- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1427 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHANMUKA H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YOURS R/A RATTEHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KUMTHI POLICE STATION KUMSI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST- 577202 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.10.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.3176/2016 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 29.07.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.117/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354C AND 506 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE RP AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent/State. 2. This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction in CC No.3176/2016 and also against the confirmation order passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.117/2018. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the trial Court convicted the accused for both the offences punishable under Section 506 and 354C of IPC and acquitted in appeal for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and also modified the sentence for the offence under Section 354C of IPC and reduced the sentence for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence. The counsel though submits that this Court in this revision cannot look into the evidence, but contend that the very appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts is erroneous and patently illegal. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. 5. As this Court has to exercise the revision of jurisdiction, the counsel also relies upon the judgment in the case of Raj Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.2486/2009 with Hari Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.2487/2009,1 in this judgment, in a case of Section 376(2)(g), the Hon'ble Apex Court comes to the conclusion that there are material variations in complaint and deposition of prosecuted in Courts as regards identification 1 Reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 of accused persons, as well as manner in which occurrence took place. The counsel referring the said judgment would contend that in the case on hand also, there are material contradictions and it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent/State in his argument would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent stating that this revision petitioner was peeping through when the victim P.W.1 was taking the bath. When she screamed at the spot, PWs.2 and 3 have also witnessed that this revision petitioner was running away from the spot. Though the trial Court convicted for both the offences, the appellate Court re-appreciated the material and acquitted the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and it confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 354C of IPC. Though an attempt is made, in the cross-examination that there was a motive to false implication and nothing is elicited and the evidence of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 P.W.1 is corroborated by PWs.2 and P.W.3 and also there is no any illegality committed by both trial Court and appellate Court and suffers from legality and correctness of the impugned order of both the Courts and it does not require any interference by this Court. 7. 7. Having heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent/State, the points would arise for consideration before this Court are: a. Whether both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused? b. Whether it requires interference by this Court? c. What order? 8. Having heard the respective counsel and also the submissions of the learned counsel for revision petitioner, also considering the material on record and though an attempt was made by the counsel for revision petitioner, illegality is committed but considering the evidence of P.W.1 which is corroborated by PWs.2 and 3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 with regard to invoking of offence under Section 354 of IPC and rightly put up by the learned HCGP for respondent/State that an attempt was made and there was motive for false implication and nothing is also found. 9. It is also settled law that in a revision, the scope of revision is very limited and only in the case of judgment of conviction which suffers from its legality, then the Court can exercise revision jurisdiction considering the material in keeping the contentions urged by the counsel for revision petitioner I do not find any such circumstances warrant in the case to exercise revision jurisdiction and material available on record particularly for the offence under Section 354C of IPC is consistent and nothing is found to exercise revision jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and also the principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, wherein it is held that there are material variations in complaint and deposition of prosecuted in Courts as regards identification of accused persons, as well - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26562 CRL.RP No. 1427 of 2019 as manner in which occurrence took place exercise the power to set aside the judgment. But in the case on hand, there is no material contradictions, place of incident, manner of incident and also the identification of accused. As such, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner and the same is not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, I answer the aforesaid points in negative. 10. In view of the above observation, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28