- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100243 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PIRAMBI W/O. LATIFSAB GODIHAL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KUPPELUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY CPI, P.S.I. HALAGERI POLICE STATION, R/BY. S.P.P., KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN CRL. APPEAL NO.54/2012 DATED 05.08.2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.200/2010 DATED 18.10.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 393 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 12:21:03 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.200/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 393 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) under got confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2012, is the revision petitioner. 3. Sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge is as under: “To set aside the judgment passed by hon’ble II Additional Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in Crl. Appeal No.54/2012 dated 05.08.2016 and to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC Court, Ranebennur in C.C.No.200/2010 dated 18.10.2012 by allowing this revision petition by acquitting the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 393 of IPC.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Upon the complaint received by Sri Vinayaka S/o. Mallarao Nadiger, Halgeri Police Station registered a case against Peerambi Godihal for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 511 of IPC. Complaint averments reveal that on 18.12.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., accused illegally gained entry inside the house of complainant and taking advantage of loneliness of old lady by name Shanthabai Nadiger, tried to snatch away the gold bangles from the hands of said Shantabai and in that process, accused said to have thrown chili powder on her. When Shantabai raised hue and cry, neighbours Hemappa and Ashoka came to the house of Shantabai. Seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 511 of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 5. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and framed charges. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-7 and relied on two documents viz., complaint, panchanama, FIR and statement of Ganesh as Exs.P-1 to P-4. Among the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 is the complainant, Hemappa is the neighbor who rescued the mother of the complainant Shantabai and victim Shantabai is examined as PW-7. Sri Ganesh, being one of the witnesses to the panchanama turned hostile. Therefore, his statement has been marked as Ex.P-3. Investigation Officer is also examined on behalf of the prosecution. Detailed cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 7. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances did not chose to place any version of the accused on record in writing as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and noticing the material evidence on record especially that there was not previous enmity or animosity so as to foist a false case against the petitioner herein, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 393 of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.54/2012. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in the light of appeal grounds and on re-appreciated the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the accused is no way connected with the alleged incident and falsely implicated in the case on hand and wrongly convicted by both the Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Alternatively, Sri Patil would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for modification of the sentence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 14. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 15. He would further contend that admittedly, accused is a stranger to the complainant as well as his mother Smt. Shantabai so also PW-2 Hemappa. As such, the false implication of the accused in the present case would not arise at all. 16. He would further contend that but for the timely intervention of Hemappa and Ashoka, accused would have accomplished the act of snatching away the gold bangles from the hands of PW-7. Therefore, learned Trial Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 393 of IPC and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 17. Insofar as alternative submission is concerned, Sri Praveen would contend that no lenience can be shown people like revision petitioner who had gone to snatching away the gold bangles from the hands of an 80 years old - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 lady taking advantage of her loneliness and if any such leniency is shown, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point No.1: 20. In the case on hand, oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 would be sufficient enough to accept the case of the prosecution inasmuch as in the absence of any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 previous enmity why would they depose falsely against accused is a question that has not been explained on behalf of the revision petitioner. 21. Admittedly, at the time of recording spot mahazar, police have noted the chili powder being sprinkled on the body of PW-7 which was recorded. 22. Hemappa being the independent eyewitness had supported the case of the prosecution. Investigating Officer was able to apprehend the petitioner and produced before the learned Trial Magistrate. Thereafter, detailed investigation resulting in accused tried to snatch away the gold bangles from the hands of PW-7. 23. No explanation is forthcoming from accused as to her presence in the house of PW-7, at the time of recording accused statement. These factors, when viewed cumulatively, the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts needs no interference that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 Regarding Point No.2: 24. Sri M.H. Patil would contend that accused is a first time offender and in such circumstances, leniency may be shown by directing the period of custody as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 25. Taking note of the fact that it was an attempted act of snatching away of gold bangles by the accused and conviction is under Section 393 of IPC and taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, custody period already undergone by her if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in two installments would meet the ends of justice. 26. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding point No.3 : 27. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 393 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the accused (revision petitioner) is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable in two installments of sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 30.04.2025 and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- on or before 31.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) On receipt of fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid to PW-7, if she is dead, to PW-1 under due identification. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5806 CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2017 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30