- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 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.100021 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:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 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.42/2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, BYADAGI WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AT RANEBENNUR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.74/2018 DATED 02.12.2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 AND 511 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.42/2017 have preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Byadgi (for short, 'the trial court'), and the judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.74/2018 by the 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2020 3. The prosecution has alleged that, on 28.04.2016 at around 10:00 p.m., the accused committed theft of a nylon- plastic tarpaulin. Consequently, the accused were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 15 documents as exhibits, along with 2 material objects. The trial court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC. 5. The first appellate court, upon due appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. 6. Sri S.S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing along with Sri R.G. Dhongadi, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the trial court recorded the conviction in the absence of sufficient evidence. It is further submitted that there were no eyewitnesses to support the case of the prosecution. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2020 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that M.O.1 and M.O.2—the stolen articles, were recovered at the instance of the accused. It is also submitted that the accused are habitual offenders and are involved in multiple criminal cases. It is submitted that atleast three cases involving similar offences are listed 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, the learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is noted that the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings. The scope of interference with such concurrent findings is limited and arises only where fundamental errors are demonstrated. This Court is not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2020 required to interfere merely to correct mistakes unless such mistakes go to the root of the matter or are in contravention of the settled principles of law. 9. The trial court considered the testimony of PW.1, who is a witness to the spot and seizure mahazar. He has supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW.2 deposed that the accused persons pointed out the tarpaulin, and he witnessed the mahazar proceedings. PW.3 is the complainant, and the tarpaulin was stolen from his land by the accused. He provided a detailed account of the incident and identified M.O.2. Though the complaint was initially lodged against unknown persons, PW.3 later identified the accused. PW.4, a panch witness, also supported the prosecution case. Though PWs.5 and 6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, the same does not significantly affect the overall case. PW.9 confirmed the registration of the complaint filed by PW.3, marked as Ex.P8. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused by sufficient and credible evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2020 10. The trial court further held that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the trial court proceeded to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC. 11. The first appellate court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the findings recorded by the trial court, held that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused for the offences as stated therein. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds and submissions urged before the first appellate court, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused. 13. Upon detailed scrutiny of the judgments of both the courts below, the only conclusion that can be drawn by this Court is that the findings recorded do not warrant any interference. 14. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on the evidence and material available on record. No infirmity has been pointed out that would warrant interference by this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7604 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2020 Court. In the absence of any material irregularity or perversity in the appreciation of evidence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12