- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1318 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRASANNA S/O SRI. RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. SRI. KIRAN S/O SRI. RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KELAHALLI VILLAGE, BELURU TALUK - 573 115 HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D C JAGADEESH., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA BY BELUR POLICE, REP BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND FINE PASSED IN C.C.NO.199/2015 DATED 28.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BELUR CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.170/2018 DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.D.C.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Waheeda.M.M, leanred High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have suffered an order of conviction in CC No.199/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sentenced as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 OFFENCE FINE IMPRISONMENT DEFAULT SENTENCE Section 341 read with Section 34 of BNS Rs.500/- each Total Rs.1,000/- Section 324 read with Section 34 of BNS Rs.1,500/- each Total Rs.3,000/- Section 326 read with Section 34 of BNS Rs.3,000/- each Total Rs.6,000/- 2 years of simple imprisonment If the fine amount is not deposited, accused Nos.1 and 2 have to undergo simple imprisonment of 25 days Section 506 read with Section 34 of BNS Rs.1,500/- each Total Rs.3,000/- 3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.170/2018. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered judgment dated 06.10.2018, interalia holding in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 as under: "21. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the accused/Appellant has vehemently argued that all the independent witness have turned hostile and only the complainant and his wife have supported the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the independent witness have turned hostile, however it is the settled principles of law that the evidence of the injured has to be appreciated and gives more weightage to the case of the prosecution. The main aspect is whether the sole testimony of the injured is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion or whether there should be numerous witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. This particular evidence would again pose a question that whether it is required to examine numerous witnesses in order to arrive at a conclusion. In order to better appreciate the postulates the provisions of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act is to be appreciated which reads as "Section.-134 - Number of witnesses - No particular number of witnesses shall in case be required for the proof of any fact." Hence it is the intention of the legislature that in order to prove or disprove certain facts it is not required to call a stipulated number of witnesses but to have a qualitative evidence rather than quantitative evidence. The Section enshrines the well recognized Maxim. "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Further it is to be kept in mind that a crime will not be committed in presence of the only one witnesses, leaving aside such cases which are not uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. Hence, generally speaking, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 oral testimony, in this context may be classified into 3 categories namely; 1. wholly reliable 2. wholly unreliable 3. Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 22. In the first case, it would not be difficult to arrive at a conclusion when the evidence is wholly reliable and in variably the case ends in a conviction and likewise it would not be a difficult task to appreciate wholly unreliable evidence. However, the main problem starts with the matter when the evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the above case the facts are quite similar. The entire evidence cannot be discarded as wholly unreliable or it cannot be discarded as wholly reliable. Hence, it is clear that even if the evidence of the sole witness is creditworthy and can be relied upon the court should not hesitate to rely upon the said evidence. In this regard I am relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 SAR (Cri) page 787 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Mansingh and Ors. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that "the evidence of injured witness have a greater evidentary value and unless compelling reasons exists, their statements are not be discarded lightly - minor discrepancies do not wash away the effect of evidence tendered by the injured witness." Further the Judgment which has been relied upon by the prosecution of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (2) Crimes 225 SC in the case of Upendra Pradan Vs State of Orrissa. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "interested witness - reliability of evidence- evidence of interested witness deserves great importance and weightage- no body would be willing to spare the real culprit an innocent person. Hence, it is clear from the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court that merely the injured witness has supported her case, the same cannot be thrown out for want of corroboration when the evidence is otherwise trustworthy. Apart from that the defence taken by the accused also seems improbable. No doubt it is the settled principles of law that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. However that does not mean that the prosecution has to prove each and every aspect. When the contentions urged by the accused is carefully - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 appreciated with the medical evidence, it is clear that the injured had sustained injuries on 21/02/2015 and further the CT scan report at Ex.P.9 also clearly fortifies the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise nothing much was elucidated from the Investigating Officer with respect to the any other aspect of self fall by the injured or about the existence of a dispute with respect to land. All these aspect would only indicate that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the impugned order passed by the trial court is apt and correct and the same does not calls for interference. Hence, I answer point no.1 to 3 in the Negative." 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court. 6. Sri.D.C.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the material available on record is hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused persons for the aforesaid offences especially for the offence under Section 326 of IPC inasmuch as all the eye witnesses have turned hostile and what remains before the Court is only the oral testimony which are nothing but self-serving testimony of the accused persons coupled with the medical evidence and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 7. Alternatively, Sri.D.C.Jagadeesh would contend that the second accused is a bachelor and first accused having married, lost his wife recently due to heart attack and has got a young child to look after and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified by enhancing the fine amount and by scaling down the offence from 326 to 324 IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda.M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. She would further submit that the wound certificate coupled with the CT scan report issued by PW.11 would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 326 of IPC inasmuch as PW.1 has sustained linear fracture on the left frontal bone. 9. She would further contend that no mercy can be shown to the accused persons as it would encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime to commit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 such crimes in future and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 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, as per the prosecution, the motive for the incident is the request made by PW.1 to remove the tractor in the road which is situated between the house of the accused and that of the complainant. 12. The parking of the tractor in the road was obstructing the easy ingress and egress and also for the movement of the cattle. On that score there was an oral altercation. In furtherance of such oral altercation, when complainant-PW.1 and his wife-PW.2 were indulged in the agricultural operations in their land, both the accused persons followed them and picked up quarrel and accused No.2 held PW.1 tightly and at the juncture, accused No.1 assaulted with a stick on the legs and head of PW.1. When - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 PW.2-Rukmini tried to rescue PW.1, accused No.1 assaulted her also on the naval region with the same stick and also on the legs. When PW.1 and PW.2 raised hue and cry for help, PW.3 to PW.5 came to the scene of offence and pacified the quarrel. 13. At that juncture both the accused persons said to have given the life threat to PW.1 and PW.2 and ran away from the spot. The matter was intimated to the police and the police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 14. The presence of the accused persons was secured by the learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences alleged against them and thereafter framed the charges. 15. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 10 witnesses have been examined on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 behalf of the prosecution as PW.1 to PW.10 and as many as 12 documentary evidence were placed on record including the wound certificate, spot mahazar besides marking the stick as MO.1. Detailed cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 and other witnesses did not yield any positive material. 16. No doubt PW.3 to PW.5 who are the eyewitnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. But there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Wound certificate issued by PW.11, CT scan report and radiological examination would make it clear that the PW.1 has sustained fracture injury on the left temporal bone. Wound certificate of PW.2-Rukmini also makes it clear that there is an injury caused to her. 17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction of the accused persons for the offences as referred supra is just and proper which requires no interference that too in the limited revisional powers. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 18. Having said this, the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner need to be taken into consideration for more than one reason. Mitigating circumstances placed on record on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the first petitioner has lost his wife and a young child is there to be looked after by the first accused. Second accused is a bachelor who is none other than the brother of the first accused. Admittedly, they are the neighbours of PW.1. If the accused persons are sent to jail at this distance of time not only the enmity and ill will would continue but there will be nobody to look after the child of the first accused. 19. Taking note of the aforesaid reasons and the injury caused to PW.1 needs to be compensated in terms of money, if the sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for the day and to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- each (Rs.1,50,000/-), of which - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid as compensation to PW.1 and Rs.25,000/- to PW.2, the ends of justice would be met. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- by each of the petitioners (Rs.1,50,000/- in all) in two installments. iii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as first installment to be paid on or before 10.05.2026 and balance sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid on or before 10.06.2026. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22254 CRL.RP No. 1318 of 2018 iv) On receipt of the fine amount, sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.1 and Rs.25,000/- to PW.2 under due identification. v) If there is a failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, petitioners shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. vi) Office is directed to return trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 65