring lands came there and pacified the quarrel. Incident took place around 4 p.m. 6.3 In respect of the incident, a complaint came to be lodged and later on same was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed. Father of the complainant who was shifted to the hospital was treated and wound certificate issued by the doctor shows that, father of the complainant sustained grievous injuries. 6.4 On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 6.5 Learned trial Magistrate took into consideration the answers given by the accused at the time of recording the accused statement, wherein they denied the incident as well. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 7. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal came to be filed against the order of the trial Magistrate which got dismissed. When the appeal was pending before the Court, accused No.2 who is father of the present revision petitioner died. Therefore, the appeal against him stood abated. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 9. Sri.S.B.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the civil dispute, all of a sudden incident has occurred and accused was in custody for a period of 2½ months which may be taken note of and the same may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. More so, having regard to the fact that accused and complainant are relatives. 10. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the revision petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that incident has occurred on 09.06.2004 at about 4 p.m., stands established not only by the oral evidence of the complainant and other injured viz., Hanumanthappa but also from the evidence of the witnesses who have pacified the quarrel. 12. Wound certificate issued by the doctor with regard to Hanumanthappa who is the father of the complainant marked at Ex.P3 would establish that father of the complainant sustained fracture near left perital and occipital region. Said injury is treated as grievous injury in view of the X-ray film placed on record vide Exs.P6 and P7. 13. Further, complainant has also sustained simple injuries as could be seen from the Ex.P4. Accused persons are not strangers and they are close relatives of the complainant. Pre-existing land dispute is the motive for the incident. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 14. Taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter, seizure of the weapon used in the incident based on the voluntary statement given by the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts needs no interference. 15. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the accused by Sri.S.B.Kukanagouder. He submits that parties are close relatives and taking note of the fact that the accused No.2 is already dead, accused No.1 being in custody for a period of 2½ months, same may be treated as period of imprisonment. Same is opposed by Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara with vehemence. 16. Taking note of the fact that incident had occurred at a spur of the moment, on account of the previous land dispute also considering the fact that parties are close relatives; accused No.2 is no more, treating the custody period already undergone by the accused No.1 and enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 paid as compensation to the Hanumanthappa who suffered grievous injury examined as PW.10 would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Accordingly, following Order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 323 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment of one year ordered for the aforesaid offence under Section 326 IPC is modified by directing the custody period already undergone by the revision petitioner as period of imprisonment for the proved offence under Section 326 IPC and directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. (iii) Time is granted till 30.04.2025 to pay the enhanced fine amount before the trial Court. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in the sentence of imprisonment of one year ordered by the trial Magistrate under Section 326 of IPC. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676 CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022 (v) After receipt of the enhanced fine amount entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.10-Hanumanthappa under due identification. (vi) Return the trial Court records with copy of this order to trial Court forthwith for issuance of modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 14