- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100130 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANUIMANTHAREDDY S/O. TIPPESHAPPA GARAPATTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEREDAHALLI VILLAGE, RANEBENNUR TQ., DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PSI HALAGERI P.S., THROUGH ADDITIONAL S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.03.2017 MADE IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AT HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 355, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.09.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO. 530 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.03 10:51:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 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.S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.530/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2014 and sentenced as under is the revision petitioner: “The accused sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The accused sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The accused sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC. The accused sentenced to undergo SI for 1 months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 The accused sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Acting under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. accused hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant/victim. In default of payment of compensation as mentioned above the accused shall undergo SI for six months. All the sentences run concurrently.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Basamma W/o Parashuramareddy Banakar lodged a complaint with Halageri Police Station, Ranebennur Rural Circle for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC said to have been committed on 02.03.2013. As per the complaint averments, it is revealed that on 02.03.2013 at about 8.30 a.m. when complainant was crying recollecting the death of her daughter, standing in front of her house, accused came there and abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with hands. Thereafter, took a stick which was lying nearby the place of incident and started beating the complainant on her back and neck with the stick and also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 assaulted her with chappal. Persons who were there near the place of incident, came and rescued her and pacified the quarrel. 4. Thereafter, police registered the case in Crime No.36/2013 and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. 5. Accused stood for trial and based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.54/2014. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and wrongly convicted the revision petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Alternatively, he would contend that revision petitioner being the first time offender, in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, may enhance the fine amount reasonably and set aside the order of imprisonment and to that extent, revision petition may be allowed. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 12. He would contend that motive for the incident is that the revision petitioner had an eye on the daughter of the complainant and unfortunately daughter of the complainant died. In that regard, there was some ill will between the complainant and the revision petitioner resulting in the unfortunate incident near the temple and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 13. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he would contend that revision petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant that too a lady. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the revision petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the incident stood established as eye witnesses to the incident who were total strangers to the parties, have supported the case of the prosecution - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 besides the complainant supporting the case of the prosecution in toto. 16. Prosecution placed on record three material objects namely stick, chappal and bangle pieces which were found in the place of incident. 17. Eyewitnesses specifically stated that they were in the hotel at the time of incident and on hearing the hue and cry made by the complainant, they came there and saw revision petitioner assaulting the complainant with chappal and stick. Therefore, they pacified the incident. 18. Further, motive for the incident is spoken to by the complainant in clear and categorical terms with graphic details. Motive for the incident is that the revision petitioner wanted to marry the daughter of the complainant and unfortunately, the daughter died about ten years earlier and when the complainant was remembering the said aspect of the matter, was crying standing in front of her house and at that juncture, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 revision petitioner came there and started assaulting her and also abused the complainant. 19. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing an order of conviction. 20. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 21. Having regard to the limited scope of the rivisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition would not be sufficient enough to upset the findings recorded by both the Courts with regard to guilt of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, order of conviction needs to be maintained. 22. This would take this Court to the next limb of the argument namely the leniency to be shown to the revision petitioner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 23. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that revision petitioner is the first time offender. Same is not in dispute as could be seen from the material evidence placed on record. 24. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioner is the first time offender and has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of six months imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC if set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and ordering the entire sum of Rs.25,000/- compensation to be paid to P.W.1, would meet the ends of justice in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5701 CRL.RP No. 100130 of 2017 ii. While maintaining the order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC sentence of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be paid on or before 30.04.2025. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, would result in automatic restoration of the sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iv. After receipt of the fine amount, entire enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 – Basamma Bankar under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34