- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 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.100202 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ABDULSATTAR S/O. ISMAILSAB HIRALLI, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KACHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR. 2. TAHIR S/O. DADAPEERSAB TILAVALLI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KACHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR. 3. DADAPEERSAB @ DADAMIYASAB S/O. HUSENSAB TILAVALLI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KACHAVI, TQ. HIREKERUR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY. P.I OF HIREKERUR CIRCLE, NOW. R/BY. H.C.G.P DHARWAD, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15-16.06.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO. 144 OF 2011, CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED OF AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 325, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE CAME TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT RANEBENNUR, BY HIS JUDGMENT AND ORDER V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:35:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2015 AND FURTHER BE PLEASE TO ORDER THE ACQUISITION LEVELED AGAINST THEM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.A.A.Pathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No.144/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as under: “Acting under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused pesons No.1 to 3 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 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. Acting under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused pesons No.1 to 3 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 325 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 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:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 Acting under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons No.1 to 3 are convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 506 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-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 cuncurrently. Acting U/s 357(A) of Cr.P.C accused persons No.1 to 3 hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to the PW.2 who is injured victim. Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. the period undergone by the accused persons No.1 to 3 if any in Judicial Custody is hereby given set off. The bail bonds of the accused persons 1 to 3 and surety stands cancelled. Supply a free copy of the judgment to the accused persons no.1 to 3.” 3. Validity of the said order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.51/2015. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by wife of Bashasab with Hamsabhavi Police Station, Hirekerur, Haveri District alleging that on 08.01.2011 at about 5.00 p.m. at Kachavi village, complainant, her husband along with her daughter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 visited the house of accused No.3 in respect of dispute between the daughter and their husband. At that juncture, quarrel was picked up and all of them started assaulting Bashasab. As a result, Bashasab sustained blood injuries and he lost his tooth and thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital wherein, he has been treated and injury certificate vide Ex.P.5 came to be issued. Therefore, sought for action against the accused persons. 5. Police after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 6. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused persons filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.51/2015. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, reappreciated the material evidence - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 placed on record and upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that incident has occurred at the spur of the moment. Having regard to the fact that Bashasab has lost his tooth earlier itself and only the blood injuries that has been caused to the lips in the spur of the moment where Bashasab fell down and got injured by himself has been blown out of proportion which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 that accused did not possess any criminal antecedents, may enhance the fine amount reasonably and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, taking note of the fact that Bashasab is no more and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds in toto including the alterative submission made on behalf of revision petitioner. 13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that genesis of crime is in the house of accused No.3 when the complainant, her husband (Bashasab) and her daughter had been to the house of accused No.3 for settling the dispute between the daughter of the complainant and her husband. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 15. Since the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment, taking note of the fact that accused persons did not possess any criminal antecedents, learned Trial Magistrate ought to have exercised the power in granting probation to the accused persons. 16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also failed to exercise the said power. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also injury noted vide Ex.P.5, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/- each, would meet the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 323, 325, 504 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6511 CRL.RP No. 100202 of 2017 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/- each on or before 15.05.2025. iii. Failure to pay the balance fine amount, would result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38