- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100011 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SUBRAHMANYA S/O. GANESH HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. TOTAGAR VILLAGE, SATUGADDE, TQ. YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359. … PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I., YELLAPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT. DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.12.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., YELLAPUR IN C.C.NO. 283/2019 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.10.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRL.A. NO. 5020/2022 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.28 17:34:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 06.10.2022 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi in Crl.A.no.5020/2022 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2021 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Yallapur in C.C.no.283/2019, this Revision Petition is filed by accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Ganapati M.Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner submitted prosecution case was that Laxminarayan (complainant) filed complaint on 07.06.2018 alleging that between 4:20 to 4:30 p.m. same day, when he was proceeding on his motorcycle near Basir Mara Cross of Konkonakoppa village, Yallapur Taluk, towards Savanageri, petitioner who was hiding in shrubs by side of road assaulted complainant with iron rod on his right shoulder. As a result, complainant fell down. Thereafter, petitioner assaulted him with rod over other parts of body causing injuries. He also abused complainant in filthy language and threatened to kill him. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 3. Registering same in Crime no.134/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, thereafter, investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed on 04.12.2018. After taking cognizance, summons was issued to petitioner. On appearance, he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6. Iron rod was marked as MO no.1. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused for his response under Section 313 of CrPC. Petitioner denied material as false and did not choose to lead rebuttal evidence. 5. On consideration, trial Court acquitted petitioner of charge under Section 504 of IPC, but, convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, but granted benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘POA’ for short) and released on probation of good conduct by executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with surety. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 6. However, challenging order of conviction, petitioner filed Crl.A.no.5020/2022. But same was dismissed. Hence, this revision is filed. 7. It was submitted, trail Court failed to appreciate material on record and came to erroneous conclusion. Without re-appreciation, Appellate Court concurred. It was submitted, though allegations leveled against petitioner were offences under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, evidence led would not support conviction for said offences. It was submitted, there was no re-appreciation and Appellate Court concurred with findings of trial Court without re-appreciation. 8. It was submitted, case of prosecution was that petitioner assaulted complainant with iron rod. Admittedly, there was no independent eye-witnesses. It was submitted, Exs.P5 and P6 - Wound certificate and MLC intimation, mentioned nature of injuries sustained by complainant as ‘simple’. But, without examining Medical Officer which would be fatal to prosecution case. It was further submitted, there were no eye-witness to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was petitioner who assaulted complainant on date of incident. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 9. It was submitted, admissions elicited from PW-4 and PW-5, disclosed material contradiction. Thus, apart from conviction of petitioner being without sufficient evidence led were contradictory and would not support conviction. It was submitted, trial Court erred in not extending benefit of Section 4 of POA in respect of all offences. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition. 10. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent - State, however, opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted revision petition was against concurrent findings, with no scope for interference. It was submitted, findings were supported by cogent evidence and material records and that both Courts after due appreciation arrived at proper conclusion convicting petitioner. In any case, said contentions were considered and rejected. It was submitted, there were no material contradictions to discredit deposition and falsify allegations against petitioner. It was submitted, oral evidence was supported by seizure of iron rod and drawing of spot mahazar in presence of witnesses, who deposed as PW-2 and PW-3 and supported prosecution. It was submitted offences would stand established even on deposition of official - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8. Thus, petitioner had failed to make out case for interference. 11. Heard learned Counsel, impugned judgment and records. 12. From above point that arise for consideration is: “Whether impugned judgments/orders passed by Trial/Appellate Courts herein call for interference?” 13. This revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings of both Courts convicting him for offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. 14. As stated above, main grounds urged are failure to grant benefit of POA, non-examination of Medical Officer being fatal to prosecution case, nature of injuries sustained shown as ‘simple’, material contradiction in deposition of witnesses, evidence available being insufficient to establish offences beyond reasonable doubt etc. 15. To substantiate charges, prosecution relied on deposition of PWs-1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P6 and MO-1. As noted by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 both Courts, independent witnesses examined as PWs-4 and 5 did not support case of prosecution. 16. In instant case, offences alleged against petitioner include voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of IPC, wherein, prosecution is relying on Exs.P5 and P6 – Wound certificate and MLC intimation to substantiate offences, but, admittedly without examining Medical Officer. Further, as per complaint, petitioner was hiding at spot when petitioner arrived there on motorcycle. It is alleged, petitioner assaulted him from behind with iron rod on his right shoulder due to which complainant fell down and sustained injuries. Complainant claims that petitioner assaulted him again on his left hand and leg. When injuries could be sustained due to fall from motorcycle also, examination of Medical Officer was essential to establish offence beyond reasonable doubt. 17. This Court in Timmanagouda Madinoor and Others v. State of Karnataka, (Criminal Appeal no.2614/2010 disposed of on 28.02.2019) held non- examination of Medical Officer would be amongst reasons to raise doubt in mind of Court entitling acquittal as it would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 amount to denial of opportunity to accused for cross- examination with regard to nature of injuries. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court generally observed that petitioner had failed to discredit deposition of witnesses and had not considered this aspect. And Appellate Court concurred with findings by observing that there was nothing to disprove/disbelieve prosecution material. Therefore, said aspect was not examined or considered by either of Courts. Therefore, petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 324 of IPC, would suffer from fatal omission. 18. Insofar as offence under Section 506 of IPC, prosecution relies on deposition of complainant and PWs-4 and 5. Complainant deposed about petitioner assaulting complainant with iron rod near spot of incident, while he was going towards Savangeri and after he fell down, petitioner assaulted him on his left hand and leg, but when PWs-4 to 6 arrived there, petitioner ran away threatening complainant to kill him. But, there is no corroboration about threat. PW-4 deposed that when he arrived at spot at relevant time, complainant had fallen down from his motorcycle and he saw petitioner running away from there. PW-5 deposed that when - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 he arrived at spot, complainant was already taken to hospital. PW-6 deposed that on date of incident, he received call from home that complainant had sustained injuries and required to be taken to hospital. Therefore, he went home and took complainant to hospital. Thus, PWs-4 to 6 are not witnesses to incident of threat given by petitioner to complainant. Thus, there is no corroborative material in this regard. 19. As same time however, there is no cross- examination of any of prosecution witnesses on this aspect. Hence, there would be no scope for interference, insofar as petitioner’s conviction. 20. Insofar as scope for interference under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC to re-appreciate evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 has held: “10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings”. 21. Thus, on ground of failure to examine Medical Officer to prove offence under Section 324 of IPC, concurrent findings of both Courts would be liable to be held perverse. However, insofar as offence under Section 506 of IPC, there would be no scope for interference. Hence, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2021 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Yallapur in C.C.no.283/2019, confirmed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi in Crl.A.no.5020/2022 on 06.10.2022 are hereby set aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3999 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2023 iii. Petitioner is acquitted for offence under Section 324 of IPC. iv. Conviction of petitioner for offence under Section 506 of IPC is modified imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month. v. Bail/sureties bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD,CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15