- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 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.100131 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. SRI DAYANAND GURUSIDDAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. SMT.SATTEWWA GURUSIDDAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.11 14:27:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 3. SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O. PANDAPPA HUCHHANNAVAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4. SMT.ANASUYA RAJAPPA KHILARI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218. …RESPONDENTS (BY KUM.SHIVANI A. MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W. UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.350/2019 DATED 12/11/2019 ON THE FILE OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2019 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.350/2019 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN C.C.NO.226/2016 DATED 15/07/2019 ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 323 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, leaned High Court Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and Miss.Shivani A. Murari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Revision petition is filed by the State challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.350/2019 by order dated 12.11.2019, whereby learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.226/2016 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak, who had allowed the application filed under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and permitted the prosecution to invoke Section 307 of the IPC in the matter based on the oral testimony of P.W.1 and remitted the matter to the trial Court for trial for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are under: A complaint came to be lodged with Gokak Town Police, alleging that on 07.07.2015, when the complainant and his family members had been to the first floor of the their premises to supervise ongoing construction, respondent Nos.1 to 4 interfered with the said construction work and abused them in filthy language and with an intention to voluntarily cause hurt, started assaulting them with stones. One such stone fell on the complainant and another stone fell on wife of the complainant the head and nose region. When others started gathering near the place of incident on hearing the hue and cry, all accused persons gave the complainant and his wife, life threat and ran away from the spot. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 4. Based on the complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.137/2015 and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. 5. Learned trial magistrate took the cognizance for the aforesaid offences and thereafter, secured the presence of the accused persons and framed charges for the aforesaid offences. 6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, the trial was held. 7. The prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses. The complainant was examined himself as PW.1 and based on the oral testimony of the complainant, the prosecution filed an application under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., to invoke offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 8. The learned trial magistrate heard the matter in detail and allowed the application by the prosecution by order dated 15.07.2019 and committed the matter to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 Sessions Court for trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 9. Accused being aggrieved by the same, filed criminal revision petition challenging the order passed by the trial magistrate in Crl.R.P.No.350/2019. 10. Learned Sessions judge after securing the records, heard the arguments of accused as well as State, by order dated 12.11.2019 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the trial magistrate dated 15.07.2019 and remitted the matter to the trial Court for proceeding with the trial for the aforesaid offences. 11. It is that order which is under challenge by the State before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State, reiterating the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that approach of the learned Sessions Judge in setting aside the order of the trial magistrate invoking the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, by allowing the application filed under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., has resulted in miscarriage justice inasmuch as the material on record, did warrant invoking the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, by filing necessary application. 13. She would further contended that in a matter of this nature, the FIR should not be construed as encyclopedia to include all necessary ingredients and when the complainant has specifically deposed before the Court about the intention of the accused persons in taking the way life of the complainant and his dependents, especially on the ground of previous enmity, learned trial magistrate has rightly exercised the powers under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., and allowed the request made by the prosecution - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 which has been totally ignored by learned Sessions judge in the impugned order and thus sought for admitting the criminal revision petition for further consideration. 14. Per contra, Miss.Shivani Murari, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order. 15. She would further contend that the oral testimony of the complainant who is examined as P.W.1 that the accused party pelted stones on the complainant and his wife would by itself, would not attract the ingredients of invoking the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 16. Therefore, the trial magistrate erred in allowing the application filed under Section 323 of the IPC and the same has been rightly appreciated by the Sessions Judge in impugned order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 17. Having heard parties in detailed, this Court perused the material records on meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on records, especially the complaint averments itself, it is crystal clear that there was previous enmity between the complainant and accused. There is an allegation of encroachment of land. The construction was going in the property belonging to the complainant and construction materials like brick, stones, etc., are also stored and on fateful day i.e., 07.07.2015, when the complainant and his wife and others were supervising the ongoing work, the accused party said to have thrown some dirt on the sand that was stored for the construction purpose. 19. When the same is questioned by the complainant, the altercation took place. In the altercation, the stones which were stored in the place of incident were pelted by the accused to the complainant and his wife. Wherein the complainant and his wife got injured. After - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 hearing hue and cry, other persons gathered there. As such, accused persons left the place giving life threat. 20. In the complaint averments, it is crystal clear that, the accused was unarmed when they arrived at the spot. It is only in the altercation, accused party said to have pelted the stones which were found near place of construction which fell on the complainant and his wife. 21. No doubt, the doctor who examined injured person has issued the wound certificate, wherein injury on the head shows that there is a fracture. Therefore, the said injuries treated as grievous injuries in terms of the Section 320 of the IPC. Therefore, the investigation agency rightly invoked the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, while filing charge sheet. 22. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the prosecution has to establish all ingredients that of a murder but by chance the injured has survived. In the case on hand, either in the complaint - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 averments or in the statement of the witnesses, no such ingredients are made out so as to invoke the offence under section 307 of the IPC. 23. Therefore, learned Sessions judge in the impugned order has rightly held that oral testimony of P.W.1 alone would not be sufficient enough to invoke the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, which has got for reaching effect insofar as the trial as well as the punishment is concerned. 24. Therefore, learned sessions judge exercising revisional powers vested under section 397 of the IPC., has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned trial magistrate, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., came to be allowed. 25. Thus, from the above discussion, this court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Sessions judge, so as to interfere - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4114 CRL.RP No. 100131 of 2020 the well reasoned order passed by the learned sessions judge. 26. Accordingly, from the above discussion, invariable conclusion is to hold that revision petition sans merit. Hence following order. ORDER Criminal revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21