- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.408 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALLENGADA DEVAIAH @ GIRISH S/O LATE M.P.CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O NOKYA VILLAGE, THITHIMATHI, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-271218. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PONNAMPET POLICE STATION, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT, BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED ASHHAR C.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1/2016 DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2015 TO SET ASIDE THE ACCUSED AND SENTENCE ORDER DATED 21.12.2015, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET IN C.C.NO.1340/2010 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 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 N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior Advocate for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Accused who has been convicted in C.C.No.1340/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, appealed the same to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, in Crl.A.No.1/2016, whereunder, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 3.1 On 08.03.2010 at about 11.00 am, at Nokya village, complainant-Ponnamma, C.W-2 and 3 were plucking pepper in Sy.No.159/2B. At that juncture, accused, all of a sudden, came to the spot by tress passing into the land of the complainant and picked up quarrel with Ponnamma who is none other than his sister-in-law. 3.2 Accused also warned Ponnamma not to pluck the pepper and gave life threat that if she continues to pluck the pepper, he would take away her life. 3.3 In the altercation, accused, with the help of wooden club assaulted Ponnamma wherein, she sustained blood injuries. She was taken to the hospital for medical check-up, after registering the FIR. 3.4 Police, after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine ten witnesses as PWs-1 to 10 and nine documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-9, besides marking two material objects as MO-1 and MO-2 being the wooden club and the blood stained cloth. 6. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded culling out the incriminatory circumstances available in the prosecution evidence. Those incriminatory circumstances were put across to the accused. Same was denied by the accused and he stated before the Trial Magistrate that on account of the previous enmity, a false case has been filed, while answering question No.11. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties, noted that place of incident is the disputed property and accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to Ponnamma by assaulting her with MO-1 whereby she sustained blood injuries which is depicted through MO-2, confirmed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 the doctor who examined her by issuing the wound certificate marked at Exhibits P-6 and P-7, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Exercising the power vested in it, learned Trial Magistrate granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and imposed fine of Rs.1,500/- of which sum of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1/2016. 10. 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 on record, allowed the appeal in part and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia holding in para No.29 as under: <29. I have I gone through the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW4. PW-1 has deposed that her house is situated at the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 distance of 200 feet from the place of incident. She has deposed that her house is situated in Sy.No.159/2BP. PW-2 is unable to say the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.159/2A, 159/2B, 159/2. PW-1 has admitted the fact that there is a civil dispute pending between her husband and accused in respect of these properties. She has admitted the suggestion that there is no fence to bifurcate lands in Sy.No.159/2B and 159/2A. She has denied the suggestion that she has trespassed into the land in Sy.No.159/2A belongs to the accused. The accused has taken contention that since he has asked PW-1 not to pick pepper in Sy.No.159/2A she has lodged false complaint against him. During the course of cross-examination of PW- 4 he has deposed that his house is situated in Sy.No.159/2BP. He has deposed that the accused is residing in the house constructed by his father. He has deposed that the accused is residing in the house situated in Sy.No.159/2B. He contends that the partition was taken place in the year 1976 and the partition deed was executed and thereafter the lands bifurcated into land in Sy.No.159/2A and 159/2B. He contends that he possessing the sketch of the land in Sy.No.159/2A, 159/2B evidencing bifurcating these two-survey numbers land. He states that the Sy.No.159/2B not surrounded by the fence. He admitted the suggestion the house, which is shown in Ex.P- 9 sketch, is belongs to the accused. He denied the suggestion that the properties which are infront of the house of the accused is the property in Sy.No.159/2A. He admitted the suggestion that there is a civil suit pending between him and the accused in O.S.No.48/2008 pending - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 before Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet Court. He admitted the suggestion that the accused has obtained Temporary Injunction in respect of the property in Sy.No.159/2A. He admitted the suggestion that the land in Sy.No.159/2A measuring 6 acres is belongs to the accused. PW4 has deposed that his house is situated at the distance of 250 feet away from the place of incident and the house of the accused is situated at the distance of 60 feet from the place of incident. That means this incident was occurred near the house of the accused. There is no document such as Revenue Sketch on the side of the prosecution to show that the place of incident which is shown in Ex.P-9 hand sketch map is comes within the land in Sy.No.159/2B. Mere production of the document Ex.P-4 RTC is not sufficient to hold that the incident occurred in the land in Sy.No.159/2B. If at all the prosecution has produced the Revenue Sketch to show that the incident taken place in Sy.No.159/2B then it would have been held that the accused has criminally trespassed into the land of the PW-1. Admittedly civil suit is pending between PW-4 and the accused in respect of the properties bearing Sy.No.159/2A, 159/2B, 159/2 of Nokya Village. The accused is claiming that the properties which is situated in front of house is belongs to him in Sy.No.159/2A. On the other hand PW-4 and PW-1 are claiming that the property which is situated infront of the house of the accused i.e., place of incident is the land in Sy.No.159/2B belongs to them. Admittedly there is no evidence in order to bifurcate the lands in Sy.No.159/2A and 159/2B. Under such circumstances it is very difficult to come to definite conclusion who is in actual possession of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 the property where the incident was taken place. PW-1 and PW-4 have admitted the fact that the civil suit is pending in respect of lands in Sy.No.159/2A, 159/2B, 159/2. It is not the contention of the PW-1 and PW-4 is that the civil court declare them as owner in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.159/2B. PW-4 admitted the suggestion that suit in O.S.No.48/2008 is pending before Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet Court. In this case the incident was occurred on 8-3-2010 which is subsequent to filing of the civil suit. Since there is no clear evidence regarding who is in actual possession of the property where the incident taken place and having regard to fact that there is civil dispute in respect of the said land and each one of them claiming same as belongs to them. Therefore it is not safe to hold that the place of incident which is shown in Ex.P-4 is in possession of the complainant. No doubt there also no document to show that the accused is also in exclusive possession of the property where the incident taken place. Since there is a civil dispute pending in respect of the said land it is not safe to give any specific findings regarding who is in actual possession of the properties. PW-1 and PW-4 themselves in their crossexamination admitted the suggestion that there is no fence in order to bifurcate the land in Sy.No.159/2A and 159/2B. Under such circumstances there is no clear evidence so far as under Section 447 of IPC criminal trespass is concerned. As there is no clear and cogent evidence to hold that the PW-1 was in exclusive possession of the property. Therefore I am of the opinion that the conviction for the offence U/s 447 of IPC is not in accordance with evidence on record. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 learned counsel for the appellant argued that since there is no clear evidence regarding who is in actual possession of the disputed pepper plant the other findings U/s 323 and 506 also not proved by the prosecution. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. The prosecution has produced the document Ex.P-9 to show the exact place of incident. Whether the place of incident belongs to the accused or PW-4 or complainant is to be decided by the civil court. However so far as the offence U/s 324 and 506 of IPC is concerned there is cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused assaulted PW-1 with wooden club and voluntarily caused simple hurt and also accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening the life of PW-1 with dire consequences. Hence I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Point No.3 in the Negative.= 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also noted that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act having been granted by the learned Trial Magistrate, maintained fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,500/- for the offence under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 13. Sri N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel for petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that, with regard to the place of incident there is a serious dispute as to the ownership of the land. When complainant started plucking the pepper in the disputed land, revision petitioner questioned her as to why she is plucking the pepper from his land. 14. In order to cover up the misdeeds the complainant has chosen to file a false case. Therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. He would further contend that the petitioner is innocent person and he is the son of a freedom fighter, aged about 63 years when the appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, it is highly impossible that he would assault the complainant-Ponnamma with MO-1 resulting in injuries as is mentioned in the wound certificates and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. He would also contend that petitioner is having unblemished career and only with an intention to take an upper - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 hand in the pending civil litigation, a false case has been filed which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. He also pointed out that in respect of the same incident petitioner has also filed a counter complaint which was also investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the complainant- Ponnamma, whereunder she was also convicted by the Magistrate. 18. But, First Appellate Court has set aside the conviction of the complainant-Ponnamma and has maintained the conviction of the present petitioner which is impermissible in a case and counter case and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 19. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, supports the impugned judgment. 20. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that the case filed by the present petitioner against the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 complainant-Smt.Ponnamma ended in acquittal before the First Appellate Court. 22. It is for the revision petitioner to pursue the said case further before this Court in a revision petition or appeal. But he failed to do so. 23. As on the date of trial that took place before the Trial Magistrate, principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka, Circle Inspector of Police vs. Hosakeri Ningappa reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509, was not cited nor pressed into service by either of the parties. Even before the First Appellate Court, accused failed to do so. 24. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner that there is miscarriage of justice as appeal filed by the complainant came to be allowed and thereby petitioner is also entitled for an order of acquittal cannot be countenanced in law. 25. Further, the wound certificates placed on record clearly depicts that there is blood injury caused to the complainant by assaulting with MO-1. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, Order of conviction for the offence under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code upheld by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction. 27. Further, by filing the counter complaint, presence of the accused at the spot of the incident stands established automatically and the incident as well. Who was the aggressive party in the incident is not spoken to by the accused while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by both the Courts. 29. In fact, Judge in the First Appellate Court carried out a detailed discussion in paragraph 29 of its judgment as referred to supra while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, presupposes that there is sufficient application of judicious mind into the facts and circumstances of the case. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22114 CRL.RP No. 408 of 2018 30. Thus, order of conviction for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is to be upheld. 31. Further, since the learned Trial Magistrate himself has extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner, sentence which is in the form of Rs.1,500/- fine, of which sum of Rs.1,000/- is to be paid as compensation to the complainant needs no interference by this Court in this revision. 32. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77