- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1204 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIJAY S/O LATE DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.55 AND 56, 3RD CROSS, VISHVESHWARAYA LAYOUT, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560015. 2. SRI. SUBIN JOSE S/O JOSE, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, BETHEL HOUSE, BHARATHI NAGAR, M.S.PALYA, BENGALURU-560097. 3. SRI. NITHIN S/O LATE SUNIL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.55 AND 56, 3RD CROSS, VISHVESHWARAYA LAYOUT, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560097. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.JOHN BOSCO, ADVOCATE; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.04.2026, PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE, REP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.725/2013 DATED 02.02.2015 BY CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS 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 John Bosco, learned counsel for the revision petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Petition against petitioner No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn by the Order dated 09.04.2026. 3. At the outset, Sri John Bosco, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that, it is not the present petitioners who assaulted and took active part in the incident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 But learned Trial Magistrate with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has convicted the present petitioners also, which has been mechanically upheld by the First Appellate Court. 4. He further submits that, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, setting aside the order of conviction may be difficult and therefore, taking note of the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are first time offenders without any criminal antecedents and now well settled in life, petitioner No.3 being married and having a child and petitioner No.2 being a bachelor eking out his livelihood by working in an IT company, by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of imprisonment may be set aside. 5. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision petition. 6. Having noted the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, first petitioner is the main offender against whom, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, this Court has given - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 anxious consideration to the alternate submission made on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 7. On considering the material evidence on record, there is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by Sri John Bosco, learned counsel, that the conviction against the present petitioners is with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the first time offenders and now they are now well settled in life and that they have no criminal antecedents, they have to be extended with the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 9. However, at this distance of time, if the report from the Probation Officer is called for to take an appropriate decision in the matter, it is a futile exercise. 10. Taking note of the fact that petitioner No.2 is employed in an IT company and is earning his livelihood in a decent manner and third petitioner is also employed and is married, having a wife and child to maintain, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each, if the sentence of imprisonment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is set aside by modifying the same to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the court, ends of justice would be met. Portion of said amount can be paid as compensation to P.W.2 which would further serve the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby modified by directing the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each payable on or before 30th April 2026. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20347 CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2017 (iii) At this stage, memo came to be filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners wherein two demand drafts in a sum of Rs.75,000/- drawn in favour of the Registrar General are filed before this Court. (iv) The original demand drafts shall be sent to the concerned Branch for realization. (v) After realization of the demand drafts Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW2-Brahmananda under due identification. (vi) Balance amount is ordered to be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. (vii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this Order. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 62