- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100301 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. YALLAPPA, S/O BHARAMAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SIDDESHWAR ONI, SAUNDATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION, R/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 457 AND 380 OF IPC PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. SAUNDATTI IN C.C.NO.804/2005 DATED 07.08.2010 AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE X ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.123/2019, DATED 26.06.2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. With consent of both the parties, though the matter is listed for admission, taken up for final disposal. 3. Accused No.2 is the revision petitioner challenging the conviction for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced as under: “The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default to pay fine the 1 For short, ‘IPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 6 months. The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 1 year. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused. Accused are entitled for set off of the period undergone during trial under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The interim order passed earlier with regard to custody of material objects is made absolute.” 4. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 5. One Sri. Yogesh B. Purandar Rao (PW1) has lodged the complaint on 10.12.2024 before Saundatti Police Station alleging that, on 08.12.2004 at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant and his family members left for Dharwad to attend a marriage function and when they returned on 09.12.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., they found that their house was broken which was situated in Munavalli Village, Saundatti Taluk, Belagavi District and on further search, they found that gold and silver articles which were kept in the Steel almirah was stolen. 6. After registering the case in Crime No.265/2004 against unknown persons, the police conducted investigation and apprehended accused No.2. Based on the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the police apprehended the accused No.1 who is the present revision petitioner and based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1/revision petitioner, in the presence of pancha witnesses, MO Nos.1 to 8 which are the gold and silver - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 articles were seized from the house of the accused and filed the charge sheet. 7. The Trial Court, after securing the presence of the accused persons, recorded the plea. Both accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution comprising of complainant, wife of the complainant, pancha witnesses and the Investigating Officer. Detailed cross examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Placing of documentary evidence namely complaint, mahazar and the photographs coupled with the marking of stolen articles as MO Nos.1 to 8 fortified the case of the prosecution. In the accused's statement, accused persons failed to offer any plausible explanation as to the recovery of the MO Nos.1 to 8 from the custody of the accused No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 07.08.2010, convicted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petitioner filed an appeal before the X Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi2 in Criminal Appeal No.123/2019 and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment dated 20.06.2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate. 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 is before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and 2 For short, ‘the First Appellate Court’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 only on the suspicion the order of conviction came to be recorded by the Trial Magistrate which has been mechanically upheld by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for allowing of the appeal. 13. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, the learned Trial Judge failed to accord the benefit of Provision of Offenders Act. Unfortunately, learned Judge of the First Appellate Court also failed to consider the same and therefore, this Court may call the necessary report and put the appellant on probation by maintaining the fine amount. 14. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. 15. He would further contend that MO Nos.1 to 8 worth about Rs.25,000/- as on the date of the incident, as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 could be seen from the Property Folio memo. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant. Why would the Investigating Officer implant such a costly material objects only with an intention to falsely implicate the appellant in the case especially in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity between the Investigating Officer and either the revision petitioner or another accused. 16. He would further contend that the seized material objects have been identified by the complainant and his wife before the Trial Court and pancha witnesses have also supported the recovery and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is evident that, when the complainant and his family members had been to Dharwad for attending a marriage function on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 08.12.2004 leaving Munavalli Village, Saundatti Taluk, Belagavi District at about 10.30 a.m., and returned to their house on 09.12.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., and noticed that there was house lurking and loss of valuables. 19. Immediately, they have approached the police and on 10.12.2004 at about 01.30 a.m., and the complaint came to be registered against unknown persons. Thus, there is no loss of time in reporting the incident to the police. 20. Further, the police after thorough investigation were able to apprehend accused No.1 and based on his voluntary statement, they apprehended the accused No.2 and based on his voluntary statement in the presence of the pancha witnesses, MO Nos.1 to 8 came to be recovered from his house. Absolutely, there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the accused persons with regard to the recovery of MO Nos.1 to 8. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 21. Taking note of the fact that, the complainant and his wife have identified the MO Nos.1 to 8 which were seized from the custody of the accused persons, in a matter of this nature recovery of the stolen articles would complete the offence especially in the absence of any plausible or possible explanation from the accused. 22. Thus, order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC needs no interference which has been rightly confirmed by the First Appellate Court. This would take this Court to the alternate argument that has been put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. 23. Taking note of the fact that the incident is of the year 2005 and that, at the relevant time, accused No.2/revision petitioner was aged 19 years, this Court is of the view that calling for a probation report at this distant point of time particularly in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction would only result in a futile excise. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 24. Though, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the Trial Court has stated that accused is a habitual offender, in the absence of any other criminal antecedents with necessary material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and directing the custody already undergone by the accused No.1 as a period of imprisonment for the proved offences would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 25. Further, out of the fine amount recovered, if a sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant, would further serve the ends of justice. 26. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused No.2 for the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, custody already undergone by the accused is treated as a period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- which is payable on or before 10.02.2026. (iii) After recovery of the fine amount a sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.02.2026, would result in automatic restoration of the imprisonment ordered by Trial - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:408 CRL.RP No. 100301 of 2023 Magistrate which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16