- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100186 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAR K. HARIKANTRA S/O. KAMESHWAR HARIKANTRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMAN, R/O. HUBBANAGERI HINI, KUMTA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. MOHAN K. HARIKANTRA S/O. KAMESHWAR HARIKANTRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMAN, R/O. HUBBANAGERI HINI, KUMTA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 3. SUKRU K. HARIKANTRA S/O. KAMESHWAR HARIKANTRA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMAN, R/O. HUBBANAGERI HINI, KUMTA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNDAD DISTRICT. 4. NAGARAJ K. HARIKANTRA S/O. KAMESHWAR HARIKANTRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMAN, R/O. HUBBANAGERI HINI, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.04 15:52:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 KUMTA TALUKA, UTTARA KANNDAD DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUMTA POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL THE RECORDS IN CC NO.1817/2003 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JMFC COURT AT KUMTA AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER 05.08.2021 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.103/2006 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA CONFIRMING ORDER DATED 08.06.2003 IN CC NO.1817/2003 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JMFC, KUMTA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 R/W. 149 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.1817/2003 which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.103/2006. Sentence ordered by the trial Court which reads as under: “Accused Nos.1 to 5 are found guilty for the offences punishable U/Ss.143,147,148, 341,324,326 R/W S.149 of IPC and hence they are convicted U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.100/-each for the offence punishable U/S 143 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 10 days each. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence punishable U/S 147 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one month each. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable U/S 148 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two months each. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence punishable U/S 341 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 7 days each. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable U/S 324 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are further to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months each. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable U/S 326 R/W S.149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months each.” 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 A complaint came to be lodged alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) with Kumta Police Station. Based on the complaint, Kumta Police Station registered the case in Crime No.70/2003. 4. Complaint averments would reveal that on 16.04.2003 there was an altercation between the accused and the complainant-Devendra, on account of non- payment of the interest on the hand loan. In the said altercation, all the accused persons including the 2nd accused-Kameshwar (now dead), mercilessly attacked the Devendra and assaulted him resulting in injuries to Devendra. Wife of Devendra and others pacified the quarrel and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kumta. Doctor who examined said Devendra, on 16.04.2003 at about 10.20 p.m., noticed blood injuries on his body near the eye region, cheek, near mouth and nostril and on the upper part of the left pinna. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 5. On account of the pain on the mandible, he referred the injured for X-ray and later, on noted multiple fractures of the mandible and issued the wound certificate. 6. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. All the accused persons stood for trial and after detailed trial, they were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.103/2006. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 05.08.2021 dismissed the appeal. 9. During pendency of the appeal, accused No.2 died and therefore, appeal against him stood abated. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 are before this Court in this revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 11. Sri.Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently contended that the case of the prosecution has not been established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and accused have been wrongly convicted and sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Alternatively, Sri.Praveen P. Tarikar would contend that even this Court upholding the order of the conviction, taking note of the fact that the incident is of the year 2003 and has occurred at spur of the moment; taking note of the fact that the revision petitioners are now middle aged persons and are fisherman by community; the entire family is dependent on their earnings, if the accused persons are directed to undergo imprisonment, their families would be put to untold hardship and sought for setting aside the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 13. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State supports the impugned order. 14. He would further contend that injured- complainant has supported the case of the prosecution in toto and deposed before the Court as to what transpired on 16.04.2003 with graphic details. 15. He further argued that when the interest amount was demanded and the same was not complied, the altercation, took place; in the said altercation, all the accused persons mercilessly attacked the complainant. Incident was pacified by others and wife of the Devendra is an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, conviction order recorded by both the Courts needs no interference. 16. He would further contend that having regard to the multiple fractures sustained by Devendra on the mandible, there cannot be any lenience to be shown to the accused persons only on the ground that they are now - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 middle aged persons and are fisherman by community. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 17. 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: i. Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? REGARDING POINT NO.1: 18. In the case on hand, unfortunate incident occurred on 16.04.2003, wherein all the accused persons assaulting Devendra which resulted in injuries as is mentioned in wound certificate marked at Ex.P.10 stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. Injured eye witnesses and other witnesses have - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 supported the case of the prosecution. Doctor who issued Ex.P.10 is examined before the Court and he has stated that on 16.04.2003 at about 10.20 p.m, he examined the injured and noted the injured as is found in Ex.P.10. Among the injuries, injuries No.1 to 5 are simple in nature and injury No.6 namely multiple fracture of the mandible is treated as grievous injury. 19. When the injured was referred to the high medical care, Kasturba Hospital has noted that injuries Nos.1 to 4 namely open head injury, extensive fracture of basals, optical nerve injury, para facial fracture and multiple laceration of the face are grievous in nature. However, to substantiate the same, there is no X-ray film or radiological report that has been enclosed along with Ex.P.10 and 12. 20. Recovery of the weapons used in the incident being marked as M.O.No.1 and blood stains shirt and lungi being marked as M.O.Nos.2 and 3, corroborates the case of the prosecution. Taking note of these aspects of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 matter, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, the order of conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court. 21. But, taking note of the fact that X-ray film and radiological report not being placed on record, the order of conviction recorded by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in law and in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated in the case of State Vs. Sheenappa Gowda and Other1. As such conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC needs to be set aside. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the partly in affirmative. REGARDING POINT No.2 22. Sri.Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that all the accused persons 1 2011 (4) KCCR 2759 (DB) - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 are now middle aged persons and are having families to maintain through fishing business. If they are now directed to join the prison untold hardship would be caused to their families. But at the same time, the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader that Devendra sustaining grievous injuries and his life having been paralysed on account of the injuries suffered by him cannot be lost sight of. 23. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the role to be played by the Court while recording an order of conviction is all together different from role to be played by the Court at the time of passing the appropriate sentence are all together different. 24. Especially offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC has been not established by the prosecution in the absence of placing X-ray film or the radiological report, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met by ordering sum of Rs.50,000/- each to be paid by accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 who are the revision - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 petitioners as enhanced fine amount by setting aside the imprisonment period. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING POINT No.3: 25. 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) Revision petitioners are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. (iii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the remaining offences, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is set aside on the condition that each of the revision petitioners shall pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 30.04.2025. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5737 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2021 (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, revision petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for remaining offences except offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. (v) After deposit of enhanced fine amount, entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.5-Devendra under due identification. (vi) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 35