- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100020 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. PARASHURAM S/O. MALLAPPA MUDIKAR @ PARASAPPA, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BELLATTI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG. 2. SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. PRAKASHAPPA MUDIKAR @ SHANKRU @ SHANKARNAG @ SHANKARAPPA, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BELLATTI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG. 3. SHRI. VIJAY S/O. PRAKASHAPPA MUDIKAR @ VIJI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BELLATTI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. R.G. DHONGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCED DATED 24.04.2018 IN C.C.NO.21/2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, BYADAGI WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AT RANEBENNUR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.73/2018 DATED 02.12.2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 380, 457 OF IPC AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 / ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing along with Sri R.G. Dhongadi, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C. No.21/2017 have preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2018 passed by the J.M.F.C., Byadgi (for short, ‘the trial court’), and the judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73/2018 by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) (for short, ‘the first appellate court’), whereby the conviction was confirmed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the night of 03.04.2016, the accused persons broke open the lock of the complainant’s house situated at Vivekananda Nagar, Byadgi, and committed theft of gold ornaments and cash, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, who were cited as PW.1 to PW.10, and marked 13 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P13, along with two material objects. The trial court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further, for the offence under Section 457 of the IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.73/2018. The first appellate court, upon detailed appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. 5. Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing along with Sri R.G. Dhongadi, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the trial court convicted the accused without there being sufficient evidence on record. It is further submitted that there were no eyewitnesses to support the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel contends that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, which has been relied upon by the trial court, is contradictory and inconsistent. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 doubt. He contends that M.O.1 and M.O.2 were recovered at the instance of the accused. It is further submitted that the accused persons are habitual offenders and are involved in multiple criminal cases, at least in three cases before this court. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence on record. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that both the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings. Interference with such concurrent findings is warranted only when it is demonstrated that the courts below have committed fundamental errors or that the findings are perverse or contrary to the settled principles of law. Mere correction of errors that do not affect the core of the reasoning is not a ground for interference. In the present case, the prosecution has examined PW.1, a witness to the spot and seizure mahazar. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 has stated that upon visiting the scene of the offence, he observed that the front door lock was broken, the iron almirah was open, and household articles were scattered. He admitted the spot mahazar and sketch (Exs.P1 and P4), as well as photographs marked as Exs.P2 and P3. He further deposed that he accompanied the police to the locations shown by the accused persons, including Kollapur Temple and Motebennur Lake, where a plastic sheet allegedly stolen by the accused was recovered. He identified the motorcycle involved, marked as Exs.P7 and P8. He further stated that the accused handed over two pairs of earrings, two finger rings and two iron rods to the police. The iron rods were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2, while the photographs of the ear rings and finger rings were marked as Ex.P9. He also admitted his signatures on Exs.P10 and P11. PW.2, another spot mahazar witness, corroborated the testimony of PW.1. Though PWs.1 and 2 were subjected to cross-examination by the defence, their testimony remained unshaken. 8. PW.3 – the complainant, has stated that he is employed as a school teacher and resides at 3rd Cross, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 Vivekananda Nagar, Byadgi. He deposed that on 02.04.2016, he had been to Hirekerur and upon returning home on 05.04.2016 at around 7:00 a.m., he noticed that the front door lock of his house was broken and that things in the almirah were scattered. Upon verification, he found that a gold bracelet, gold earrings, other ornaments and cash amounting to approximately Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- had been stolen. He lodged a complaint with the police, which is marked as Ex.P12. He further deposed that one pair of earrings and two finger rings were recovered from the possession of the accused and that he identified the jewellery as shown in Ex.P9. PW.4, the wife of PW.3 though declared partially hostile, has not contradicted the version of the other prosecution witnesses. PW.5, the son of PW.3 identified the accused persons. PW.6 was examined to prove the mahazar marked as Ex.P10. The remaining witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. Although the defence counsel extensively cross- examined the witnesses, no material contradictions or inconsistencies were elicited so as to discredit their testimony. The trial court, upon a thorough and threadbare appreciation of the above evidence, recorded a finding that accused Nos.1 to 4 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 had committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Criminal Appeal No.73/2018 was preferred by accused Nos.2 to 4. The first appellate court, upon a detailed re-assessment of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court, held that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish that the accused persons had committed theft in the house of PW.3. It further found that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record while recording the conviction of the accused persons. 10. This Court, upon the persuasive submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, has examined the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, as well as the evidence available on record. There is no material on record that would support a view different from that taken by the courts below. The re-appreciation of the evidence also does not disclose any error or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the courts. It is therefore concluded that the concurrent findings are well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the evidence, and fully justified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7603 CRL.RP No. 100020 of 2020 In the light of the above, the criminal revision petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11