- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100176 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NAGESH @ SWAMI @ SHANKAR NAGESH S/O. ANNAYYA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. GOLLARKOPPALU VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R. PETH TALUK, NOW AT PATANJALI NAGAR, KUNIGAL, TUMAKURU. 2. ALLABAX S/O. BUDANSAB, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. TIMLAPUR VILLAGE, NH.1, HOSPETE, BALLARI. 3. D. SANTOSH S/O. DEVENDRAPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. BEHIND RAJAGOPALNAGAR, PEENYA, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S., REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.26/2013 PASSED BY DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DATED 30/10/2019 WHICH CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.56/2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC, GANGAVATHI DATED 15/06/2013 THEREBY WHICH CONVICTED AND SENTENCED THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 TO UNDERGO R.I FOR 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 IPC AND TO PAY FINE AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSD NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.R.M.Javed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused who have suffered an order of conviction in CC No.56/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2013 connected with Crl.R.P.No.20/2014. 3. Revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the proved offence under Section 392 of IPC. 4. State filed the revision in Crl.R.P.No.20/2014 seeking enhancement of the sentence. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the material evidence placed on record, by reappreciating the material evidence, allowed the revision - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 filed by the State by imposing fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- along with imprisonment for a period of two years ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court, in this revision petition. 7. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 7.1. In respect of an incident that occurred on 18.08.2011 at about 6.20 p.m., when the complainant, her sister – Indramma and their child – Gouri went to Sai Baba Temple in Anegundi. After taking darshan, when they were returning to their house at about 7.00 p.m., opposite to Sriramalu College near the garage, some unknown persons came on the motorcycle and snatched away the managalsutra belonging to the complainant. 7.2. When she tried to resist the snatching of the mangalsutra, some portion of it was cut and snatched - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 away by the said persons and portion of it remained with her. Therefore, complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons. 8. Police registered the case in respect of the incident in Crime No.149/2011 and despite best result; they could not trace the culprits. Therefore, filed a ‘C’ report. 9. However, very same accused persons were involved in another case and Channarayapattana Police apprehended the accused persons and during the course of investigation, based on the voluntary statement given by the accused persons, present case was reopened and investigation officer was able to recover the managalsutra snatched by them which were converted into a gold solid mass which is marked as M.O.3 and therefore, charge sheet came to be filed. 10. After due trial, accused were convicted and complainant, her sister were able to identify the accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 persons before the Court so also recovered the gold solid mass from the custody of the accused persons which is actually before conversion was the portion of mangalsutra snatched away by the accused persons from the neck of the complainant. 11. Validity of the conviction order was upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court especially in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the accused persons. 12. Moreover, Investigation Officer in respect of some other crime of Channarayapattana police, got the information when the accused persons were arrested in respect of another case and based on their voluntary statement, solid gold mass came to be recovered. Therefore, conviction of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 13. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument put forth on behalf of the accused namely showing leniency to the accused persons. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that only two cases were against the accused persons and one case ended in acquittal, where State did not chose to filed an appeal. Present case, where the conviction order has been upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. Therefore, custody period already undergone by them may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 15. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the said submission made on behalf of the revision petitioners on the ground that if the revision petitioners are shown any leniency, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 16. Having regard to the fact that in respect of another incident, accused persons have been acquitted and it has become final, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each, payable in two installments, would meet the ends of justice by treating the custody period already undergone by them as period of imprisonment. 17. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, custody period already undergone by them is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- which is to be payable in two installments: a. First installment of Rs.40,000/- shall be payable on or before 31.05.2025. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6743 CRL.RP No. 100176 of 2020 b. Second installment of Rs.35,000/- shall be payable on or before 30.06.2025. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, would result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the First Appellate Court. iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to complainant 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.: 33