- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100015 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: YAMANURAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA HANCHATE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (TAILORING), R/O: ILKAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ILKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P. OFFICE, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2014 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2014 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT, HUNGUND IN C.C.NO.103/2008 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457, 380 OF I.P.C. AND ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.17/2014 DATED 29.10.2018 AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri B.S. Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent. 2. Accused No.3 has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.103/2008 dated 30.01.2014 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, and the judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.17/2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, whereby the revision petitioner—Accused No.3—has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- in respect of each offence, and in default of payment of fine, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 3. The case of the prosecution is that between 10:00 p.m. on 30.12.2007 and 6:00 a.m. on 31.12.2007, accused Nos.1 to 3, acting in furtherance of their common intention, broke open the locks of the shop belonging to CW-1, committed lurking house-trespass, and stole gold jewellery worth ₹4,73,995/-, silver ornaments worth ₹18,000/-, and cash amounting to ₹1,18,980/-. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was conducted against accused Nos.2 and 3. 4. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-15 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-32 and Material Objects M.Os.1 to 61 in support of its case. The trial Court, placing reliance on the recovery made at the instance of the accused persons, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-15, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 the seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P-12, held that the prosecution had proved that accused Nos.2 and 3 committed the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Accused No.3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.17/2014 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Sri B.S. Kukanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the accused was not present at the scene of the incident. It is contended that the case made out against the revision petitioner is limited to the allegation that he was merely watching while accused Nos.1 and 2 were breaking open the locks of the shop. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner neither participated in the act of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 breaking open the locks nor entered the shop or committed theft of gold, silver articles, or cash. 6.1 It is further submitted that the revision petitioner was implicated as accused No.3 in the case solely on the basis of the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the revision petitioner so as to satisfy the ingredients of the offences with which he has been charged. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that, assuming the recovery is proved, the maximum offence that may be attracted against the revision petitioner is under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, for receiving stolen property. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is contended that when accused Nos.1, 2, and 3 were apprehended along with the stolen articles, the involvement of accused No.3/revision petitioner was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 disclosed. Four stolen articles were recovered from his possession, as recorded in Ex.P-12. The revision petitioner has offered no explanation for the presence of these articles in his custody. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officers—PW-8 and PW-15—have furnished a complete account of the incident, which establishes the commission of the offences by the petitioner. 7.1 The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that, even if accused No.3 did not physically enter the scene of the crime, he actively participated in the commission of the offence by guarding accused Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that, in view of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he is liable to be punished as if he himself had committed the said offences. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 9. PW-1 is the first informant who lodged the complaint alleging theft in his shop on 30.12.2007. He has identified the stolen articles recovered from the accused persons, marked as M.Os.2 to 58. The panchanamas drawn for the recovery of the stolen articles, marked as Exs.P-2 and P-12, have been duly proved. The pancha witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. PW-8 has provided a detailed account of the incident, including the manner in which the accused persons were apprehended and the seizure of gold jewellery, silver articles, and cash. Similarly, PW-15, another Investigating Officer, has also furnished a complete account of the incident. The overall testimony of PW-1, PW-4, PW-8, and PW-15 is consistent with Ex.P- 1 and the seizure panchanamas marked as Exs.P-11, P- 12, and P-16. The minor contradictions with respect to the description of the material objects do not have any material bearing on the case of the prosecution. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 10. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon consideration of the evidence referred to hereinabove, have rightly concluded that accused No.3/revision petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Another notable aspect is that the witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination. However, the defence has not been able to elicit any material to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 12. The learned counsel advanced elaborate arguments in an attempt to demonstrate infirmities in the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court. However, no demonstrable ground has been made out, nor has any infirmity or perversity been shown in the findings recorded by either the trial Court or the appellate Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 13. This Court, upon independent appreciation of the evidence, is of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent and reliable evidence, and the reasons assigned are duly supported by the material on record. No error or infirmity is found warranting interference with the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction stands confirmed. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused is bedridden and has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 4 months and 20 days during the course of trial. It is further submitted that, considering the year of the incident, the age of the accused, and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of fine. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to substitute the sentence of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 imprisonment with fine is untenable, as the offences charged prescribe both imprisonment and fine. However, having regard to the year of the offence, the age of the accused, and the submission that he has already undergone imprisonment for approximately 4 months and 20 days during the course of trial, this Court is of the view that the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the trial Court requires modification. Although the contention that the accused is bedridden is not substantiated, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to 9 months' simple imprisonment, with the benefit of set-off for the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment dated 30.01.2014 in C.C.No.103/2018 passed by the trial Court and the judgment dated 29.10.2019 in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8600 CRL.RP No. 100015 of 2020 Crl.A.No.17/2014 passed by the appellate Court are confirmed insofar as the conviction of the revision petitioner for the charged offences. (iii) The period of sentence of imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC is reduced for a period of 9 months simple imprisonment. (iv) The fine amount is retained. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offences. (v) The above sentences shall run concurrently. (vi) The set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. granted by the trial Court is undisturbed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6