- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100198 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANT S/O. LAXMAN NAVI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. IRAPPA S/O. LAXMAN NAVI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SADASHIV @ SADEPPA S/O. BALAPPA HANJI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH KULAGOD POLICE STATION, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., 1973 SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.113/2016 BY THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, WHEREIN PARTLY CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, GOKAK, IN SO FAR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 R/W 34 OF IPC AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2025, 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 Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2016 passed in C.C. No. 2015/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) and the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.113/2016 by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), whereby the conviction was confirmed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that there existed a dispute between the complainant and the accused in relation to a city service station. It is alleged that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 complainant, along with another person, visited the house of the accused and expressed his grievance to their parents. On 30.10.2006 at about 7:30 p.m., while returning from the said house, the accused persons allegedly picked up a quarrel with the complainant by abusing him in filthy language and attempted to commit his murder by intentionally ramming their Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-23/2738 into him, thereby causing grievous injuries to his right hand, left hand, and chest. 4. The complainant reported the incident to the jurisdictional police. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered and, upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). 5. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 11 documents as exhibits, in addition to one material object. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of both - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 oral and documentary evidence, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and findings recorded by the Trial Court, while upholding the conviction, set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, but confirmed the conviction insofar as it relates to the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 6. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the injuries sustained by PW.1 fulfill the ingredients of Section 319 of IPC so as to attract punishment under Section 324 of IPC. It is contended that, although it is recorded that PW.1 suffered fracture injuries, no X-ray report has been produced to substantiate the same. He further submits that the alleged involvement of the vehicle in causing the injuries has not been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 conclusively proved. Though the vehicle in question was seized, the prosecution has not recorded the evidence of panch witnesses to the seizure. In the absence of such material evidence, it is submitted that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that, if this Court were to arrive at a conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offence, the sentence may be confined to imposition of fine, considering the age of the accused, their lack of antecedents, and the fact that they are not involved in any other criminal case. 8. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State, submits that the accused had a clear motive to cause grievous injuries, arising from the complaint made to the accused’s parents. The prosecution has established both the motive and the act of causing injuries by dashing the complainant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 with the Jeep. The medical evidence also substantiates the injuries sustained. Upon a detailed scrutiny of the evidence, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly concluded that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that PW1 sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident. The prosecution’s case is that such injuries were caused due to the accused’s act with the intention to inflict grievous harm upon PW1. The entire case of the prosecution rests primarily on the evidence of PW1, who is both the complainant and the victim. It is stated that the alleged motive for causing injuries to PW1 was that PW1 had complained to the parents of the accused concerning a matter related to the city survey station. However, the prosecution has not examined any witness to substantiate the existence of such motive. PW1, in his testimony, deposed that he had complained to the accused’s parents - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 regarding a quarrel between himself and the accused. Further, PW1 stated that the accused, with an intention to cause his death, struck him with a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-23/2738. Though the accused subjected PW1 to extensive cross-examination, no material admission was elicited to discredit or disprove the prosecution’s case. 10. PW5, the doctor, was examined to prove the nature and extent of the injuries. It was stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 are grievous, while the remaining injuries are simple in nature. Further, it was stated that the injuries could have been caused due to the accident, and PW1 was treated as an inpatient for a period of seven days. The doctor did not indicate any treatment relating to fractures. The other prosecution witnesses, namely PWs 2, 3, and 4, turned hostile by denying the statements previously given to the police. PWs 6, 9, 11, and 12, who were panch witnesses to the seizure and spot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 panchanama, have also not supported the prosecution’s case. PW7, a relative of PW1, was examined and stated that the accused dashed PW1 with a Tempo Trax vehicle and subsequently shifted him to a hospital in Gokak. PW7 was not cross-examined by the accused. However, it is pertinent to note that PW7 was not an eyewitness to the accident and merely deposed regarding the alleged incident and the subsequent shifting of PW1 to the hospital. 11. The evidence of PW1, when closely examined, corroborates the medical evidence adduced through PW5. The statement of PW1 that he complained to the parents of the accused regarding certain issues with the accused remains unchallenged. However, the prosecution’s case that the accused dashed PW1 with the vehicle with the intention to kill him is not established from the evidence on record. Nonetheless, to the extent that the accused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 caused injuries to PW1, the same stands proved by the combined testimony of PW1, PW7, and PW5. PW5 has expressly stated that the injuries sustained could have been caused by an accident. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the accused caused injuries to PW1, though without conclusive proof of an intention to kill. 12. The next issue to be considered is the nature of the injuries sustained. A perusal of the evidence of PW5 and Ex.P5, the medical certificate, clearly establishes that the ingredients of Section 324 of the IPC are not attracted. However, the evidence on record would attract the provisions of Section 323 of the IPC. The injuries suffered as a result of the alleged accident are not grievous in nature. 13. The findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court warrant limited interference only to the extent of modifying the imposition of punishment from an offence under Section 324 to one under Section 323 of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 IPC. Further, the sentence of imprisonment may be altered and restricted to the imposition of a fine, having regard to the provisions of Section 323, particularly considering that the petitioners have no prior involvement in any criminal offences. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the accused have not been implicated in any other criminal acts subsequent to this incident. In view of the foregoing, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The conviction recorded under Section 324 of IPC is set aside. However, accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. (iii) Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused No.1 to 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7820 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2019 (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited before Trial Court within one month from the date of this order. (v) The fine amount, if any deposited, the same shall be adjusted against the fine as ordered above. (vi) The Trial Court shall release fine amount electronically in favour of PW1 (Victim) after due identification. (vii) The bail bonds are cancelled. (viii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order for further action. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1