- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100147 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MANOHAR @ MOUNESH S/O. DALLAPPA ABBIGERI, AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SETTLEMENT, GANGADHARNAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. PARASHURAM @ KUDDA PARSHYA S/O. JALAMI MULGUND, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SETTLEMENT, GANGADHARNAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD. 3. PRABHU @ PRABHYA S/O. PRALHAD CHAWAN, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. NEAR TARIHAL BYPASS ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P3; P2 DEAD) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH APMC, NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011, DHARWAD. …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 SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2016 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 457, 380 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.32/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 457, 380 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Amicus Curiae for petitioner Nos.1 and 3 / accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State. 2. The death of petitioner No.2 has been reported and the same is taken on record. 3. This criminal revision petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.06.2016 passed in C.C. No.32/2015 by the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi (for short, 'the trial Court'), and the judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.118/2016 by the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (for short, 'the appellate Court'). 4. It is the case of the prosecution that, on the night of 14.07.2013, the accused persons entered the complainant’s residence situated at Ashraya Plot and committed theft of gold - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 and silver articles valued at Rs.60,800/-, after breaking open the lock of the house. The accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and marked 29 documents as Exhibits P1 to P29, in addition to 04 material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 4. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 457 of IPC, and further sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. 6. The appellate Court, appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 7. The accused/petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were unrepresented, Sri V.M. Banakar was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 3, submits that the case of the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of PWs.3 and 6, who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P11. It is submitted that PW.3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that Ex.P12-the recovery mahazar, has not been duly proved. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P12, suffers from material contradictions and is not trustworthy. Additionally, it is contended that the seizure memo does not bear the signature of the accused and hence, the recovery cannot be held to have been established. In the absence of corroboration by other evidence, and in view of the contradictions in the testimony of the panch witnesses, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7.1. It is further submitted that the accused persons were arrested merely on suspicion, and the arrest was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 purportedly witnessed by PWs.8 and 9. However, both PWs.8 and 9 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In view of the above, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court is unsustainable in law. 7.2. In the alternative, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that, in the event this Court upholds the conviction, the sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants modification. It is contended that the imprisonment ordered is excessive and harsh, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that accused No.1 has four minor children and is the sole breadwinner of the family. Accused No.3 is stated to be similarly situated, being the only earning member in his family. The alleged incident pertains to the year 2013, and it is submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 have not been involved in any other criminal offences apart from the present one. The learned Amicus Curiae further prays for extension of the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 year. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners had undergone custody for a period of 48 days during the course of trial. 8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent– State, submits that Exhibits P11 and P12 clearly establish the recovery of the stolen articles. The recovered articles have been duly proved and are corroborated by the evidence of PW.1–the complainant. The testimonies of PWs.4 and 5 corroborate the contents of Ex.P12. Further, Ex.P14 clearly records the various stolen articles recovered from each of the accused at their respective places. The details of the stolen articles recovered from each accused are recorded in Ex.P12, which stands proved through the testimonies of PWs.4 and 5. 8.1 The learned AGA submits that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon due appreciation of the evidence, have rightly concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. Further - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 submits that the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts are supported by cogent reasoning and evidence on record, and no infirmity or illegality is made out so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW.1. PW.1 deposed that, on 14.07.2013, when she had been to the hospital and returned the next day between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., she discovered that her gold and silver ornaments had been stolen after the door of her house was broke open. Based on her complaint, FIR was registered and a spot mahazar was conducted. She further stated that, about two months later, the police summoned her to the police station for identification of the stolen articles said to have been recovered from the accused. PW.1 identified the gold ornaments as reflected in Exs.P2 and P3. PW.2 deposed regarding the preparation of the mahazar. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 11. PW.12 deposed about the apprehension of the accused persons and the seizure of gold ornaments, and is the author of the mahazar marked as Ex.P11. PW.6, a mahazar witness, deposed that gold ornaments were seized from the possession of the accused persons as recorded in Ex.P11, and he identified the said ornaments as per Ex.P2. 12. The testimonies of PWs.2 and 6 corroborate Exs.P10, P11 and the report marked as Ex.P29, thereby establishing the recovery of the gold ornaments from the accused. PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch witnesses to the recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P12, also corroborated the contents of Ex.P12 in their depositions. From their testimonies, it is evident that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. PWs.4 and 5 have given a clear account, along with the details and description of the articles seized from each of the accused. A perusal of Ex.P12 further reveals that the ornaments were recovered independently from each of the accused. In that view of the matter, the specific contention urged by the learned Amicus Curiae that there were no details recorded regarding the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 ornaments recovered from each of the accused stands clearly rebutted. 13. Though the learned Amicus Curiae has made earnest efforts to point out certain discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the panch witnesses and in the mahazar proceedings, the said discrepancies, upon close scrutiny, are found to be minor in nature and do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The presence of such minor inconsistencies cannot overshadow the corroborative material placed on record by the prosecution, which is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence as discussed hereinabove, have rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and established the guilt of the accused. The conviction recorded by both the Courts is based on cogent and reliable evidence. No material has been brought on record to discredit the evidence adduced by the prosecution or to warrant interference with the concurrent findings recorded - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 by the Courts below. In the absence of any infirmity, perversity, or material irregularity in the judgments of the Courts below, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings. 15. The learned Amicus Curiae has further persuaded the Court to consider modification or reduction of the sentence of imprisonment, having regard to the present circumstances of accused Nos.1 and 3. The alleged incident pertains to the year 2013. It is submitted that the wife and four minor children of accused No.1 are dependent on his earnings. It is further submitted that accused No.3 is similarly situated, being the sole earning member of his family. The learned Amicus Curiae contends that enforcement of the sentence, as ordered by the trial Court, would result in undue hardship to the families of the accused. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the offences committed by the accused persons are of a serious nature and have broader societal implications. While the immediate financial impact on the complainant may not appear substantial, such offences do have a lasting and serious consequence on the victim's sense of security and well-being. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 In such cases, the Court must exercise caution and balance individual circumstances with the need for deterrence in sentencing. 16. However, considering that the accused are not habitual offenders and there is no material on record to show their involvement in similar offences subsequently, they deserve an opportunity for reformation. The offences charged are punishable only with imprisonment, the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae to substitute the sentence of imprisonment with imposition of fine is of no assistance. 17. Having regard to the nature of the offences and the present factual circumstances concerning the families of the accused, this Court is of the view that, while upholding the conviction, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. 18. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.32/2015 dated 14.06.2016 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Hubballi, and order in Criminal Appeal No.118/2016 dated 04.03.2020 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, is upheld. iii. The sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 457 is modified to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default to pay fine amount, the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. iv. Similarly, accused persons shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. In default to pay fine amount, the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639 CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020 v. The sentences shall run concurrently. vi. Bail bonds and their sureties if any, stands cancelled. vii. The accused persons are entitled to set off the period of sentence already undergone. Registry is directed to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. The Court places on record the appreciation for assistance of Sri V.M. Banakar as Amicus Curiae. The honorarium to Amicus Curiae Sri V.M. Banakar, is fixed at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee for assisting the Court in this revision petition. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1