- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100011 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. INDUDHAR S/O. BASAPPA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASHI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BANAVASI PS, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. NOW REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO.3118/2004 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. J.M.F.C., SIRSI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT/ORDER MODIFIED SENTENCE DATED 05.12.2019 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, SITTING AT: SIRSI, BY ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. The accused in C.C. No. 3118/2004 on the file of the II Additional JMFC, Sirsi, and the appellant in Crl.A. No.12/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, has preferred this revision petition. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 18.09.2003, while the informant was returning home at about 10:00 p.m., near the shed of one Narendra Puttappa Naik, some liquid was thrown on her, due to which she experienced a burning sensation and shouted for help. Her parents, sisters, and other neighbours rushed to the spot, took her home, and noticed that her right cheek, neck, and right forearm had sustained burn injuries. Her clothes were also found to be burnt. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 informant initially suspected that some person, with an intention to harass or disfigure her, might have thrown a substance resembling acid to cause burn injuries. She was thereafter shifted to the Government Hospital at Sirsi for treatment, where she lodged a complaint before the Police, which came to be registered as Crime No. 68/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The Police filed a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 10 documents as exhibits and 5 material objects. 5. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted accused No. 1 / the revision petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of ten months. Being aggrieved by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 judgment of conviction and sentence, accused No. 1 preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.12/2004. 6. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, proceeded to allow the appeal in part. While maintaining the conviction of the accused, the Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-. 7. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence and that there are no eyewitnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the father of the informant/victim were involved in a financial dispute, and in order to avoid repayment of the said amount, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel also contends that although the incident is said to have occurred on 18.09.2003 and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 victim was shifted to the hospital on the same day, the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report was prepared only on 19.09.2003, and the complaint came to be registered thereafter. The delay in registering the complaint, it is urged, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the statement made by the informant/victim. 8. Learned counsel, referring to Ex.P-1 the complaint, submits that the name of the accused was not mentioned therein. It is further submitted that the complainant, who was examined as PW-1, has given a statement that is inconsistent with the contents of Ex.P-1. It is also contended that the name of accused No. 1 was introduced only during the course of the restatement recorded on 19.09.2003, which amounts to an improvement in the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely on the evidence of PW-1, which by itself is insufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 9. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the incident occurred late in the night on 18.09.2003, and that the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was registered at the earliest on the following day, whereafter the complaint came to be lodged. Owing to the mental condition of the complainant, a restatement was recorded on the same day, during which the victim named accused No. 1. Learned AGA further submits that the testimony of PW-1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1 and is further corroborated by Ex.P-5, the wound certificate of the accused which records the presence of burn injuries over both his thighs. 10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the victim sustained burn injuries. The burn injuries suffered by the accused, as recorded in Ex.P-5, are also not seriously disputed. PW-1 has provided a detailed account - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 of the incident, which is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1. PW-1 has further deposed that the accused had proposed marriage to her, which she had refused, and that, due to such refusal, the accused attacked her with acid. The defence has extensively cross-examined PW-1 and put forth various suggestions. However, despite such cross-examination, no material contradictions or admissions have been elicited to disprove the allegation of acid attack made by PW-1 against accused No. 1. 11. Ex.P-7, the wound certificate of PW-1, establishes that she sustained burn injuries over the side of her cheek, ear, neck, shoulder, forearm, and hand, and that the said injuries are grievous in nature. Further, Ex.P- 5, the wound certificate of accused No. 1, also confirms the presence of acid burn injuries over both thighs. Notably, accused No. 1 has failed to offer any explanation for the presence of such injuries on his body, an explanation which only he is in a position to provide. It is pertinent to note that the injuries sustained by both the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 victim and accused No. 1 occurred on 18.09.2003, the date of the alleged incident. 12. PW-7, the father of the victim, has offered an explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. According to PW-7, immediately after the acid attack, his daughter was taken to the hospital on 18.09.2003. It was only on the following day, i.e., 19.09.2003, after she had regained stability, that the police complaint came to be registered. PW-7 has further reiterated that accused No. 1 had, about six months prior to the incident, proposed marriage to his daughter, which she had refused. Bearing a grudge over such refusal, it is alleged that the accused threw acid on the victim. Though the defence made serious suggestions in cross-examination to indicate that the victim was in relation with another person at the relevant time, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the prosecution's case. 13. PW-13, the doctor who treated accused No. 1, was examined by the prosecution. He issued Ex.P-5, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 wound certificate pertaining to accused No. 1. Ex.P-5 confirms that the injuries sustained by accused No. 1 were caused due to acid burns. 14. PW-14 was examined to prove Ex.P-7, the wound certificate of the victim. PW-14 treated the victim on 18.09.2003 at about 11:10 p.m. She has deposed to the presence of burn injuries on the right cheek, right ear, right side of the neck, and right hand of the victim. 15. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence as referred to above, has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the accused. The Trial Court has correctly held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. The Appellate Court, upon re-examination of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, has rightly confirmed the order of conviction. The concurrent findings of both the Courts convicting the accused do not warrant interference by this Court. No ground is made out - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 to hold that there is any error or illegality in the orders of conviction recorded by the Courts below. 17. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, inviting the attention of the Court to the sentence imposed by both the Courts below, submits that the Trial Court erred in awarding a sentence of three years’ imprisonment. He further submits that, although the Appellate Court reduced the sentence from three years to one year, it failed to appreciate that even the reduced sentence is excessive and not justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unmarried at the time of the alleged incident and that the said act was a result of immature thinking, not driven by any intention to cause harm or disfigurement to the victim. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the incident, the victim has married and is presently well-settled in her matrimonial life. The accused is also married and has two minor children born out of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 said wedlock. He is stated to be the sole breadwinner of his family. Learned counsel contends that if the sentence of imprisonment as affirmed by the Appellate Court is upheld, the family of the accused would suffer irreparable hardship. It is also submitted that, considering the absence of any premeditated motive or malicious intent and in view of the fact that the victim did not suffer permanent disfigurement or grievous injury, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified and confined to imposition of a fine alone. 19. This Court is conscious of the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the accused. At the same time, the Court has taken into consideration the age at which the offence was committed, as well as the present circumstances of the accused. The fact that the accused is the sole breadwinner of his family, which includes his wife and two minor children, is a relevant factor that cannot be overlooked. While adopting a sympathetic view, it is incumbent upon the Court to balance the need for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 punishment with the broader interests of justice, particularly in cases where the statute permits the imposition of either imprisonment or fine. In the present case, the welfare of the minor children of accused also merits due consideration. If sentence is modified to heavy fine and such fine is paid to the victim, the hardship caused can be mitigated. In that view of the matter, while upholding the conviction, the sentence imposed by the Appellate Court warrants modification. 20. In view of the above discussions, following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Order of conviction in C.C.No.3118/2004 dated 03.01.2014 on the file of II Addl. JMFC, Sirsi confirmed in Crl.A.No.12/2014 dated 05.12.2019 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The order of imposing sentence is modified as under: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402 CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020 Accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. Fine amount shall be deposited within eight weeks from the date of this order. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. After deposit of amount, the Trial Court shall ensure release of fine amount electronically in favour of victim (Geeta Irappa Naik) after due identification. Registry to return the records to the trial Court along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE Naa CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1