- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 936 OF 2017 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1005 OF 2017 IN CRL.RP No. 936/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGARAJ @ BYANNA S/O.RAMAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, 2. SRI PRASHANTH S/O. NAGARAJ, AGED 29 YEARS 3. SRI YERRA GOWDA S/O.MUNIYAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TQ., KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SUB-INSPCTOR OF POLICE, MALUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON"BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20.07.2013 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.07.2013 IN C.C.NO.74/2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALURU AND JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.75/2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONERS OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM. IN CRL.RP NO. 1005/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGARAJ @ BYANNA S/O RAMAIAH AGED 56 YEARS 2. SRI PRASHANTH S/O NAGARAJ AGED 28 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 3. SRI YERRA GOWDA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 40 YEARS ALL R/O BOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MALUR TQ, KOLAR DISTRICT-562 101 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ORDER DATED 03.08.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.22/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR ENHANCHING THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONERS TO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEAR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 326 R/W 34 OF IPC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Criminal Revision Petition No.936/1017 is filed challenging the judgements of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.74/2011 on the file of J.M.F.C., Maluru, and in Crl.A.No.75/2013 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar. 2. Criminal Revision Petition No.1005/2017 is filed challenging the judgment in Crl.A.No.22/2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar enhancing the sentence for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 3. In C.C No.74/2011, the petitioners are convicted for offences under Sections 324, 326 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 4. The petitioners are sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 324 of IPC and also for offence under Section 506. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 5. The petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for offence under Section 326 of IPC and fine of ₹10,000/- is imposed. Out of the fine amount, 50% of the fine amount is ordered to be paid to the victim Byregowda, as compensation. In default, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one more month. Aggrieved by the said order, two criminal appeals are filed before the Sessions Judge at Kolar. Crl.A.No.75/2013 is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 and Crl.A.No.22/2014 is filed by the State. The State sought for enhancement of the sentence. 6. In terms of the judgment dated 03.08.2017, the Sessions Court dismissed the Criminal appeal filed by the accused and allowed the appeal filed by the State and in terms of the order, the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. The sentence in respect of the remaining offences is maintained by the Appellate Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments in the criminal appeals referred to above, the petitioners are before this Court in two different petitions. 8. The facts narrated in the charge sheet are as under: On 16.12.2010, around 07.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between Byregowda and accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 took a brick and hit Byregowda and as a result, Byregowda lost four teeth and also sustained injury on his lips. It is alleged that accused No.3 has assaulted Byregowda on the head and accused No.4 has threatened Byregowda with a machete in his hand. Thus, the prosecution lodged a case for offences under Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and were tried for the aforementioned offences. The Trial Court convicted the accused as already noticed above. The Appellate Court has enhanced the sentence for offence under Section 326 of IPC. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the victim lost four teeth and prosecution claims to have recovered four teeth at the scene of alleged offence. However, this is not substantiated in evidence. The X-Ray produced before the Court would reveal that only three teeth are missing and the doctor's certificate would also reveal that the victim lost only three teeth. It is urged that the complaint is filed alleging that the incident took place around 07:30 in the evening. However, the doctor's certificate - Ex.P6 would reveal the history narrated by the victim and the alleged incident has taken place around 6.00 p.m. on the same day by three persons. 10. Referring to these evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged incident where the victim lost four teeth is not established. The alleged incident which is said to have taken place at 7:30 p.m. in the evening is also not established. The alleged incident where it is alleged that four accused assaulted the victim is also not established and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have completely missed these aspects and have erroneously come to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The learned counsel would submit that if the victim had lost four teeth, then the X-Ray produced before the Court is not the X-Ray of the victim. It is also submitted that the prosecution has recovered four teeth from the scene of incident, then it must be construed that the teeth are not that of the victim. It is urged that the very statement made by the victim that he lost teeth because of the alleged incident, which took place at 6.00 p.m., would demonstrate that the alleged incident mentioned in the complaint is different from the alleged incident narrated before the doctor as mentioned in Ex.P6. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that Ex.P4 - the wound certificate would clearly establish the injury on the victim and it hardly makes any difference whether the victim lost three teeth or four teeth. Even if one tooth is lost, it is an offence under Section 326 of the IPC and eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and Trial Court and the Appellate Court have - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 appreciated the evidence placed on record and have rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It is urged by the learned HCGP that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is limited and there cannot be reappreciation of evidence to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 14. It is also urged that Appellate Court is justified in enhancing the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment considering the gravity of the injury sustained by the victim. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply would submit that as per Ex.P4 - wound certificate only three teeth are lost and remaining two injuries are simple injuries and alleged simple injuries are the result of only one alleged hit on the face of the victim, as such, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 326 of the IPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. It is seen from the complaint as well as the charge sheet that the specific allegation of the prosecution is that accused No.2 has hit the victim with a brick and as a result of which the victim lost four teeth. The medical records produced by the prosecution do not indicate the loss of four teeth by the victim. It only reveals loss of three teeth. X-Ray also does not indicate loss of four teeth. 18. More than anything else, PW.1 the complainant, in examination-in-chief has stated that accused No.1 has hit the victim with brick, as a result of which the victim lost four teeth. The victim who is PW.2 in the examination-in-chief has stated that accused No.1 has hit the victim with brick and he lost four teeth. PW.1 and PW.2 i.e. the complainant and the victim did not state before the Court that accused No.2 has hit the victim and because of the assault by accused No.2, the victim lost four teeth. 19. There is material contradiction as to who assaulted the victim with the brick. Thus, even if the injury is established - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 the person who caused the injury is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, as already noticed there is doubt as to whether 4 teeth said to have been recovered from the scene of incident are the teeth of the victim. 20. This being a position and also considering the fact that the medical records do not indicate loss of four teeth, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. 21. It is also relevant to notice that though the prosecution has claimed that it has collected four teeth from the scene of offence. The X-Ray and doctor's certificate do not indicate loss of four teeth by the victim. Thus serious doubt arises in the case of the prosecution. 22. As far as other charges relating to commission of offence under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC are concerned, this Court is of the view that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 i.e., complainant and victim relating to commission of offence under Section 326 by accused No.2, there is no inconsistency in the evidence - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 relating to commission of offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. 23. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Insofar as offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under 397 of Cr.P.C., does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding relating to commission of offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. 25. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to two months simple imprisonment for offences under Section 324 and 506 of IPC and eight months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 326 of IPC and in addition, ₹10,000 is also imposed as a fine and 50% of the fine amount is ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 26. The Appellate Court on appeal by the State has enhanced the sentence for offence under Section 326 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for two years. 27. For the reasons already recorded, this Court is of the view that there are serious doubts as to the case of the prosecution insofar as offence relating to Section 326 of the IPC and accordingly, the judgments convicting and sentencing the accused for offence under Section 326 of IPC have to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 28. As far as the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC is concerned, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding relating to conviction. 29. However, considering the fact that the incident has taken place in a spur of moment and also considering the fact that the petitioners have not been convicted and sentenced for any offence earlier, this Court is of the view that instead of simple imprisonment of two months for each offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC as ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 the petitioners should be directed to pay ₹1,80,000/- as fine as indicated below. 30. Each of Accused Nos.1 and 2 is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹60,000/- and each of accused Nos.3 and 4 is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹30,000/- and out of ₹1,80,000/- fine amount, ₹1,75,000 shall be paid to the victim- CW2. The amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing to deposit the said fine amount, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 31. The Trial Court shall issue notice to PW2, immediately after receipt of fine amount by the accused to enable PW2 to receive the fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. Criminal Revision Petition No.936/2017 is allowed in part. Criminal Revision Petition No.1005/2017 is allowed. The judgment dated 20.07.2013 in C.C.No.74/2011 on the file of II Additional JMFC, Malur is modified. The judgment - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38400 CRL.RP No. 936 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 1005 of 2017 dated 03.08.2017 in Criminal Appeals No.75/2013 and 22/2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar are modified. Accused are convicted and sentence for offence under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,80,000/- before the Trial Court and out of the said amount, Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid to PW2 - Byregowda. In default of payment of fine within thirty days from the date of the copy of the order, the each of the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28