- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 28 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. VASANTHI SHENOY W/O. SRINIVAS SHENOY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. R/AT D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS 8TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR MANGALURU - 575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA S, ADV.) AND: SRI DAMODAR SHENOY AGED MAJOR S/O LATE RAMANATH SHENOY R/AT SUMITHRA, OPP SANGHANIKETAN GANDHINAGAR, MANGALORE - 575 003. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.10.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.17/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE A, PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, AND THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.10.2022 IN CC.NO.1420/2015 ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE LD. JMFC (II COURT) MANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Complainant is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order if acquittal dated 27.10.2022 passed in CC.No.1420/2015 by the Court of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.17/2023 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, vide judgment and order dated 09.10.2025. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner had filed a private complaint against the respondent alleging that he had committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Cognizance was taken by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against the respondent. Since the respondent had claimed to be tried, in order to prove her case, petitioner had examined her self as PW-1 in CC.No.1420/20215 and also got examined five other witnesses as PW-2 to PW-6. Thirteen documents were got marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 - Sahana Preetham Rao was examined and her statement was got marked as Ex.D-1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 4. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, had acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.17/2023 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, on 09.10.2025. It is under these circumstances, complainant is before this Court. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 18.07.2011, initially a police complaint was registered based on the first information received from the petitioner herein in Crime No.129/2011 by Kadri Police Station, D.K. Mangaluru. The police after investigation, had filed a 'B' final report in Crime No.129/2011 which was not contested by the petitioner, and therefore, the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate had accepted the 'B' final report and closed the case. Subsequently, a private complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondent and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant/petitioner, cognizance for the offences punishable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC was taken by the Trial Court and summons was issued against the respondent/accused. 6. PW-1 has deposed before the Trial Court reiterating the allegations found against the respondent in her private complaint. Respondent-accused is none other than the brother of the petitioner. PW-5 is the doctor who has been examined in the present case on behalf of the complainant and Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate of PW-1. PW-5 is not the doctor who had treated PW-1 and had issued wound certificate - Ex.P-5. The doctor who had treated PW-1 and issued the wound certificate is not examined in the present case. The daughter of the petitioner has been examined on behalf of the defence as DW-1. She has stated that her mother held her hand and tried to pull her and she pushed her mother stating that she was not willing to return home. She has not stated anything about the respondent assaulting PW-1 who is none other than her mother. 7. The incident in question allegedly had taken place after DW-1 got married against the wishes of her mother and other relatives. It appears that respondent-accused who is the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 brother of PW-1 and uncle of DW-1, had supported DW-1 after her marriage. In the first information which was submitted in Crime No.129/2011, there was no mention of the presence of PW-2 & PW-6 who are the alleged eye-witnesses near the spot of crime. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has not believed the evidence of PW-2 & PW-6. 8. The Trial Court having appreciated all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, has rightly acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, and the Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHABIR & OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA - (2025)1 INSC 120, has observed that the scope for this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding of acquittal recorded by the courts below is very narrow. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that this revision petition being devoid of merits is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8504 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2026 liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK