- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1209 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAJESH NAIK S/O NAGAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT LAXMI NILAYA, KANNARU KODI, CHERKADI VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576 215. 2. UDAYA NAIK S/O KORAGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SHANTHI NILAYA KANNARU KODI, CHERKADI VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 215. 3. NAGAPPA NAIK S/O LATE SHESHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT LAXMI NILAYA KANNARU KODI, CHERKADI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 BRHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 215 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI BRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION UDUPI REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHADA M.M., H.C.G.P. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N., ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT/P.W.1) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 24.09.2021 MADE IN C.C.NO.844/2014 BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI DISTRICT AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.09.2022 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.67/2021 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The complainant is present before the Court and is represented by Smt.Shwetha Nayak N., Advocate, by filing vakalath. 2. Revision petitioners/accused persons are present before the Court. 3. Heard Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1. 4. Petitioners have suffered an order of conviction before the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 504, 506 r/w.Section 34 of IPC. 5. Two fracture injuries are noted in the wound certificate, but it is not supported by X-ray or radiological report. 6. Thus, taking note of the principles of law enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda and Others reported in 2010 SCC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 OnLine KAR 5294 this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained. 7. Having said thus, overwhelming material evidence is available on record to maintain the conviction for the remaining offences and scaling down the offence from 326 IPC to 324 IPC. There are number of blood injuries noted in the wound certificate itself. The only flaw in the case of the prosecution is PW9 is not the author of the wound certificate and is a Doctor, who has been examined to prove the wound certificate. 8. In the normal course of business, PW9 was competent enough to speak in respect of the wound certificate in as much as PW9 succeeded to the post of the author of wound certificate marked at Ex.P8. Moreover, prosecution enjoys the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. Taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter and motive for the incident being the pathway, which has been amicably settled between the complainant and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 accused persons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already undergone by the petitioners is treated as imprisonment by directing each of the petitioners to pay enhanced fine amount, at which some of the portion of the amount can be paid as compensation to the complainant and thus, ends of justice could be met. 10. Accordingly, the following- ORDER i. Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused. ii. Accused - Revision petitioners are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, and instead they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Conviction o the revision petitioner for the remaining offences is maintained. iii. Consequently, in modification of the sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First The custody period already undergone by the petitioners is treated as imprisonment by directing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21161 CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2022 them to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each on or before 15.05.2026 before the Trial Magistrate. iv. On receipt of the enhanced fine amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- be paid as compensation to the complainant - PW1 under due identification. Balance sum shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. v. It is made clear that if the enhanced fine amount is not paid on or before 15.05.2026, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year. vi. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30