- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.904 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: T C VIJAYAKUMARA S/O N R CHANDRAPPA OCC:BUSINESSMAN R/O G ALIHALLI CROSS GIRINAGARA, TARIKERE TOWN CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT PIN-577228 …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TARIKERE POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.06.2017, PASSED IN C.C.NO.390/2011 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, AT TARIKERE IN SO FAR AS CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 504, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.91/2017 BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 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 Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C No.390/2011, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.91/2017. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged with Tarikere Police Station by Smt.Hemavathy being the wife of the revision petitioner on 05.09.2011 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 04.09.2011. 4. Gist of the prosecution case is that marriage of the complainant with the revision petitioner took place on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 12.02.1997 and the complainant had a happy married life for a brief period with the accused. There used to be frequent quarrels without any reason and accused used to abuse the complainant on the ground that she could not get a male issue. 5. However, the complainant tolerated all the ill treatment and harassment looking into the future of two girls. Accused even went to the extent of threatening to divorce the complainant as she is unable to get a male child and threatened that he would take away the life of the complainant and her children. 6. Being unable to tolerate the physical and mental harassment, ultimately complainant lodged the complaint with Tarikere Police on 05.09.2011 which was registered in Crime No.197/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. After registering the case, matter was investigated thoroughly by Tarikere Police and charge sheet came to be filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 8. Learned Trial Magistrate on receipt of the charge sheet took cognizance of the offence and framed charges for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, twelve witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and nine documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-9. 10. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances, failed to place his version about the incident nor led any defence evidence. 11. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on noting the oral evidence of complainant and two daughters who are examined as PW4 and PW5, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498A and 506 IPC and sentenced as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 “Acting u/s 248(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 498(A) of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 504 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC. The above sentences shall run concurrently. The accused bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. Office to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.” 12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.91/2017. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.12 to 16 as under: “12. The appellant side has argued that all the above witnesses are interested witnesses and hence their evidence cannot be relied upon. Merely because the witnesses are related to each other, their evidence cannot be discarded. Further, in a case of matrimonial cruelty, it is not possible to expect totally independent witnesses. It is only the relatives who would know the inside affairs of a family. Therefore, merely because the witnesses are related, it is not possible to disbelieve them. 13. The defence is that the complainant has filed a false case to extract money and property from the accused. Except for mere suggestions, no cogent or credible material is elicited in this regard. At the same time PW.4 and 5 who are the daughters of the accused have no reason what so ever to give false evidence against their own father. Unless the accused had caused such cruelty to their mother, they would not speak against him. Therefore, PW.4 and 5 are the best witnesses to prove the matrimonial cruelty. 14. PW.2 and 3 are mahazar witnesses who have testified regarding the conducting of Ex.p.8 mahazar. Their evidence corroborates the evidence of the I.O regarding the mahazar. PW.10 is the I.O who has testified regarding the investigation. Nothing to disbelieve his testimony has been elicited. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 15. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that the accused has committed matrimonial cruelty to the complainant. It also establishes that he had been continuously abusing the complainant and has threatened with dire consequence of her life. Nothing contrary has been elicited in the cross examination. Therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution have proved the charges for the above offences punishable under section 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 16. Points No.2 and 3:- As these points are interconnected and are interdependent they are taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition. The Trial Court has gone in detail through the documentary and oral evidence on record. On re-appreciation of evidence it is to be held that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right perspective by applying the correct position of law. The judgment of the Trial Court is based on well reasoning and the verdict of conviction passed by the Trial Court is justified. As such there are no reasons to interfere in the findings and the judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the points No.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.” 14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 15. Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the entire complaint averments and the charge sheet material are far from truth inasmuch as parties got married in the year 1997 and they led happy married life. 16. Said action on behalf of complainant is as a retaliation to the divorce notice, and a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner which has been improperly investigated and a false charge sheet is filed by the Investigation Agency. 17. He would further contend that PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 are interested witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498A and 506 is impermissible in the absence of any independent evidence and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Alternatively, Sri Chetan Jadhav would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 19. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgment. 20. He would further contend that the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the conviction is impermissible on account of the interested testimony cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the fact that in a matter of this nature, what transpires within the house is only made known to the inmates of the house and therefore evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 who are the daughters of the accused and the complainant cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that it is interested testimony and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 21. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 22. On such perusal of the material on record, relationship between the accused and complainant is not in dispute. In the matrimonial tie, two daughters are born. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 23. According to the complaint averments, accused developed ill feeling towards the complainant on the ground that she could not get begot a male child. 24. In that regard, there used to be harassment. Complainant has specifically stated that she tolerated the harassment only with a view that the future life of the daughters should not suffer. However, when the accused has gone to the extent of issuing divorce notice, the complainant approached the police about the harassment and the ill- treatment and sought for action. 25. These aspects of the matter are specifically deposed by PW-1/complainant with graphic details. 26. Children of the complainant and accused who are examined as PW-4 and PW-5 have also specifically deposed about the harassment with graphic details. 27. No doubt, testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 are all to be considered with extra care and caution as it could go against the accused on the ground of interested testimony. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 28. However, the law with regard to the appreciation of evidence in respect of testimony of interested witness is well settled that such testimony should not be rejected only on the ground of interestedness. 29. Under such circumstances, the Courts are expected to view the testimony of the interested witnesses with extra care and caution to find out the possibility of falsely implicating the accused. 30. In the case of hand, accused is none other than husband of PW-1 and father of PW-4 and PW-5. Except them, nobody else was residing in the house of the accused. Therefore, what transpired inside the house of the accused can only be spoken to by the inmates of the house of the accused and none else. 31. Therefore, on the ground of interested testimony alone, the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution in the form of oral testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 cannot be brushed aside so as to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 506 IPC. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 32. Further, learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court have supplied cogent reasons for recording a finding that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. 33. This Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction. 34. Thus, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence conviction order is to be maintained. 35. This would take this Court to the next limb of arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., showing lenience. 36. In order to find out whether any such lenience can be shown to the petitioner, this Court directed the parties to be present. But, petitioner has failed to appear before this Court. 37. Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a cold response from the petitioner in this regard. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19529 CRL.RP No. 904 of 2018 38. Under such circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the alternate submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 39. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Revision Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 30th April 2026 for serving the remaining part of the sentence. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67