- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 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.100022 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:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCED DATED 24.04.2018 IN C.C.NO.45/2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, BYADAGI WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, HAVERI AT RANEBENNUR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.75/2018 DATED 02.12.2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 380 OF IPC AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS / 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. This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C. No.45/2017 dated 24.04.2018 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.75/2018 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) (for short, ‘the first appellate court’), by accused Nos.2 to 4. 3. The case made out by the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 28.07.2016 at about 1:00 a.m., the accused persons unlawfully entered the Puttaraja Gavayi Temple at Kollapur, Byadgi, broke open the iron almirah (hundi), and committed theft of a sum of Rs.40,000 to Rs.45,000/- thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Upon receipt of the complaint, FIR was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, who were cited as PWs.1 to 12, and marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The trial court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.75/2018. The first appellate court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. 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. He further submits that there was no eyewitness to support the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the courts below failed to properly appreciate the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is submitted, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the accused persons are habitual offenders and are involved in multiple criminal cases. It is submitted that atleast three such cases are listed before this court along with this petition. It is contended that 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings with regard to the guilt of the accused based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The scope of interference with such concurrent findings in a revision petition is limited and extends only to examining - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 whether there exist any fundamental errors, perversity or miscarriage of justice and not merely to correct errors, unless such errors are contrary to the settled principles of law. 9. The trial court considered the evidence of PW.1, a witness to the spot mahazar. He deposed that on 29.07.2016, he visited the Puttaraja Gavayi Temple at the instance of the police, where he observed that the almirah (hundi) had been broken open and a sum of Rs.45,000/- had been stolen. He identified his signatures on Exs.P1 and P4 and also identified the photographs marked as Exs.P2 and P3. The trial court found the testimony of PW.1 to be credible. Similarly, PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence corroborated the testimony of PW.1. PW.3 was also examined by the prosecution. He identified Ex.P5, two iron rods, two motorcycles, two earrings and two finger rings. The mahazars drawn were marked as Exs.P6 and P7. Despite extensive cross- examination by the defence, his testimony remained unshaken. PW.4, a resident of Kollapur Village, deposed regarding the theft at the Puttaraja Gavayi Temple and stated that the accused had confessed to the commission of the theft when - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 they were brought to the temple by the police. He identified the accused before the court. PW.5 spoke about the conduct of the panchanama mahazar by the police at the house of Allabaksh Ballary, Kollapur Temple and Motebennur, as per Exs.P6 and P7. PW.6, the complainant, identified Ex.P8 and stated that the accused persons admitted their guilt in the presence of witnesses at the temple when brought by the police for conducting the mahazar. PW.10 is the official witness who received the complaint and registered the FIR. PW.12, the Investigating Officer, detailed the course of investigation and the process of collecting evidence. 10. The evidence of the aforementioned witnesses, though subjected to cross-examination, remained consistent and unshaken. The trial court, based on the said evidence, concluded that the accused persons had committed the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC. The trial court also took into consideration the recovery of articles, which corroborated the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The first appellate court, upon a threadbare re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, found that the material available - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7605 CRL.RP No. 100022 of 2020 was more than sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons in committing theft at the Puttaraja Gavayi Temple, Kollapur. 11. Learned counsel for the accused has extensively taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence on record. However, such effort does not aid the petitioners, as no ground has been made out to demonstrate any error in the orders passed by the courts below. Upon careful perusal of the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, it is evident that both orders are based on the evidence on record and are supported by justifiable reasoning. No infirmity or illegality is found warranting interference by this Court. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13