- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100099 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANTH VENKAPPA ADAVI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. RUDRAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA ADAVI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O. SORGANV, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MUDHOL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY 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 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS OF BOTH THE COURTS BELOW AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.04.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, IN CRL.A.NO. 25/2015, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND TO CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED BY ADDL. JMFC, MUDHOL IN C.C.NO.440/2008 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:33:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.440/2008 who have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced as under: “Acting under Sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons no.1 and 2 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 Acting under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons no.1 and 2 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-Each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Acting under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons no.1 and 2 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- Each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The above said sentences shall run concurrently. Acting U/s 357(A) of Cr.P.C accused persons no.1 and 2 hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant who is injured victim. Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. the period undergone by the accused persons if any in Judicial Custody is hereby given set off.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 3. Validity of the conviction is challenged in Crl.A.25/2015 which came to be confirmed by considered judgment dated 20.04.2018. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 5. A complaint came to be lodged with Mudhol Police Station contending that on 26.03.2008 at about 7:30 PM in Sorgaon village in front of Hanuman temple, Wherein on account of previous enmity, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up the quarrel with the complainant for having deposed before the Court as mahazer witness in the case filed by Nandakumar Patil against the accused. They abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him resulting in complainant sustaining grievous injuries as could be seen from wound certificate issued by the doctor vide Ex.P.5. 6. After due trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court as referred to supra which - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 came to be dismissed by considered judgment. Thereafter, revision petitioners are before this Court. 8. Sri.K.L.Pail, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that material on record has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial judge and opinion of the doctor-P.W.12, who is the author of Ex.P.5 that injury is a grievous in nature on account of ligament tear could not have been treated as a grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the IPC and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence under section 326 of the IPC resulting in miscarriage of justice which has been mechanically upheld by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Alternatively, Sri.K.L.Patil would contend that in the event of this Court maintaining the conviction of the accused, taking note of the fact that the complainant and accused persons have now amicably settled the issue, sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 the First Appellate Court needs to be modified by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 10. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State opposes the revision grounds. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that doctor who have examined injured persons are examined PW.7 and PW.12. Wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 classifies the injuries sustained by the complainant as a grievous injury on account of ligament tear. Material object which is a club is used in the incident for assaulting the complainant has been produced before the Court and marked as M.O.No.1. 13. Complainant having supported the case of the prosecution so also the eye witness, learned trial judge was justified in recording an order of conviction against the accused and justified in recording order of conviction as referred to supra. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 14. Motive for the incident according to the complainant is that he has deposed against accused persons in a case, wherein as a panch witness filed by Nandakumar Patil against the accused persons. 15. Fact remains that the complainant, who is present before the Court submits unequivocally that he has settled the issue with the accused persons and they are now on cordial terms. However, offence under Section 326 of the IPC, cannot be compounded by virtue of the compromise outside the Court, as it is a non- compoundable offence. 16. However, the true settlement among the parties cannot be lost sight of while passing appropriate sentence in order to bring back the harmony among the parties. 17. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Maharastra 1. 18. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that while keeping intact the order of conviction, if 1 (1972) 4 SCC 625 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 the sentences modified by directing the revision petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to be payable on or before 15.05.2025 would meet the ends of justice. 19. Out of the fine amount recovered, enhanced fine of Rs.20,000/- apart from Rs.5,000/- is already ordered as compensation to the PW.1 would better serve the ends of justice. 20. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under each of the accused persons are directed to undergo as simple imprisonment for the day till the arising of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6512 CRL.RP No. 100099 of 2018 the Court and to pay fine enhanced fine amount Rs.10,000/- each for the aforesaid offences on or before 15.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.20,000/- enhanced fine amount + Rs.5,000/- already ordered by the trial Magistrate) shall be paid as compensation to the PW.1 under due identification. (v) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 39