- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 901 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. YUSUF, S/O NAZIR AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAGGALIPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560062. 2. RAFIQ, S/O NAZIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAGGALIPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560062. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAVEED S, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALAGATTAPURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560062. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2289/2012 PASSED ON 28.03.2016 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.03.2013 WHICH WAS MODIFIED AND CONFIRM BY THE PRL. S.J., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.23/2013 ON 20.01.2016 BY CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS TO UNDERGO Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS AND FINE AMOUNT OF RS.5,000/- BY EACH AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIOENRS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is arising from concurrent finding wherein accused are convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 326, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year for offence punishable under Section 34 of IPC, one year for offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each is imposed under Section 326 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months is imposed. 3. Accused are also convicted for offence under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half month. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 4. Accused have filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal in part. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for offence under Section 504 of IPC. 5. However, for offence under Section 341 of IPC sentence is modified i.e., instead of one year simple imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court, Sessions Court imposed simple imprisonment of one month and sentence in respect of other offence is confirmed and the Appellate Court also held that a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall he paid to PW.3 as compensation. 6. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is his submission that, it has been elicited in the cross examination that a civil dispute is pending between the complainant, victim and the accused. It is also his further submission that on account of the pending civil dispute, a false complaint is lodged against the petitioners and the Trial Court and the Sessions Court have held that the offences are proved only on the basis - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 of interested testimony of the relatives of the complainant and the victim. It is his further submission that the burden cast on the prosecution is not discharged and serious doubt which have emerged in the cross examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have been completely ignored by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. Thus, he would urge that the accused have to be acquitted of all the charges. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Referring to the evidence recorded before the Trial Court, it is urged that eye witnesses have been examined to prove the charges against the accused and the doctor has been examined to prove the injury caused on account of the assault by the accused and wound certificate is also produced and it is his contention that merely because two witnesses are examined that a civil dispute is pending between the parties is not a ground to acquit the accused. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 10. PW.3 - eye witness to the incident has deposed that while the complainant was in the shop and his brother was walking towards his shop, the accused came and assaulted the complainant's brother with the club and his bone is fractured and he was taken to hospital. It is also noticed that he has given the reason as to why there is delay in lodging the complaint. He has stated that his brother was taken to the hospital as he had suffered fracture and this being the position, the incident is duly established. 11. Another witness i.e., the victim is also examined and he has also deposed relating to the incident. In the cross- examination, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of the prosecution and the Trial Court and the Sessions Court have taken into consideration the evidence placed on record and have concluded that the prosecution has proved the case. 12. On appreciation of the evidence placed on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court relating to the incident in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 13. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that this is the first case where the accused have been convicted and imprisonment of three years imposed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Sessions Court is disproportionate. He would submit that looking into the history of the accused, a lenient view has to be taken. 14. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand, would submit that because of the grievous injury evidenced in doctor's evidence and the wound certificate, imprisonment for two years is proportionate. 15. This Court has taken note of the submissions. It is not in dispute that the accused were not convicted earlier for any of the offence. By taking into consideration of all the materials which are placed on record, this Court is of the view that maximum punishment of two years imposed on the accused is on higher side and the imprisonment has to be reduced to six months as against two years. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31364 CRL.RP No. 901 of 2016 ORDER (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The conviction recorded by the Appellate Court is confirmed. (iii) Sentence is modified. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of two months inclusive of any time spent in confinement in connection with the present case. (iv) Accused shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the victim within three months from today. (v) In case the compensation is not paid within three months from today, each of the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. (vi) Registry shall pay Rs.15,000/- the learned Amicus curiae. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32