- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100058 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI SUBBU @ SUBRAMANYA S/O. RAMACHANDRA MADIWAL, AGE: 37 YEARS, R/O. KALLABBE, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING TO PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.121/2013 DATED 14.02.2018, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE 1ST ADDL. JMFC, SIRSI IN CC NO.4023/2004 DATED 20.06.2013 BEING ILLEGAL AND AGAINST LAW THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED U/SEC.392 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 12:12:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri B.M. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.4023/2004 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, ‘IPC’) confirmed in Crl.A.No.121/2013, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: CPI, Sirsi Circle filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC after thorough investigation in respect of a criminal complaint wherein it is contended that on 17.09.2004 at about 8.45 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Sirsi New Market Police Station near the office of Deputy - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 Conservator of Forest, situated at Ganesh Nagar. The averments made in the complaint reveal that complainant along with her younger sister were proceeding towards their house. At that juncture, two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and forcibly snatched the Mangalasutra worn by complainant. As such, complainant-Smt. Tanuja approached Sirsi New Market Police station and lodged the complaint. 3.1 Police registered the case in Crime No.124/2004 and after thorough investigation, nabbed the present revision petitioner and another person viz., Manu @ Manjunath in respect of Crime No.173/2004. During the course of said investigation, material object involved in the present incident was also recovered from the custody of the accused persons. 3.2 It is noticed that the present petitioner and other accused gave confession in respect of several other cases as well and based on the said revelation, accused persons were charge sheeted in the present case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 3.3 After completion of necessary formalities, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the plea. Petitioner and other accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 3.4 After due trial, taking note of the voluntary statements given by the accused and pursuant thereof, the Mangalasutra, which was snatched from the neck of Smt. Tanuja having been recovered and identified by her, the learned Trial Judge recorded an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC against the petitioner and other accused. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, present petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.121/20113. 5. It is submitted that co-accused Manu @ Manjunath died during pendency of said appeal. Therefore, the conviction order as against the said accused stood abated. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records from the learned Trial Judge, in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused noting the fact that the accused is a habitual robber. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 7. Sri Sri B.M. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that voluntary statements given by the accused in respect of Crime No.173/2004 is made as the basis for filing of the charge sheet in the present case which is impermissible in law, as the Investigation Officer in Crime No.173/2004 and Investigation Officer in the present case are two different persons. 8. He would further contend that mere citing the Investigating Officer in Crime No.173/2004 as witness No.17 would not discharge the burden on the prosecution to establish the incident in the case on hand and recovery - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 of the ornament marked at M.O.1 would not ipso facto conclude the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Alternatively, Sri Patil would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner is now aged 53 years and a married man with family to maintain and he is eking out his livelihood through the agriculture by maintaining an areca nut garden, reasonably fine amount may be imposed by setting aside the imprisonment period. 10. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 11. He would further contend that in a matter of this nature, recovery of robbed ornaments and non- explanation with regard to ownership thereof would sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction. Therefore, argument put forth on behalf of the revision - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 petitioner, that too, before this Court as to the burden of proof on the prosecution cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Sri Praveena would contend that revision petitioner is a habitual and voluntary statements given by the accused before CW-17 in the case on hand would go to show that they were involved in such activities repeatedly and number of cases have been filed against the accused persons. Few of which have also ended in conviction and therefore, no mercy can be shown to the revision petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point No.1: 15. In the case on hand, admittedly accused was arrested in respect of Crime No.173/2004 along with co- accused Manu @ Manjunath. CW-17 was the Investigating Officer of Crime No.173/2004 who is the Police Inspector, Siddapura Police Station. 16. Based on the voluntary statement given by the revision petitioner and Manu @ Manjunath, Siddapura Police were able to even recover the Mangalasutra which snatched from the neck of Smt.Tanuja-complainant in the case on hand. 17. Thereafter, further investigation has taken place in respect of present case in Crime No.124/2004 and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 in the absence of any proper explanation with regard to the ownership of the Mangalasutra snatched from the neck of Smt.Tanuja, charge sheet came to be filed. 18. Before the Trial Court, necessary oral and documentary evidence was placed on record besides marking the snatched Mangalasutra as M.O.1. At the time of recording the accused statement, except denial of the incriminatory circumstances, no other material evidence is forthcoming on record so as to hold that M.O.1. belonging to the accused and police have falsely shown the recovery in the case on hand. 19. Admittedly, neither the police personnel nor Tanuja or other witnesses to recovery panchanama did not nurture any previous animosity or enmity against the revision petitioner to falsely implicate him in the case. 20. Why a valuable ornament like M.O.1 would be implanted by the police only with an intention to file a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 false case against the accused is a question that remains unanswered. 21. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge was justified in recording an order of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 22. Having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction in view of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another1 this Court re-considered the material on record in the light of the grounds urged in the revision petition. 23. On such reconsideration of the material on record, this Court did not find any legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual error so as to interference with the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. 1 (2012) 9 SCC 460 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 Regarding Point No.2: 24. Counsel for the revision petitioner sought for showing leniency to the accused having regard to his age and now he is eking out his livelihood through agriculture and he is aged 53 years and having a family to maintain. 25. Taking note of said aspect of the matter and also taking note of the fact that he was in custody the earlier cases, directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in two equal installments would meet the ends of justice in the case on hand. Out of the fine amount, awarding of the compensation to Smt. Tanuja in a sum of Rs.50,000/- would further serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding point No.3 : 26. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: Revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in two equal installments one on 15.04.2025 and another installment on 15.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, would result in automatic restoration of the order of the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) After the deposit of fine amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-1-Smt. Tanuja under due identification. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5131 CRL.RP No. 100058 of 2018 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30