- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100289 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI FAHEEM ISMAIL MULLA, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. PLASTER OF PARIS WORK, R/O. KOTWAL GALLI, KHADE BAZAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY NAVANAGAR P.S., BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, OFFICE OF AG, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, DHARAWD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED BY PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CONVICTING FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 454, 380 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE REVISION PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 454 AND 380 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri K.S. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner– accused No.1 challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.02.2017 passed in C.C. No.24/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.23/2017. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 31.12.2012, accused No.1 committed theft of valuable articles by breaking open the door of the complainant’s house situated at Vidyagiri, 22nd Cross, within the jurisdiction of Bagalkot Navanagar Police Station. Pursuant to the report of the incident, an FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, marked 17 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17, and produced 6 material objects as M.O. Nos.1 to 6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences. Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC; and further sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.23/2017. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 6. It is reported that accused No.2 died during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Sri K.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused, submits that both the Courts have relied upon the opinion of the fingerprint expert as per Ex.P6. It is contended that the source of the chance print marked as 'Q' in Ex.P6 has not been established. Learned counsel further submits that, unless the source of the chance print is shown to have originated from the scene of crime, mere matching of the said print with that of the accused is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 7.1 It is further submitted that the prosecution's case namely, that Material Objects Nos.3 to 5 were recovered from a jewellery shop at the instance of the accused is not fully established, as the details of the shop from which the seizure was effected has not been recorded in the panchanama. It is also submitted that the alleged receiver of the stolen property, i.e., M.O. Nos.3 to 5, has not been examined by the prosecution, which has caused prejudice to the defence of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the panch - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 witnesses to Exs.P3 and P5 have made inconsistent statements with regard to the recovery of the material objects. It is lastly submitted that the accused has already undergone one month and six days of the sentence during the course of the trial. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the fingerprints collected from the scene of crime were subjected to examination by comparing them with the fingerprints of the family members residing in the house where the incident had occurred. Upon the results being negative, the chance print recovered from the scene was compared with the fingerprints available with the prosecution. As the accused was involved in another crime, his fingerprints were already available in the prosecution records. It is submitted that PW.4, the forensic expert, has clearly explained the entire process of collecting the chance print and the analysis undertaken for comparison. 8.1 It is submitted that PW.4-the forensic expert has clearly set out the complete account of the process of collection, comparison, and analysis of the chance print. It is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 further submitted that both the Courts, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, have recorded concurrent findings. No material irregularity or perversity is found in the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Hence, he submits that no case is made out for interference by this Court. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence on record, this Court proceeds to examine the matter. 10. The case made out by the prosecution is that, on 31.12.2012, there was a theft committed by breaking open the lock of the complainant’s house situated at Vidyagiri, 22nd Cross, within the jurisdiction of Bagalkot Navanagar Police Station. This fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that certain gold and silver articles, digital cameras and a mobile phone were stolen, and the same were recovered and marked as M.Os.1 to 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that, although Ex.P6 establishes that the fingerprints matched with those of the accused, the prosecution has failed to establish the source of the chance prints. A perusal of the evidence of PW.4, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 the forensic expert, clearly discloses the procedure adopted for the comparison of fingerprints. PW.4 has stated that the fingerprints were collected at the scene of crime at the request of the police. It is further stated that the fingerprints were initially compared with those of the family members of the complainant, and when no match was found, they were compared with the fingerprint records available with the prosecution. It was found that the chance prints matched with the fingerprints of the accused, who was also involved in Crime No.97/2010 registered at Malamaruti Police Station, Belagavi. PW.4 was subjected to extensive cross-examination; however, no material contradictions were elicited. Although the source of the chance prints was challenged, no suggestion in that regard was put to PW.4 during cross-examination. In the absence of any such suggestion or material contradiction, the conclusion drawn in Ex.P6 stands duly proved by the prosecution. 11. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the recovery of M.Os.3 to 5 is not proved, as the alleged receiver of the stolen property has not been identified or examined. The recovery of M.Os.3 to 5 is recorded under the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 mahazar marked as Ex.P3, which is attested by PWs.2 and 3. A close reading of Ex.P3, in conjunction with the testimonies of PWs.2 and 3, clearly establishes that M.Os.3 to 5 were recovered at the instance of the accused. The mere non- examination of the alleged receiver of the stolen property does not, by itself, cast any doubt on the recovery or undermine the case made out by the prosecution. 11.1 This Court has thoroughly examined the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for both parties and has also perused the findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court. Upon a detailed assessment of the evidence and the concurrent findings, it is evident that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by both the Courts are well-founded and supported by the evidence on record. Hence, no case is made out for interference by this Court, insofar as the conviction is concerned. 12. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a lenient view be taken insofar as the sentence is concerned. It is submitted that the accused was 23 years old - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 as on the date of the incident and that he is presently eking out a livelihood by working as a coolie. It is further submitted that his wife and children are dependent on his earnings. It is also submitted that, apart from the present case, the accused is not involved in any other criminal activity. This submission is not seriously disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate, nor has any material been placed before the Court indicating the accused’s involvement in any other offences. 13. Considering the age of the accused and the year in which the offence was committed, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases and is stated to be maintaining good conduct and leading a cordial relationship within society, this Court is persuaded to take a lenient view insofar as the imposition of sentence is concerned. 14. In view of the above aspects, a case is made out for modification of the sentence. Accordingly, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The conviction recorded for the charged offences in C.C.No.24/2013 dated 17.02.2017 and Criminal Appeal No.23/2017 dated 10.10.2019 is confirmed. However, order of sentence of the trial Court is modified. iii. The sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year and six months for the offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC and a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC is hereby modified. The same is substituted with simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the IPC, and simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. iv. Both sentences shall run concurrently. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8112 CRL.RP No. 100289 of 2019 v. The sentence undergone in the Trial is given set of. vi. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Pending I.A’s if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB/DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11