- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100217 OF 2020 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: MOUNESH NAGAPPA MALABENNUR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAKABBAR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28/10/2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.07/2017 WHEREBY CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.23/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354(A), 504 AND 506 OF IPC IS CONFIRMED AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR IN C.C.NO.23/2014, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AGAINST ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) Heard Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and Sri.Praveen K. Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent/State and perused the records. 2. The present revision petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking following relief: “Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:- (i) Set aside the Judgment and order dated 28/10/2020 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2017 whereby conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur in C.C.No.23/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC is confirmed; and also set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur in C.C.No.23/2014; consequently acquit the Petitioner against all the charges leveled against him, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 (ii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., in the cattle shed of the house of the complainant situated at Rattihalli village, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language, pulled her hand and threatened her with dire consequences, dragged her and tried to outrage her modesty. The complaint came to be registered on 19.11.2013. The jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.172/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 354(A)(iv), 504 and 506 of IPC. The Police after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused/petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused and recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P1 to P7, which comprises the copy of the complaint, spot mahazar, 161 statement of the witnesses and the FIR. 6. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, the accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put-forth. He has not choosen to adduce the evidence. 7. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC and sentenced for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 354(A), six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 and six months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and ordered that this sentence should run concurrently. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 8. The petitioner assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned Magistrate before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2017. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri on reappreciation of the evidence concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/accused has filed this revision petition assailing the order of the learned Magistrate and the learned District and Sessions Judge. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that PW-1 who is a victim, filed a complaint on 19.11.2013, alleging that the accused on 25.10.2013 behaved indecently in the cattle shed of the house of the complainant and outraged her modesty. It is submitted that there is a delay of 26 days in filing the complaint and no explanation whatsoever is forth coming from the complaint or in the evidence of any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 10. It is further submitted that PW-1 in her evidence does not state the date of incident. She has deposed that accused has hit the CW-5 and caused injury, which is a clear improvement of the PW-1 but the said fact was not stated in the complaint nor it is a case of the prosecution. Hence, her evidence is unworthy to be believed. However, the trial Court held that victim has supported the case of prosecution and proceeded to convict the accused. 11. It is submitted that PW-2 is the husband of the accused, he has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 is a panch witness to Ex.P-2, who clearly admitted in the cross-examination that PW-1 is daughter-in-law and when the police has drawn the panchanama, he was not present. PW-4 also does not speak with regard to the incident, he gives a version that on 21st day, the accused pulled PW-1’s hand, he does not mentioned the year and month. However, the trial Court has accepted his version and convicted the accused. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 contended that PW-5 turned hostile. PW-6 wife of PW-5 has also turned hostile. PWs-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 claims that they are the elders in the village and participated in panchayat but however, their version differs from one another and their evidence is not trustworthy. However, the trial Court without considering any of the aspects, convicted the accused for the offences charged. It is further contented that the Appellate Court has narrated the evidence in its judgment and not assigned any reason in confirming the order of conviction. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 12. Per contra, Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned judgments of the trial Court and Appellate Court and submits that PW-1’s evidence is sufficient to come to conclusion that the accused has committed the offence charged against him. Though there are some variation in her evidence, it should not be given undue weight, as she has spoken with regard to the incident of 25.10.2013, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 which is also supported by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has fully justified in convicting the accused and awarded minimum sentence, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, on meticulous appreciation of the material available on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate, which has been confirmed by the first appellate court that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC, calls for any interference? ii. Whether there is any error of jurisdiction in recording the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge and thus, calls for any interference? iii. What order? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 14. REGARDING POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 15. It is a case of the prosecution that on 25.10.2013 at around 5.00 a.m., the PW-1-complainant went to cattle shed for rearing milk, following her, the accused went there and pulled her hand, dragged her and outraged her modesty, thereby, committed an offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC. To prove the said charges, the prosecution examined the witnesses. PW-1-the complainant deposed that the accused is her neighbour and he used to tease her by throwing stick and stone at her through window and later in the year 2013, one day, the accused followed her to the cattle shed and pulled her hand. She further has deposed that the accused hit CW-5 and caused injury. The said fact is not stated in the complaint, at Ex.P1 and it is not the case of prosecution that the accused has assaulted CW-5. PW-1 deposed that after the incident, she went to parental house and delivered the baby. The prosecution treated her as a hostile witness and cross-examined. The learned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 prosecutor suggested the incident of 25.10.2013, which she say ‘Yes’ in her cross-examination. The said witness was cross-examined by the defence counsel and in the cross-examination, PW-1 has clearly admitted that there was animosity between their family and the accused family. She has admitted that the earlier incident of teasing by the accused was reported to the Police, which is admittedly, not proved by any material by the prosecution. In cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that she does not know how to rear the milk. 16. In cross-examination, she has further deposed that the accused has pulled her saree, which is not stated in the complaint, at Ex.P-1 and it is not the case of prosecution also. Considering the oral evidence of PW-1, I am of the considered view that, the same is unworthy to be believed. PW-1 is inconsistent with regard to the narration of events in her evidence, she has not clearly stated any of the act committed by the accused which attracts the provisions of Section 354(A). Hence, in my - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 considered view, the trial Court without appreciating the evidence of PW-1 in its proper perspective, which is crucial evidence and proceeded to convict the accused for the offence charged against him. The finding recorded by the trial Court based on the evidence of PW-1 is perverse, which requires interference. 17. PW-2-husband of the PW-1 turned hostile, public prosecutor cross-examined him, suggested about the incidents which he has stated ‘Yes’. In his examination chief, he states that, he did not remember the incident. He states that he has not given any statement before the Police. He also states that the complaint was given to the Police about the incident, only when his wife came back from her parental house after delivery of the child and also admits that there is a animosity between the family of the accused and their family, which is contrary to complaint at Ex.P1 and evidence of PW-1. PW-4 is brother of PW-2, has deposed that, about one year back, the accused used to throw the stone on the victim and he used to tease her - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 and on 21st, accused at 5.00 a.m., pulled PW-1’s hand. This witness has not stated the date or the incident correctly, what has transpired. Admittedly, PW-4 was not present at the time of alleged incident. He enters to the place of incident, after PW-1 screaming. Hence, his evidence is hearsay. He also admits that, he is a relative of PW-1 and after five months of delivery of PW-1, a complaint is filed which is factually incorrect. PWs-3 and 5 are the witnesses to the spot mahazar at Ex.P-2. PW-3 in cross-examination, has admitted that PW-1 is her daughter-in-law and when Police came to draw the mahazar, he was in his agriculture field and later, he came and signed the Ex.P-2. PW-5 turned hostile, deposed that, he do not know anything about the incident and Police asked him to sign, hence, he has signed on the paper. PW-6 is the wife of PW-5, she turned hostile, in cross- examination, she has admitted that, there was a family feud between the accused and the complainant’s family. PWs-7 to 12 are the elders of the village. PWs-7 and 8 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 have stated that no panchayat was held and the said witnesses were treated as hostile. PW-9 deposed that panchayat was held one year back, before. As the accused has committed rape on PW-1, in year back, his evidence was recorded by the trial Court on 23.04.2015. However, the alleged incident has taken place on 25.10.2013. He also deposed that, on 25th appears to have taken place some incident. Admittedly, the said witness is not eye witness and only claims that he has participated in the panchayat. However, his version is more than the case of the prosecution. Hence, his evidence is not a trustworthy to be believed and can be relied only to the extent of his participation in the panchayat and not more than that. Similarly, PWs-10 to 12 have not supported the case of prosecution. PW-10 deposed that he has not given any statement to the Police and no panchayat was held. PW-11 deposed that, panchayat was held on 25.10.2013 and CWs-7, 10, 12 and 13 were present. He has not spoken the reason for holding the panchayat in his - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 cross-examination. The other witnesses who claimed to be the participant of the panchayat, turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 would not help the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. PWs-13 and 14 are the investigation officer, spoken with regard to the manner of conducting investigation. On reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, in my considered view, PW1-victim does not support the case of prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC. The other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses. They have also not supported the case of prosecution. In my considered view, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective and proceeded to convict the accused. The appreciation of evidence by the trial and appellate Court is manifestly illegal, perverse and leads to grave - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9590 CRL.RP No. 100217 of 2020 miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur in C.C.No.23/2014 and the judgment and order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur passed in Criminal Appeal No.7/2017 are set aside. iii. The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 504 and 506 of IPC. iv. The Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9