- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.430 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI JAYARAMA S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA AGE 36 YEARS R/AT YALUVALLI NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K MUNIRAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, 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 JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI IN CRL.A.NO.15003/2023 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT DEVANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.427/2010 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri K.Munirajappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.427/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of fine amount of Rs.8,000/-, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-1. 3. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.15003/2023. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 23.12.2025. 5. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Sri Munirajappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that PW-1 failed to identify the material object that was confronted to her in the examination-in-chief which exposes the hollowness in the case of the prosecution. 7. Therefore, when there is no incriminatory material on record in the form of recognition of material object by PW-1, recording an order of conviction by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, sought for allowing the revision of petition. 8. Alternatively, Sri Munirajappa would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a family person, now earning livelihood by doing bar bending work and he being the first time - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 offender, leniency may be shown by enhancing the fine amount reasonably by setting aside the imprisonment. 9. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. 10. She would point out that at the first instance PW-1 no doubt, failed to identify the gold chain that was confronted to her. But in the subsequent examination-in-chief, when another gold chain which was actually seized in the incident was confronted to her, she has identified the same. 11. Therefore, contentions urged on behalf of the accused that there is no identification of the material object by the PW-1 and therefore an order of acquittal is to be passed, cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Smt. Waheeda would contend that people like revision petitioner cannot be shown any lenience as it would send wrong message to the Society besides encouraging the similarly placed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 perpetrators of the crime and sought for dismissal of the petition in toto. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner has been apprehended by the jurisdictional police and based on the voluntary statement given by the accused, the robbed chain has been recovered from the custody of the accused which has been placed on record as M.O-3. 15. Admittedly petitioner is said to have closed his face with helmet/MO-1 and later on, he has indulged in robbing the chain from the neck of PW-1/Chikkalakshmamma. 16. Identity of the accused has taken place in the police station and later on he has been identified by PW-1 before the Court. Therefore, non conducting of the Test Identification Parade which is only a rule of caution, has not caused any serious dent to the case of the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 17. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference. 18. A feeble attempt is no doubt made by the counsel for revision petitioner that PW-1 failed to identify the gold chain that was confronted to her. 19. In that regard, sufficient material is found in the deposition of PW-1 herself. In fact, by mistake, a wrong chain has been confronted to PW-1 when she was examined-in-chief. Therefore, she rightly refused to identify the same. 20. However after taking an adjournment, the chain which has been seized in the incident has been confronted to PW-1 which has been identified by her in her subsequent examination-in-chief which shows that PW-1 is a natural and true witness. 21. Thus, contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law in upsetting the well- reasoned order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 22. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument namely showing lenience to the petitioner. 23. Admittedly, petitioner is a first time offender. He is now aged around 40 years. He has got a family to maintain and he is earning his livelihood by doing the bar bending work. 24. It is to be borne in mind that the role assigned to the Court at the time of recording an order of conviction is altogether a different role when it comes to the question of sentencing an accused with appropriate and adequate sentence. More so, if the accused is a first time offender. 25. Taking note of the fact that every sinner has a future, if the petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- by treating three days custody period undergone by him as the period of imprisonment for the proved offence, ends of justice would be met, in the case on hand. 26. Further, ordering a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid as compensation to the victim out of the enhanced fine amount of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 Rs.75,000/-, ends of justice would further be served in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 27. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing to treat the custody period already undergone by the petitioner/accused as the period of imprisonment and by directing him to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- on or before 31st May 2026. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, petitioner/accused shall undergo imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23435 CRL.RP No. 430 of 2026 iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, sum Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-1 under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 80