- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100379 OF 2025 (C) BETWEEN: 1. MAHESH MARUTI DUKARE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LAXMI GALLI, KINAYE, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590003. 2. NAMADEV KASHINATH DUKARE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LAXMI GALLI, KINAYE, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590003 …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY THE XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C.NO.130/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 435 R/W. 34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF FINE OF RS.35,000/- EACH BY APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State. 2. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 11 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (“PO Act” for short) by the by accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking to set aside the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.130/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short.) with respect to payment of fine of Rs.35,000/- each by appellants and another. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under: The complainant and the accused persons are residents of Kinaye village. There was a financial transaction between both the families. In this regard one Bhagirati agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- to her parents to perform the marriage of her - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 younger sister Durgadevi. She executed a bond in this regard. The said bond was with the accused as they had mediated. On 30.08.2020, when father of the defacto complainant demanded the bond from Mahesh – accused No.1 there was a scuffle between him and the accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons damaged the electricity meter of the house of the complainant, damaged his bike, and also assaulted the parents and the sister of the complainant. Thus, the complainant and his family members lodged a complaint against the accused persons on 01.09.2020. On 01.09.2020 at about 8:30 p.m. all the accused persons set fire to the house of the defacto complainant and caused loss to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/-. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. 4. The Trial Court ultimately convicted the appellants and another for the offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 34 of IPC and directed them to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- each as compensation to the complainant, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is excessive one and without any corroborative piece of evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of IPC, however it convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 435 of IPC and exercised the provisions of PO act and accordingly, granted compensation to the defacto complainant. Thus, prayed to reduce the compensation. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State contended that the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment, which is based on the evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are well founded and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 8. I have perused the material available on record. On 21.03.2025, the Trial Court passed an order under Section 4 of PO Act and on 16.04.2025, the Trial Court passed an order, which reads as under: “ORDER The Report of the Probation Officer is accepted. By invoking the power conferred under section 4 of P.O. Act, the accused 1 to 3 are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, on their executing personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety for the like sum. The Probation Officer is directed to supervise the accused 1 to 3 for 6 months. The P.O. shall report any non compliance by the accused-1 to 3 forthwith for further action in the matter. The accused 1 to 3 are directed to appear and receive the sentence at any time when called upon by the Court within 3 years, if they commit any offence or violate the probation of good conduct. Further, invoking section 5[1] of P.O. Act, the accused 1 to 3 are directed to deposit a total fine of Rs.1,05,000/- [i.e. Rs.35,000/- each), to be paid as a compensation and cost to the complainant. If the accused persons fails to pay, the same may be recovered as per section 421 or 431 of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 MO-1 to 5 be returned to the complainant after the appeal period is over. Furnish the copy of judgment to District Magistrate, Belagavi in compliance with section 365 of Criminal Procedure Code.” 9. On perusal of the above order, it appears that the Trial court has directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- each to the complainant. The Trial Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the statement made by the defacto complainant and materials on record. As per Ex.D.1, the statement of PW.1, he calculated the compensation on an approximate manner and he has not produced any material to that effect. Further, the defacto complainant – PW.1 in Ex.D.1 stated about burning of cash in his house and in Ex.P.1 – panchanama there is no reference about the burnt currency notes. The defacto complainant has not furnished any material before the Court to substantiate the extent of loss. Hence, in the absence of any material particulars, the Trial Court imposed compensation of Rs.35,000/- each on the accused payable to the complainant is excessive. If a sum of Rs.25,000/- as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762 CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025 compensation is imposed on the appellants, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Criminal appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.130/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 435 of IPC is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, the order with regard to payment of fine or compensation imposed on the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 3 of Rs.35,000/- each, is hereby modified and they are directed to pay compensation/fine of Rs.25,000/- each to the defacto complainant. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27