- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100211 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAVI S/O. BALAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. RAMACHANDRA W/O. RAMAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. BASAPPA S/O. DODDABASAPPA LAMNI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. RANGAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 5. KUMAR S/O. SOMALAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 6. UMESH S/O. BALAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 OCC. AGRICULTURE, 7. RAMESH S/O. CHANDRAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 8. MUTTAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. SHIROL, NARAGUND TALUK, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. PSI OF BADAMI P.S., AND REPRESENTED BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP ) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.11.2011 PASSED BY THE JMFC, BADAMI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 978 OF 2008 THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CRL. APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE DATED 03.07.2017 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 353 AND 504 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Girish S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused to suffer an order of conviction in CC number 978/2008 and sentenced as under which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.79/2011. “The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.11.2011 passed in C.C.978/2008 by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Badami whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under S.143 read with S.149 of I.P.C.; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under S.147 read with S.149 of I.P.C.. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under S.148 read with S.149 of I.P.C.; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 year and shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under S.353 read with S.149 of I.P.C.; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under S.504 read with S.149 of I.P.C.,” 3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 Excise sub-inspector, Badami range by name Ramangowda lodged a report at 8:15 PM on 21/06/2008 before Badami police contending that at about 12:30 in the noon when himself and his guards namely L.B.Payannavar (PW4), P.H.Doni (PW2), Ningappa Katanayakar (PW.3), S.M.Hiremath (PW7) and B.R.Kakandaki (PW.8) were patrolling at Kolageri cross in search of production of spurious liquors. He said to have received credible information that some persons are preparing spurious liquor in the bushes of the bank of river Malaprabha near kittali village. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 3.2 Accordingly, all of them proceeded to the said spot by securing two panch witnesses. A police constable viz., Sri.R.V. Koli was also deputed from Badami police station. They all went in Department Jeep bearing No.KA- 29/G-255 and as per the information they went near the bushes where the spurious liquor was being prepared. When they were so proceeding towards the bushes, 7 to 8 persons waylaid them near the newly constructed bridge and all of a sudden started assaulting them with stones and clubs. The group also hurdled abuses on the raid party in vulgar language. 3.3 By then, villagers of Kithali started gathering there to rescue the raid party. Immediately, the group consisting of 7 to 8 persons escaped away by throwing the stones and clubs on the spot. Later on, the complainant was able to successfully find out the names of few of the persons as Ravi Chavan, Ramachandra Rathod and Basappa Lamani. In the incident, head of the raid party and Sri.R.V.Koli and others were injured. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 3.4 Based on the complaint, Badami police registered the case in Crime No.151/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504. 353 R/W Section 149 of IPC and after detailed investigation filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences, inter alia securing the presence of the accused who were on anticipatory bail. 3.5 Charges were framed based on the charge sheet materials, after taking cognizance by the learned trial judge. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 3.6 In order to establish the case of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 11 documentary evidence were placed on record besides marking M.O. Nos.1 to 4. 3.7 After due trial, accused were convicted except for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 and sentenced as referred supra. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 3.8 Being aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.79/2011 before II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote. 4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, secured the records from the learned trial judge and in the light of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants, re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have filed the present revision petition. 6. Sri. Girish S. Hiremath, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused solely on the evidence of the head of a raid party and another member of the raid party without there being any independent corroboration to the incident. 7. He would further contend that very fact that nothing is seized in the alleged raid presupposes that there was no material to substantiate that it is the accused - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 persons who have indulged in preparation of spurious liquor and they attacked the raid party. Therefore, conviction order is bad in law and needs to be set aside by exercising the revisional powers vested in this Court. 8. Alternatively, Sri.Girish S. Hiremath also contends that accused persons are all middle aged persons having their family and children to be maintained and if at this distance of time, they are directed to join the prison, their families would be put to untold hardship. Therefore, taking note of the fact that they are first time offenders, they may be shown leniency by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 9. Per contra, Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. 10. He would further contend that in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, the accused persons and the head of the raid party being totally strangers, where was the necessity for the complainant to lodge a false report against them is a question that remains - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 unanswered on behalf of the accused. Further, with great difficulty head of the raid party could collect the names of only 3 persons who had attacked them and very fact that the sub-staff of head of the raid party sustaining injuries would establish that it is the accused persons, who are responsible for the incident and has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Magistrate for the major offence under section 353 of IPC along with offence for the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the revision petition needs dismissed. 11. He would further contend that no mercy can be shown for the accused persons as it would send a wrong message to the society besides encouraging the perpetrators of the crime to indulge in such crimes in future and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 12. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 i. Whether revision petitioners makes out the case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity or patent factual error so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? Regarding Point No.1 14. In the case on hand, admittedly there are five injured persons. Wound certificates marked before the trial Court vide exhibit P7 and P11 amply establish the injuries sustained by them. Author of exhibit P7 to P11 viz., Dr. Anil has been examined as PW 12. There is no loss of time in lodging the complaint before the Badami police by the head of the raid party. 15. All the injured witnesses apart from the head of the raid party have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 16. No doubt, few contradictions are elicited during the course of cross examination of PW9 and PW10. Those contradictions are marked as exhibit P3 to P6. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 17. Learned trial judge took into consideration those contradictions as well and has termed it as minor contradictions. 18. The appreciation of the material evidence especially the oral testimony of the injured eye witnesses to the incident is just and proper having regard to the settled principles of law. 19. As is rightly contented on behalf of the prosecution, in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity why would the head of the raid party falsely implicate the accused persons in a false case is a question that remains unanswered. 20. Moreover, while recording the accused statements, accused persons have not offered any explanation except denying incriminatory circumstances. 21. It is not the case of accused persons either that they were not present and they have been picked up from their respective residences. 22. In the absence of previous acquaintance, why would the head of the raid party took the name of three - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 accused persons and subsequently during the course of investigation, other accused persons names got revealed, who have been identified by the injured eye witnesses is a question that remains again unanswered on behalf of the revision petitioners. 23. On cumulative consideration of the oral testimony and the documentary evidence placed on record coupled with the wound certificates and the oral testimony of the doctor, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial judge recording the order of the conviction for the major offences under Section 353 of IPC with aid of offence of unlawful assembly and related offences is just and proper. 24. Acquittal of the accused persons for the offence under sections 323 and 324 by the trial judge which has become final in the absence of any challenge by the State, show sufficient application of mind on the part of the trial judge while passing an order of conviction which requires no interference by this Court that too in the revisional - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 jurisdiction, having regard to the scope of revision petition. 25. Thus, from the above discussion, point No.1 need to be answered in negative and accordingly it is answered. Regarding point No.2: 26. Sri.Girish S. Hiremath, counsel however contended that all the accused persons are middle aged persons having family to maintain. 27. He also contends that they are the bread earners of the family and they have no criminal antecedents. 28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each which has to be payable in two equal instalment of Rs.25,000/- each would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case on hand. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 Accordingly point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3:- 29. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 353 R/W Section 149 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate is hereby modified by directing the each of the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court on the condition that they have to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each(50,000+4,500 ordered by the trial judge and confirmed by the first Appellate Court in all RS.54,500/-) in two instalments, one instalment on 15/4/2025 in a sum of Rs.27,250/- and second instalment of Rs.27,250/- on or before 15.05.2025. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4884 CRL.RP No. 100211 of 2017 (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount in instalment as referred to supra would result in automatic restoration of the balance period of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) After receipt of the fine amount, sum of Rs.20,000 /-each is order to be paid as compensation to PWs 2 to 4 and PWs 7 and 8 under due identification. (v) Balance fine amount will be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. (vi) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37