- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100002 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KALKAPPA S/O. KANAKAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. UMACHAGI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG. 2. KRISHNA S/O. KALKAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. UMACHAGI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG. 3. SMT.SHANTAVVA GANGADHAR JOTENAGANAVAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UMACHAGI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG. 4. SMT.SHANKARAVVA W/O. ARJUN KALALBANDI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UMACHAGI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GAJENDRAGADA POLICE STATION, RON. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.21 10:34:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40/2016 DATED 25.11.2017 IN REVERSING/ SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSES BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RON IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 35/2015 DATED 01.03.2016.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED IN TIME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Praveenkumar representing Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused who did not challenge the order of conviction in C.C.No.35/2015 and had the benefit of probation which was reversed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the State, are the revision petitioners. 3. In respect of proved offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 324 of IPC, learned Trial Judge exercising the power vested in it, while passing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 sentence, gave benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 taking note of the fact that there was a civil dispute pending between the complainant party and accused party and also the accused being the first time offenders. 4. However, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment with regard to the sentence granting the probation and held that the offence under Section 354 of IPC could not have been taken lightly by the learned Trial Judge while granting the probation, modified the sentence and awarded simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 5. Sri Praveenkumar representing Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for revision petitioners contended that the order of sentence passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is as vague as anything inasmuch as why the benefit of probation needs to be interfered is not supported by the proper reasons in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 order of the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned order of the First Appellate Court. 7. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pendency of the civil dispute as well as the fact of accused persons being the first time offenders is properly taken note of by the learned Magistrate while granting beneficial piece of legislation namely Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court only on the ground that offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC has also been held to be proved, modified the order of the Trial Magistrate by directing the accused persons to undergo one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC without assigning adequate reasons. Therefore, a case is made out by the revision petitioners to interfere with the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 revisional jurisdiction with regard to sentence is concerned. 9. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the Courts are required to hate the crime and not the criminals. Likewise, it is equally settled that every sinner has a future. 10. Moreover, pendency of the civil dispute is a significant factor while awarding appropriate sentence. 11. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, if order of the Trial Magistrate is restored by directing to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by each of the revision petitioners, of which, a sum of Rs.75,000/- if ordered to be paid as compensation to the victims viz., Sunkavva and Gangamma in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- each, ends of justice would be met. 12. Accordingly, following order is passed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4768 CRL.RP No. 100002 of 2018 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) Order of the First Appellate Court modifying the sentence portion in C.C.No.35/2015 is hereby set aside. (iii) Further, while maintaining grant of probation to the revision petitioners, fine amount is enhanced in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by each of the accused persons on or before 15.04.2025. (iv) Failure to make payment of enhanced fine amount, accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one year as ordered by the First Appellate Court. (v) After the fine amount is deposited, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to Sunkavva and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Gangamma who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 under due identification. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 25