- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100179 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. B. NAYANAPPA S/O. DODDA HONNURAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 2. KRISHNAPPA S/O. BENAKALLU NARAYANAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 3. VENKATESH S/O. BENAKALLU NARAYANAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 4. JADIYAPPA S/O. BENAKALLU NARAYANAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 5. SIDDAMMANAHALLI MALLAIAH S/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOKA POLICE STATION, MOKA, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CC NO.172/2016 DATED 19.08.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BALLARI AND RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.38/2017 DATED 06.04.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CC NO.172/2016 DATED 19.08.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BALLARI AND IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 38/2017 DATED 06.04.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 143 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- EACH, FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 147 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- EACH, FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 148 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS. 500/- EACH, FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 341 R/W. 34 IPC AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- EACH, FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 427 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT OF 3 MONTHS, FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 504 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- EACH AND FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT OF 3 MONTHS AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL THE CHARGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Revision petitioners are the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.172/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as under: “The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.” 2. Said order of conviction and sentence is confirmed in Crl.A.No.38/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the revision petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition. 3. Heard Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel for Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged with Moka Police alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 447, 504 and 506 read - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 with Section 149 of IPC, by contending that on 26.11.2013 at about 9.55 p.m., accused persons were throwing the fire crackers inside the house of the complainant. The same was objected by the complainant stating that 20 quintals of dry cotton is stored in the house and by the action attributable to the accused persons, there may be imminent danger. At that juncture, accused persons said to have threatened the complainant that if their actions are objected to, then they will not even hesitate to burn the complainant alive. 5. When the matter stood thus, on 27.11.2013 at about 5.40 a.m., when the complainant had been to attend the nature call in his agricultural land bearing Sy.No.123-A/1A measuring 6 acres 20 guntas, all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, trespassed into the said land of the complainant and they started cutting the cotton plants. Complainant questioned them as to why they are doing the said mischief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 6. At that juncture, other accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant from his free movement and started assaulting him. They also gave life threat to the complainant besides abusing the complainant in filthy language. 7. The incident was reported to the Police. On receipt of the complaint, Moka Police registered a case against the accused persons and investigated the matter in detail and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. In the interregnum, all the accused persons surrendered before the Trial Court voluntarily and they were enlarged on bail. 8. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons in the charge sheet and secured the presence of the accused persons and after due compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 9. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution proceeded to examine 4 witnesses comprising of complainant, spot mahazar witness, eyewitness to the incident and the Investigating Officer respectively as PW-1 to PW-4. Prosecution placed on record 4 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4 comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, First Information Report and Record of Rights of the land belonging to the complainant. One material object namely, a bag containing cut cotton plants was marked as M.O.1. 11. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge proceeded to examine the accused persons by recording the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused persons have denied all the incriminating materials but did not choose to place their version about the incident in writing as is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. Accused did not place any defence evidence either. 12. Thereafter learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused persons except for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused persons preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.38/2017. 14. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and on re-appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court. 16. Smt. Reshma Madiwalar on behalf of Sri T. Hanumaredy, counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the material evidence placed on record are not sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 17. She would further contend that the complainant and eyewitness are interested witnesses in the incident and their testimony is not supported by sufficient corroboratory evidence placed on record and thus, recording an order of conviction solely on the basis of oral testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Alternatively, counsel for revision petitioners would submit that in the event this Court upholding the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the accused are first time offenders, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 19. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned judgment. She would further contend that material on record is sufficient enough to sustain the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 20. She would further contend that the advice and the request made by the complainant that not to burn crackers into the house of the complainant is the genesis of the crime which resulted in attack on the complainant next day morning when PW-1 had been to his agricultural land to attend the nature call. 21. She would also contend that it is not the quantity of evidence that has to be appreciated for - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 bringing home the guilt of the accused but it is the quality of the evidence that has been placed on record. She would also contend that in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, why did PW-1 foist a false case against the accused persons is a question that has been annexed on behalf of the accused revision petitioners and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 22. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Smt Girija Hiremath would contend that if people like revision petitioners are shown mercy or leniency, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encourage and indulgence in similar activities send a wrong message to the society and thus sought for the dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 23. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 1) Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from patent factual error, error of jurisdiction or suffering from legal infirmity so as to call for interference in this revision petition? 2) Whether the sentence is excessive? 3) What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 24. In the case on hand, acquaintance of the accused persons to the complainant is not in dispute. According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.11.2013 at about 9.55 p.m., the accused persons were burning the crackers. Complainant cautioned them stating that he has stored 20 quintals dry cotton in his house and therefore not to burn crackers. 25. Being enraged with the said advice made by the complainant, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly next day morning at about 5.40 a.m., when the complainant had been to his agricultural land to attend the nature call and all of a sudden attacked him. The accused persons not only refrained the free movement of the complainant but also trespassed into his land and started - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 cutting grown up cotton plants. When the same was questioned, there was an altercation and at that juncture, the complainant was also physically attacked by the accused persons. When complainant raised hue and cry, it is PW-3 who came to the place of incident and rescued the complainant. After seeing PW-3 on the spot, all the accused persons gave life threat to the complainant and ran away from the spot. 26. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the police and spot mahazar was conducted wherein MO1 was seized from the place of the incident. 27. PW-1 being complainant and injured, PW-2 being one of the mahazar witnesses to the spot panchanama and PW-3 being the eyewitness who was able to witness the illegal acts committed by the accused and pacified the quarrel, have all supported the case of the prosecution in toto by withstanding the searching cross examination. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 28. As is rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, it is not the quantity of the evidence that has to be placed on record by the prosecution to record an order of conviction but it is the qualitative evidence that has to be looked into. 29. When the said test is applied in the case on hand, PW-1 to PW-3 have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. The material evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the learned trail Magistrate while recording an order of conviction for the aforesaid offences. 30. Same is re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while upholding the order of conviction. 31. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope for the revision as is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another1, 1 (2012) 9 SCC 460 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 this Court has considered the material evidence on record in the light of the revision grounds and is of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate affirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.2: 32. Admittedly, revision petitioners are first time offenders. For the above offences, there is no minimum punishment prescribed under the statute. Since the revision petitioners are first time offenders, directing them to join the prison at this distance of time would definitely act as harsh to them. 33. Instead if the imprisonment period is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each of the accused and a portion of it if paid as compensation to the complainant, ends of justice would be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 met in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 34. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- for all the aforesaid offences payable by each of the accused on or before 30.03.2025. (iii) Failure to make the enhanced payment on or before 30.03.2025 would result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4134 CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2022 the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant-PW-1 under due identification. Balance fine amount to be appropriated towards defraying expenses of State. (v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23