- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100008 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HUSSAINSAB @ HUSSAINI S/O. MURTUJASAB NADAF, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MOCHI ONI, BHAGYANAGAR, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 18.09.2013 IN C.C.NO.79/2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M AT KOPPAL AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45/2013, DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC ONLY IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar G., learned counsel appearing for Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by Accused No.2-petitioner herein in C.C. No.79/2013 dated 18.09.2013, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koppal (for short ‘the trial Court), as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45/2013 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (for short ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The complainant is stated to be the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) of Bhagyanagar Grama - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 Panchayat, Koppal. Under the Suvarna Grama Yojana, the Government had installed solar lamps on electric poles along the road leading to the Idga open ground in Koppal, through the Panchayat Engineering Department. It is the case of the prosecution that solar batteries and connectors installed by the roadside were stolen. Upon noticing the theft, the complainant lodged a complaint at the Town Police Station, Koppal. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation revealed that the accused persons had committed theft of five solar batteries valued at Rs.40,000/-. The investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, who were cited as PW.1 to PW.8, and got marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1 to P8, in addition to marking 1 material object as M.O.1. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 convicted Accused Nos.1 to 3 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, Accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.45/2013. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the case of the prosecution primarily rests on the recovery. However, PW.3, the panch witness to the seizure, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the sentence imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the offence alleged. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 7. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that although PW.3-the seizure mahazar witness did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he has admitted his signature on Ex.P3 and has identified the batteries. PW.4, the receiver of the stolen property, deposed that accused No.2 pledged the batteries on the pretext of his parents’ ill health and obtained a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, the police visited his shop along with accused Nos.1 and 2 and recovered the batteries. Learned AGA submits that the testimony of PW.4 corroborates the evidence of PW.3 as well as the contents of Ex.P3. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly proceeded to convict accused No.2. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 9. The offence alleged against the accused pertains to the theft of solar batteries and connectors installed alongside the road. The complaint in this regard was lodged by PW.1, the Panchayat Development Officer, and is marked as Ex.P1. The batteries were recovered at the instance of accused No.2, as recorded in the seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P3. The recovered batteries have been identified as M.O.1. In order to establish the seizure, PW.3 was examined as the seizure witness to Ex.P3. Though PW.3 did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he admitted his signature on Ex.P3 and identified the seized batteries marked as M.O.1. PW.4, the receiver of the stolen property, has supported the case of the prosecution and confirmed the recovery of M.O.1 from his possession as per Ex.P3. The non-supportive testimony of PW.3, in view of his admission of signature and identification of the material objects, does not materially weaken the case of the prosecution, particularly in light of the corroborative evidence of PW.4. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 9.1 The cumulative consideration of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4, as well as Ex.P3, the commission of the offence by accused No.2 stands established. The minor contradictions and omissions, if any, are not of such magnitude as to affect the core of the prosecution case. 10. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon due consideration of the evidence on record, have rightly arrived at the conclusion that accused No.2 committed the charged offence. Though the defence extensively cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, no material contradictions or inconsistencies were elicited so as to discredit their testimony. In the absence of any substantial defence evidence, the findings recorded by both the Courts warrant no interference. Accordingly, the conviction of accused No.2 stands confirmed. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the year of the incident and the age of accused No.2, prays for modification of the sentence of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 imprisonment to that of imposition of fine. It is submitted that Section 379 of the IPC provides for punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. This submission is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 12. Having regard to the year of the incident, the age of the petitioner, and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that of payment of fine. Considering the nature of the offence, this Court finds it just and reasonable to impose a fine of Rs.15,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in- part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence in C.C. No.79/2013 dated 18.09.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koppal and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45/2013 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction. iii. The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.15,000/-. iv. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused No.2-petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. v. Bail bonds and sureties if any, stand cancelled. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9225 CRL.RP No. 100008 of 2020 Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6