- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 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.1425 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GOPINATH @ VENUGOPAL S/O SRI. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT MASKAL VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA - 577 546 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANU N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIREESHA R J., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 26.08.0216 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR IN C.C.NO.427/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.65/2016. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Manu.N, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Gireesha.R.J, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Waheeda.M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.427/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC and directed to undergo 6 months imprisonment for both the offences which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.65/2016 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Hiriyur Rural Police Station, contending that petitioner herein - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 visited the Primary Health Center in Muscal Village on 14.04.2013 at about 02.30 p.m. He noticed a staff nurse in the Primary Health Center and demanded her to prick him with an injection. 4. When the staff nurse refused to administer the injection and advised that she can only prescribe tablet in the absence of the doctor, petitioner herein said to have picked up quarrel with her and abused her in a filthy language. However, to avoid the ugly incident, nurse went out of the place of incident, but accused followed her and thereafter pulled her hand and caught her neck and hairs and threatened that he would kidnap her. 5. Another patient present in the hospital pacified the quarrel and after informing the official superior, complaint came to be lodged. 6. Based on such a complaint, Hiriyur rural police registered a case in Crime No. 121/2013 and after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504 of IPC. 7. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and placed on record 5 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, sketch of the place of incident, FIR and duty certificate of the nurse. 8. Detailed cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.6 did not yield any positive result to disprove the case of the prosecution or to advance the defence of the accused. PW.1 being the staff nurse of the Primary Health Center specifically deposed about the incident with graphic details in her examination in chief. 9. In her cross-examination, she has answered that accused visited the hospital around 02.15 p.m. and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 picked up the quarrel at about 02.30 p.m. She has specifically answered that at that distance of time, except Hanumakka-PW.2, PW1 and accused none else were there. 10. Hanumakka being another patient has supported the case of the prosecution and withstood the detailed cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Incriminatory circumstances culled out from the prosecution evidence is put to the accused while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances, failed to offer his version about the incident. 11. Thereafter learned Trial Magistrate took note of the material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months imprisonment for both the offences and ordered that both the sentences should run concurrently and acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.65/2016. 13. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties. In the light of the grounds heard in the petition and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record gave considered judgment dated 22.11.2018, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter accused is before this Court. 14. Sri.Manu.N, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 are nothing but self-serving testimony and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. He would further contend that there is no proper material evidence placed on record to attract the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 offence under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit since the petitioner is a first time offender and a heart patient, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount. 17. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda.M.M, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. She would further contend that testimony of PW.1 is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW.2 and therefore, in a matter of this nature, Court has to believe the oral testimony of the victim lady which is also corroborated by PW.2 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Smt.Waheeda would contend that no mercy can be shown to people like revision petitioner which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 would encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, the incident as is enunciated by the prosecution stands established by placing necessary oral evidence on record. PW.1 and PW.2 have withstood the searching cross examination. 21. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity between the parties, why would PW.1 and PW.2 falsely implicate the accused in the incident is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the accused. Moreover, accused has failed to place his version about the alleged incident on record at the time of recording the accused statement. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction order recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 23. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the accused. Sri.Manu, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a heart patient and is a first time offender and is unable to carry on his day to day activities and is eking out his livelihood by doing small coolie work and therefore, mercy may be shown to the petitioner. Same is opposed by the learned High Court Government pleader stating that when the petitioner committed the said act he was hail and healthy and was full of youth and therefore, no mercy can be shown. 24. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the accused is a first time offender, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the custody - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 period already undergone by the petitioner is treated as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.30,000/- of which sum of Rs.25,000/- can be paid as compensation to PW.1, the ends of justice would be met. 25. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC, sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is further modified by considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner as period of imprisonment for the offence under Sections 353 and 354 of IPC by directing the petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.30,000/- on or before 20.05.2026. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as ordered by this Court, petitioner shall undergo - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22251 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2018 imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) 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 NS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68