- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200042 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAVI S/O TIPPANNA RATHOD, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BEERANKAL TANDA, TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIRI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WADIGERA POLICE STATION, TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIRI, REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI-585107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.04/2015 DATED 20.07.2020 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO. 185/2013 DATED 28.05.2015 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHAHAPUR AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF CONVICTION UNDER SEC.326 OF IPC. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2020 passed in Crl.A No.4/2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Yadgiri and also judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2015 passed in C.C No.185/2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahapur for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 11.11.2012 at about 6.00 p.m., Govindappa S/o Hanumanta Kodreddy went to Beerankal Tanda to call his uncle Devappa S/o Nagappa near the shop of one Doddappa. His uncles, namely, Devappa and Ashok were there. When three of them after purchasing beedi were coming on the road in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 front of the shop of the said Doddappa, Ravi S/o Tippanna and Boodeppa S/o Laxman of Beerankal Tanda came together and wrongfully restrained Govindappa. At that time, the said Ravi started assaulting Govindappa by picking a club which was lying there, to his left side fore-head and caused bleeding injury to him. Further, Boodeppa gave a blow to his back by hands. At that time, when Govindappa was shouting, his uncles, Devappa and Ashok and the shop keeper Doddappa came and stopped the fight. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.106/2012. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5 and also identified one club, which is marked as M.O.1. 4. Heard Sri.Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that PW.1 sustained bleeding injury, which is considered as grievous in nature. As per the evidence of the Doctor – PW.7, the CT scan was done. It would indicate that the injuries even though are grievous in nature, the Doctor did not opined that the said fracture had occurred due to the said M.O.1. 6. It is further submitted that the evidence of so-called eyewitnesses, namely, PWs.1, 4 and 5, they are the related witnesses. No independent witnesses have been examined even though they were available in the vicinity where the incident had taken place. Both the Courts have committed error in not appreciating the evidence properly. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that, the incident occurred in front of the eyewitnesses. The injured witnesses has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 also supported the case. All the witnesses are consistent in their evidence that, Ravi by using the club had caused severe bleeding injury on the head of Govindappa. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rendered the conviction and the Appellate Court has confirmed the same. Hence, there are no infirmities in the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction. Therefore, the conviction rendered by the Courts below is required to be sustained. Making such submissions, learned HCGP for the respondent – State prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction, the fact remains that, Govindappa went to Beerankal Tanda to call his uncle Devappa S/o Nagappa. However, one Ashok was there along with Devappa. All the three of them had purchased beedi from the shop of Doddappa and started moving away from the shop. In the meantime, the petitioner and another restrained Govindappa wrongfully and started assaulting him indiscriminately. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 petitioner herein alleged to have assaulted with club on the head of Govindappa and caused severe injuries. 9. PW.7 is the Doctor, who produced CT scan, which is marked as Ex.P3, it would indicate that the fracture found in the skull and it is considered as grievous hurt in nature. The evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 are consistent that Ravi had assaulted with club. Such being the fact, recording the conviction in my considered view, is appropriate and proper. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that, this is the first case that the petitioner had committed, thereafter, he has not committed any similar offences till today. As such, he prays to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by considering the conviction imposed for the offences stated supra. 11. Having considered the nature of the offence, the punishment prescribed for the said offences, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 12. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is disposed off. ii) The judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed in C.C No.185/2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahapur and the judgment and order dated 20.07.2020 passed in Crl.A No.4/2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Yadgiri, are set aside. iii) The petitioner is ordered to be released on Probation of Offenders Act by executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. iv) The petitioner shall be monitored another two years to confirm the order of this acquittal. In case, if the petitioner commits any criminal case either similar in nature or any other nature, the benefit of extending - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2123 CRL.RP No. 200042 of 2020 this Probation of Offenders Act will be forfeited and he will be prosecuted as per the order of the Courts below. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT:PK