- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100283 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. YANKAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA TOTAD, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GUDAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ALAVANDI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN CRL.A.NO.17/2016F DATED 31.08.2019 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOPPAL, IN C.C.NO.406/2014, DATED 05.07.2016, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504, 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:35:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri D.V.Pattar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.406/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC and ordered to pay fine of ₹2,000/-, ₹4,000/-, ₹1,000/- and ₹1,000/- respectively for the aforesaid offences with a default sentence. 3. The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.17/2016 by considered judgment dated 31st of August 2019. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 5. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 A complaint came to be lodged with Alawandi Police Station, Koppal District alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC by Sri Gavisiddanagouda Ramanagouda Tegginamani contending that on 24.09.2013, mother-in-law of Ramanna Hadapad having dead, a bhajan programme was arranged in the house of Ramanna Hadapad. Complainant and others had been there to participate in the said bhajan. At about 8:00 PM, they commenced bhajan programme. At about 3:00 AM next day, members of the bhajan group were sleepy and they were not properly singing the bhajan songs. At that juncture, accused came there and abused the complainant and told him to perform the bhajan in proper manner, resulting in oral altercation between complainant and the accused. Being enraged with the reply given by the complainant, accused took a musical instrument (Tappadi/Khanjira) and assaulted him thereby he sustained blood injury. CWs.2, 3 and 5 pacified the quarrel and thereafter complaint came to be lodged. Police after thorough investigation filed charge - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 sheet against the accused. After due trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as referred supra. 6. Order of conviction and sentence being confirmed by the First Appellate Court, accused has filed present revision petition. 7. Sri D.V.Pattar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that conviction order recorded by both the Courts is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference in this revision petition. 8. He would also contend that self-serving testimony of the injured is not supported by any proper evidence and therefore sought for allowing the revision. 9. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State opposes the revision grounds and supports impugned judgments. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, complainant is examined as PW1 and PW2 is the eyewitness to the incident. Version of the complainant as being sufficiently corroborated by the oral testimony of PW2 and also the wound certificate marked at Ex.P5, there is no delay in lodging the complaint and immediately after the assault has taken place, the quarrel was pacified and injured was taken to the police station and then to the hospital. 12. PW7 in his evidence specifically stated that on 25.09.2013, he had examined the injured who has narrated the history which is in conformity with the complaint averments. Wound certificate marked at Ex.P5 shows injury on the left temporal region which is simple in nature. Fresh bleeding was noticed by the doctor. The material evidence placed on record in the form of oral testimony of the complainant, PW2, PW7 along with documentary evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to sustain the order of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6596 CRL.RP No. 100283 of 2019 conviction recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 13. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any patent error, legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments for recording the conviction order and also imposition of the appropriate sentence for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 33