- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13THDAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 421 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SANJAYKUMAR @ SANJAY @ SANJU S/O ANNAJIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND JUNIOR COLLEGE ARAKALGUD. 2. SHASHIDHARA S/O YOGACHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND JUNIOR COLLEGE ARAKALGUD. 3. SANDEEPA @ GUNDA S/O NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HENTAGERE, ARAKALGUD. 4. YOGESHA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT VINAYAKA NAGARA, OPP: THARA HOSPITAL, ARAKALGUD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SANGEETHA S & SRI. A. RAJESH., ADVOCATE FOR P1, 3 & 4; V/O/D 19.2.2025, CASE AGAINST P2 STANDS ABATED) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ARAKALGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALGUD …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19.05.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.177/2015 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 15.09.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.108/2010 BY CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ARAKALGUD AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED PERSONS/PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4. THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde., learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa., learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused persons in CC No.108/2010 having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.177/2015, are the Revision Petitioners. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 3. During the pendency of the present revision petition, accused No.2 died and therefore, Revision Petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned is dismissed as abated and Revision Petition is proceeded as against remaining petitioners. 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under; 4.1. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim girl, who was a college student and who is now no more, Arkalgud Police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners herein. The gist of the charge sheet material would reveal that on 13.10.2009 at about 08.30 a.m., in Arkalgud town, near Ranganatha Medical Stores situated in the Fort area, when the complainant’s daughter (victim girl) was waiting for the bus, accused No.1 came near the daughter of the complainant with a sexual intent and held daughter of the complainant and kissed her. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 4.2 Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are said to have instigated Accused No.1 for the said incident and after kissing her on cheek, they also outraged her modesty in public. The son of the complainant was assaulted by Accused Nos.1 and 2 with their hands, and the victim girl was assaulted by Accused Nos.3 and 4 with their hands. The accused persons also allegedly threatened the lives of the children of the complainant. 4.3 The learned Trial Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences alleged therein and issued summons to the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held. 4.4 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, nine witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 9, comprising the complainant, the children of the complainant, the spot mahazar witnesses, the doctor who examined the children of the complainant, and the Investigating Officer. On record, 6 documentary evidence were produced and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, comprising the complaint, spot mahazar and the wound certificates of the children of the complainant. 4.5 On conclusion of recording of the evidence, the statements of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the accused persons denied the incident and all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. 4.6 Thereafter, the learned Trial Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of the parties and on proper appreciation of the material available on record, convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 354 read with 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused persons of the remaining offences. 4.7 Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.177/2015 before the First Appellate Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 4.8 The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the arguments of both parties, dismissed the appeal. 4.9 Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused have approached this Court. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused persons would contend that the case of the prosecution is not established by placing necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. 6. He further emphasized that, at the most, conviction can only be maintained against Accused No.1 and not against the remaining accused persons and with the aid of Section 34, conviction of the offence under Section 354 of IPC cannot be countenance in law and sought for above revision petition to the extent. 7. Alternatively, it was contended that, in the event this Court upholds the order of conviction as regards the limited reasons, the incident having been taken place way - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 back in the year 2009, and that all the accused persons have now settled in life with families to maintain, the Court may treat the custody period already undergone by Accused No.1 as the period of imprisonment. 8. For the remaining revision petitioners, the Court may impose a reasonable fine and allow the revision petition to that extent. 9. Per contra, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa., learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that in a matter of this nature, especially where an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is alleged, the statement of the victim girl alone would be sufficient enough to record the order of conviction, unless the accused is able to show that with mala fide intention or previous enmity, there has been a false implication of the accused persons. 10. Therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, which has been reaffirmed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 learned judge in the First Appellate Court and thus, this Court, that too in the Revisional Jurisdiction cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Insofar as the alternate submission is concerned, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa., learned High Court Government Pleader contended that even though the incident is of the year 2009, the First Appellate Court rightly exercised its appellate jurisdiction in setting aside the sentence of admonition imposed by the Trial Magistrate, taking note of the fact that a young college-going girl was outraged in her modesty in public;that too, in a small town like Arkalgud, which news would spread across the town within no time, imposed a sentence of one year for the proved offence under Section 354 of the IPC accord from imposing the fine and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision petition its entirety. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously examined the material on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 As rightly contended on behalf of the revision petitioner by learning Senior Counsel, incident is of the year 2009, when the accused persons were of young age. Maybe at adolescence of the accused, incident has occurred at the spur of the moment in a small town, wherein victim girl has been kissed on her cheek by accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are said to have instigated Accused No.1. Accused No.2 is no more and the victim girl is also no more. 13. At this distance of time, if the accused persons are directed to undergo the imprisonment ordered by the First Appellate Court by modifying the order of admonition passed by the Magistrate, it would act harshly on the remaining revision petitioners. 14. It is noted by this Court that accused Nos.1 and 2 was in custody for a period of three days, whereas other accused No.3 and 4 were granted bail. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 15. The allegation found in the charge sheet against accused No.2 to 4 is that they instigated the act, and with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, the trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. 16. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the revision petitioners were acquitted for the remaining offences and that there is no appeal by the State. 17. Thus, if the order of the First Appellate Court is to be modified, directing the custody period undergone by the accused No.1 be treated as the sentence and for the accused Nos.3 and 4 ordering simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each ends of justice would be met in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case. 18. Taking note that victim is dead, out of the compensation amount sum of Rs.65,000/- is ordered to be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 paid as financial assistance to Ramana Maharshi Blind School, JP Nagar for the benefit of blind girls as suggested by learned Senior counsel representing the accused persons. 19. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER i. The Crl. Revision petition is partly-allowed. ii. While maintaining the conviction of accused for the offences under Section 354 r/w 34 of IPC, period spent in custody by the accused person is treated as period of imprisonment for proved offence and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- each. iii. Time is granted for the Revision Petitioners to deposit the enhanced fine amount till 31.03.2026. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15131 CRL.RP No. 421 of 2017 iv. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in accused undergoing the sentence ordered by the First Appellate Court. v. Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. vi. Since the incidence is of the year 2009 and did not act as a deterrent for their job opportunities, this order shall not come in their service conditions. vii. The name of the accused personsshall be masked in the data of this Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46