- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 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.100055 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100010 OF 2020 IN CRL. R.P. NO.100055 OF 2020 BETWEEN: BASHEERSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB AGASIBAGIL, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. MASON, R/O. KURUBGONDA, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH RANEBENNUR POLICE STATION. …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 THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE IN C.C.NO.136/2008, DATED 22.09.2015, PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION DATED 11.11.2019, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41/2016 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1, FROM CHARGES Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 UNDER SECTION 394 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC. IN CRL. R.P. NO.100010 OF 2020 BETWEEN NAGAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA MATTIHALLI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/COOLIE, R/O: KURUBAGONDA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HALAGERI POLICE STATION. …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 THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.09.2015, PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI, (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5/2016, DATED 11.11.2019 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FROM CHARGES UNDER SECTION 394 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.07.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Accused No.1 has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100055/2020 and Accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.100010/2020. Both revision petitions are directed against the common judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2015 passed in C.C. No.136/2008 (split up) C.C. No.892/2014, and the orders passed in Criminal Appeal No.41/2016 and Criminal Appeal No.5/2016 dated 11.11.2019. Since common orders have been passed by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, these revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that, on 20.05.2007 at about 9:00 p.m., while the complainant was proceeding on a motorcycle from Halageri towards Lingadahalli, the accused persons, with the intention of committing robbery, held a rope blocking the road, thereby compelling the complainant to stop his motorcycle. At this situation, Accused No.1, while threatening the complainant, snatched a mangalya chain weighing 4 tolas; Accused No.3 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 snatched four gold bangles collectively weighing 4 tolas; and Accused No.2 snatched the complainant's gold chain. Thereafter, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and caused injuries. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, cited as PWs.1 to 16, and marked 22 documents as Exhibits P1 to P22. It also produced 4 material objects, marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4. During the course of cross- examination, the defence confronted the prosecution witnesses with 2 documents, marked as Exhibits D1 and D2. 4. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence of PW8 – the wife of the complainant, PWs.2 and 3 – the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar, and other material on record, held that the accused persons had committed the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 of two years and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 5. Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.41/2016, and Accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.5/2016. The Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed both the appeals. The present revision petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court. 6. Sri A.M. Gundawade, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the judgment of conviction is not supported by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is contended that the material on record is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction rests primarily on the evidence of PW1, his wife PW8, and PWs.10 and 12, who are stated to be the alleged receivers of the stolen property. However, the evidence of these witnesses is inconsistent and do not support the case of the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 6.1 It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place late at night, at about 9:00 p.m., and that there was inadequate lighting at the scene of occurrence, thereby rendering the identification of the accused persons by PWs.1 and 8 unreliable. The test identification parade conducted by PW10 is also assailed as being contrary to the settled procedure. It is lastly contended that mere recovery of stolen articles, in the absence of other corroborative evidence, cannot constitute the sole basis for conviction. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the prosecution has established its case on the basis of cogent circumstantial evidence. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.1, 8, 10, and 12 clearly supports the prosecution’s case. It is further submitted that the extensive cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses has not elicited any material to discredit their testimony. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are based on well-established evidence on record. It is therefore urged that the judgments and orders - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 passed by both the Courts do not suffer from any infirmity or legal error warranting interference in the present revision petitions. 8. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 9. PW1 – the complainant, as per Ex.P1, has furnished a detailed account of the incident, including the description of the stolen articles and their approximate value. During the test identification parade conducted by PW10, PW1 identified the accused persons. Exs.P5 and P6 are the mahazars drawn at the spot and at the time of recovery of the stolen articles, respectively. The prosecution has proved Exs.P5 and P6 through the testimony of PW5. The statement of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW5 and the contents of Exs.P5 and P6. PW6 – the panch witness to Ex.P5 – has deposed with regard to the recovery of M.O.1, the rope allegedly used to obstruct the complainant’s vehicle. The testimony of PW6 corroborates Ex.P5 and establishes that the said rope was purchased and used in the commission of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 offence. PW11 has further deposed to establish the purchase of the rope from a local store. Ex.P6 is also supported by the evidence of PW7, who has spoken to the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 – being three gold ornaments. 10. PW8 – the wife of PW1 – has given a detailed description of the stolen articles. Although her evidence contains minor inconsistencies with regard to the identification of the accused persons, such contradictions are not material and do not doubt the prosecution's case, as her testimony is otherwise consistent with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. 11. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, no material contradictions are found, save for minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter. The extensive cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses by the defence has not brought out any material to discredit their testimony. PW12 – the owner of the jewellery shop and the alleged receiver of the stolen articles has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. However, during cross-examination, he admitted his signature - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 on Ex.P6. Hence, his testimony does not materially weaken the prosecution’s case. 12. PWs.14 and 16 – the Investigating Officers from Hirekerur Police Station and Ranebennur Police Station, respectively – have provided a comprehensive account of the investigation, including the recovery of the stolen property and the conduct of the test identification parade. The admission of his signature on Ex.P15 by PW12 lends corroboration to the evidence of PWs.14 and 16. A cumulative appreciation of the evidence of PWs.12 and 14 establishes the recovery of the gold articles in connection with the present offence. 13. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid evidence, held that the identity of the accused persons was duly established through the test identification parade conducted by PW10 on 12.12.2007. Although the defence contended that the said parade was conducted after a lapse of 7 years and 2 months from the date of the incident, it failed to place on record any material to discredit or contradict the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 14. The Trial Court further held that the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 8 at the hands of the accused on the date of the incident were duly established by the prosecution through Exs.P10 and P11, as well as the medical evidence of PW9 – the doctor. The Trial Court rightly concluded that the accused persons had committed the offences punishable under the provisions with which they were charged. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on well-founded and cogent evidence on record. The Appellate Court, upon proper and independent appreciation of the evidence and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, rightly confirmed the judgment of conviction. 15. This Court has carefully perused the evidence on record, as discussed hereinabove, as well as the findings recorded by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. This Court on perusal of evidence is of the view that the prosecution has established its case through cogent and reliable evidence. The material on record clearly demonstrates the commission of the charged offences by the accused persons. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on proper appreciation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 of the evidence and are supported by well-reasoned analysis. Although various contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, none disclose any infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the concurrent findings so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The judgments and orders passed by both the Courts are well-founded, supported by the evidence on record, and do not suffer from any legal or factual error. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Hence conviction is upheld. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has, in the alternative, submitted that considering the year of the incident and the age of the accused persons, a lenient view may be taken in regard to the imposition of sentence. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the said request and submits that the accused persons are habitual offenders and are involved in multiple criminal cases. The submission of the learned AGA is well-founded and finds support in the material available on record. In addition to the present revision petitions, the petitioners are also arrayed as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9228 CRL.RP No. 100055 of 2020 C/W CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2020 accused in two other criminal revision petitions, namely, Criminal Revision Petition Nos.100005/2020 and 100056/2020. The material on record in the said proceedings, particularly at page No.275, indicates that the accused persons are habitual offenders involved in similar offences. In such circumstances, imposition of substantive sentence is warranted to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the request for modification of sentence is rejected. 17. Accordingly, both Criminal Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8