- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100024 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PAVANKUMAR S/O. MANJUNATH MANCHI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. GANESHNAGAR, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT AND SRI. A.P. HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, NEW MARKET POLICE STATION, SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT: DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD-011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C., SIRSI IN C.C. NO.300/2019 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT: SIRSI IN CRL.A.NO.5003/2020 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 504 AND 324 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. The accused in C.C. No. 300/2019 has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019 passed by the I Additional J.M.F.C., Sirsi, and the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl.A. No. 5003/2020 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi. 3. The prosecution has made out a case against the accused to the effect that on 01.06.2015 at about 10:30 a.m., the accused, along with his minor brother, while removing mud from the fence between the house of the complainant and that of the accused, assaulted the complainant with an iron rod on the head, causing severe injuries, when the complainant questioned their actions. It is further alleged that the accused also abused the complainant in filthy language. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 4. The complainant reported the incident, pursuant to which FIR was registered. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short). The prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8, and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10, in addition to 1 material object. A photograph was marked as Exhibit D1. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 326, and 504 of the IPC, while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 448, one year of imprisonment for the offence under Section 326, and further imposed a fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 6. The accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC was modified to one under Section 324 of the IPC, and the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-. 7. Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. He contends that the witnesses examined by the prosecution and relied upon by the Trial Court are interested witnesses, whose testimonies suffer from contradictions and appear unrealistic. It is further submitted that there is no independent eyewitness to support the case of the prosecution. PWs.2, 3, and 4, being related to the complainant, are interested witnesses, and their evidence lacks credibility. 8. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 submits that the Trial Court has recorded the conviction based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has taken a lenient view by modifying the conviction from the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC to one under Section 324 of the IPC. The findings recorded by both the Courts are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is evident that the prosecution has made out a case to the effect that the accused assaulted the complainant and caused severe injuries with an iron rod. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the injured complainant as PW1. PW2 is a spot mahazar witness, while PWs.3 and 4 are examined as eyewitnesses. PW1, who is the wife of PW3—the injured, deposed that on 01.06.2015, she heard a commotion behind her house and saw the accused quarreling with her husband. She further stated that the accused, along with his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 younger brother, abused her husband and thereafter assaulted him with a crowbar, resulting in serious injuries. Her husband lost consciousness and was shifted to the hospital in a bleeding condition. 11. PW3 is the injured witness. According to his testimony, the accused and his brother were engaged in some work near the fence adjacent to his house. When he questioned them, both allegedly abused him in filthy language, and thereafter, the accused assaulted him on the head with a crowbar, causing injuries. 12. PW4, who was examined as an eyewitness, stated that while he was standing at a pan shop, he heard a commotion involving PW3. On proceeding to the spot, he found the accused and PW3 abusing each other, while PW1 was seen consoling her husband. He further deposed that after some time, the accused went to the house of PW1 and assaulted PW3 with an iron rod. 13. PW6 is the doctor who examined the injured and deposed regarding the nature of the injuries sustained and the treatment administered. PW2, the mahazar witness, has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 supported the case of the prosecution by corroborating the spot mahazar and seizure proceedings. 14. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PWs.1, 3, and 4, concluded that the accused had entered the house of PWs.1 and 3 with the intention to quarrel and assaulted PW3, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. Further, based on the evidence of PW4—an eyewitness, the Trial Court held that the accused had also committed the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. The Appellate Court, upon re-assessment and re- appreciation of the evidence, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, but not under Section 326 of the IPC as held by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 326 was modified to one under Section 324 of the IPC. 15. Learned counsel for both parties have invited the attention of this Court to the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by the courts below. Upon anxious consideration of the material on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 Court and the Appellate Court. Both the judgments are well- reasoned, and the conclusions drawn therein are supported by the evidence on record. No material has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that would warrant a different view. Though the Appellate Court modified the sentence, the State has not preferred any appeal against such modification. In that view of the matter, the order of the Appellate Court modifying the sentence is upheld. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the Appellate Court may be modified to a sentence of fine. It is contended that the accused was 20 years old at the time of the incident and, owing to immaturity and ignorance of the consequences, committed the offence without any intention to cause harm to PW3. It is further submitted that the accused is now married and is the sole earning member of the family, and that imprisonment would result in severe hardship to the entire family. It is urged that if the sentence is modified to payment of fine, the possible hardship to the family can be alleviated. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 17. The incident in question occurred in the year 2015. At the time of the incident, the accused was approximately 20 years of age. The case made out by the prosecution does not suggest any prior preparation or premeditated motive behind the act. On the contrary, the incident appears to have arisen out of mutual provocation. While the accused has been rightly convicted for the offences proved, the Court is required to balance the interest of justice with the potential hardship that may be caused if the accused is subjected to incarceration. It has also been submitted that subsequent to the incident, the accused and PW3 have maintained a cordial relationship, being neighbours. The learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly submitted that this is the only case in which the accused has been involved and that he has no criminal antecedents. 18. Having regard to the above peculiar facts and circumstances, including the age of the accused at the time of the incident, the absence of any prior criminal record, the passage of time, and the present societal and familial responsibilities of the accused, this Court is of the view that a lenient approach is warranted. In the interest of justice, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 sentence of imprisonment is accordingly modified to one of fine. Further offence under Section 324 of IPC attracts imprisonment or fine or both. In the facts of the case, the sentence of imprisonment can be modified/substituted with payment of fine. 19. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order in Crl.A.No.5003/2020 dated 30.11.2021 is upheld to the extent of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. However, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months is modified to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. (iii) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks before the trial Court. (iv) In default of fine, revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. (v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in favour of the victim/injured viz., Puttappa Shettar electronically on due identification. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909 CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022 (vi) Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21