- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2017 BETWEEN: DURUGESH S/O SHIVAKUMAR OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O GOWRASAMUDRA KAVALU CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAK POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 542 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGLAORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MOLAKALMURU IN C.C.NO.135/2014 CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AN DSESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.26/2017 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504,323,355,354 OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGED LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.2017 passed in CC No.135/2014 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.26/2017 dated 10.10.2017 by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 355 and 354 of IPC and was tried for the charge sheeted offences in CC No.135/2014 by Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., petitioner, who had come near the house of PW1 and PW2 had abused them using filthy language and had assaulted PW1 with his chappal. When PW2, who is the wife of PW1 tried to interfere, petitioner allegedly even assaulted her and pulled her nighty and tore the same and thereby, tried to outrage her modesty. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 against the petitioner in Crime No.19/2014 by Molakalmoor Police Station, Chitradurga. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in CC No.135/2014 claimed to be tried and therefore, the prosecution in order to substantiate its charges against the petitioner, had examined ten charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to P7. The chappal which was used by the petitioner to assault PW1 and PW2 was produced and marked as MO1. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. 4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and also after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 355 and 354 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default, to undergo simple - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.For the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.135/2014 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.26/2017 by judgment and order dated 10.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner has in all examined ten charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW10. PW1 is the first informant and copy of his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 complaint is marked as Ex.P1. Copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.P6. PW2 is the wife of PW1 and PW3 is the brother of PW1. PW1 has reiterated the allegations made by him in his complaint at Ex.P1 against the petitioner. Evidence of PW2 and PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1. PW6 is the Doctor, who had treated PW1 and PW2 on 02.02.2014. Ex.P3 and P4 are the wound certificates of PW1 and PW2 respectively issued by PW6. 6. Perusal of Ex.P3 and P4 would go to show that both PW1 and PW2 had suffered simple injuries in the incident in question. PW4 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and under the said document, even MO1 was seized in the present case. PW4 has supported the case of the prosecution and he has identified his signature at Ex.P2(a). However, another panch witness, who was examined as PW5 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7, who is said to be the wife of PW3 has also supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW8, who is an independent eyewitness to the incident in question and who happens to be relative of both the parties has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 and PW10 are the police officers, who have registered the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 FIR and have conducted the investigation and subsequently filed charge sheet. 7. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 coupled with Ex.P3 and P4 clearly makes out a case against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 355 of IPC since the petitioner without therebeing any provocation had assaulted PW1 and PW2 intending thereby to dishonour them. However, though there is an allegation that petitioner had pulled the night dress of PW2 and torn the same, the prosecution has failed to prove the said allegation against petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The dress which was worn by PW2 at the time of incident which was allegedly torn after the petitioner had pulled the same, was not seized nor was the same produced and marked as material object. Except the oral allegations of PW1 to PW3 and PW7, there is no material on record which would show that the petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of PW2. 8. For purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, accused should have assaulted or used criminal force on any women, intending to outrage her modesty - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 or knowing that it is likely to outrage her modesty. Necessary ingredients to invoke the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, is not found in the present case as against the petitioner. Undisputedly, incident in question had taken place on 01.02.2014 and FIR was registered against the petitioner on 02.02.2014 and the said FIR had reached the Court of Magistrate on 03.02.2014. It is also not in dispute that the parties have a civil dispute between themselves. Under the circumstances, solely based on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW7, who are all interested parties, it is not safe to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, though the said Courts have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 355 of IPC. However, insofar the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is concerned, the material on record would go to show that the parties are close relatives and there is a civil dispute between - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 them. The material on record would also go to show that PW1 allegedly had constructed his house in the property belonging to the petitioner and it is in this background, incident in question had taken place on 01.02.2014. From the date of incident, already 12 years have lapsed. Petitioner is said to be an agriculturalist having family. The material on record would go to show that he was arrested in the present case and subsequently, enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified and substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru insofar as it relates to convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 355 is upheld, and insofar as it relates to convicting the petitioner for the offence - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9676 CRL.RP No. 1200 of 2017 punishable under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, the same is set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC. (iii) For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (iv) For the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (v) For the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. (vi) His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59