- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.259 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI SYED SADIQ AHMED S/O SYED AFTAB AHMED, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT PMK ROAD, TARIKERE AT POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #13, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA MUDIGERE POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.02.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.241/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT MUDIGERE AND ALSO CONFORMATION OF CONVICTION ORDER DATED Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 02.02.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.38/2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AS ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS D AY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Kashinath J.D., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who has been convicted in C.C.No.241/2012 and sentenced as under which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.38/2016. The accused No.1 shall sentence to under go simple imprisonment for period of 1 year and shall pay a fine of 2,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) IPC. In default payment of fine the accused shall sentence under go imprisonment for period of 1 month. The accused shall sentence under go imprisonment for the period of 7 months and shall liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable AU/Sec.4 of D.P.Act. In default payment of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 fine the accused sentence shall under go simple imprisonment of period of 1 month. A sum of Rs.3,000/- Out of the fine amount shall be payable to Pw-1 has compensation U/Sec.457 of Cr.P.C. Copy of the judgment shall furnished to the accused by free of cost forth with.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under. 4. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner by Mudigere Police for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The contents of complaint would reveal that on 26.04.2009, complainant married the accused No.1 as per the tradition and custom. After brief period of happy married life, there used to be physical and mental harassment imparted to the complainant on the ground of demand of dowry. Jurisdictional police thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 6. Presence of the accused was secured after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, besides marking seven documentary evidence on record as Exs.P-1 to P-7. 8. During the course of cross-examination on behalf of accused, certified copy of the application form, affidavit filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.324/2014 and photographs were confronted to prosecution witnesses which were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-9. 9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement was recorded and taking note of the material evidence placed on record, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.38/2016. 11. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 02.02.2018 dismissed the appeal of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 the accused after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this court in this revision petition. 13. Sri Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and passed an order of conviction and sentenced the accused based on surmises and conjectures and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 14. Complainant married twice after the strained matrimonial relationship between the parties by obtaining Kullayamma. 15. Therefore, conduct of the complainant is only to extract the money in the guise of the marital relationship which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. Alternatively, Sri Kashinath J.D., learned counsel would contend that incident has occurred long back and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 accused is now unemployed in view of the conviction having lost his job and therefore, leniency may be shown. 17. He would further contend that as of now he is working in the village assisting his father and therefore sought for showing mercy on him. 18. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the revision grounds and support the impugned order, but confirmed that the accused is married and the complainant also married for the second time. 19. Having regard to limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, taking note of these aspects of the matter and accused was in custody for a day and the age of the accused as of now and having lost his employment, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if the order of conviction is maintained as sufficient material evidence is available on record, but the punishment is modified by directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.75,000/- which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1- complianant, ends of justice would be met, in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by directing the accused to pay enhanced fine of Rs.75,000/- on or before 10.04.2026. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) On receipt of the enhanced entire fine amount, the same shall be paid as compensation to the complainant/PW1 under due identification. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15259 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2018 (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56