- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.388 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVASA S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, PIN CODE: 563125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY RURAL POLICE CHINTAMANI, REP BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE -01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 26.05.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR(SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) IN CRL.A.NO.08/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 29.12.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHINTAMANI IN C.C.NO.242/2012 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Kalyan R., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused in C.C.No.242/2012 who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- of which sum of Rs.4,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim girl through her mother (P.W.2) is the revision petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.8/2015 which came to be dismissed by upholding the order of conviction and sentence. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 4.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Chintamani Rural Police Station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code by contending that on 23.09.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. in Singanahalli village, near Venkatappa’s Garden land, victim girl who is mentally unsound, being the daughter of P.W.2 was sitting on the pump house. Accused with an malafide intention, dragged her to a mango grove and near the bushes, tried to disrobe her and outraged her modesty and attempted to commit forcible sexual intercourse. 4.2. At that juncture, victim girl raised alarm and passersby came there and looking at them, accused ran away from the spot. In the process, ‘nighty’ worn by the victim girl was torn. 4.3. Based on the complaint, police registered a crime and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 5. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and placed on record four documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4 besides marking material objects which is torn nighty worn by the victim girl at the time of incident. 7. Among the prosecution witness, P.W.2 is the mother of the victim girl and other witnesses are the eye witnesses to the incident, Investigating Agency and mahazar witnesses. 8. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not place his version about the incident. 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and then convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the proved offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 10. Learned Trial Magistrate also ordered that out of the fine amount, sum of Rs.4,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim girl through her mother P.W.2. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.8/2015. 12. 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 evidence placed on record upheld the order of conviction and the sentence. 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that it is an isolated incident and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 accused is the first time offender and benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is not extended to the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition by modifying the jail sentence. 16. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 17. He would further contend that admittedly, victim girl who is the daughter of P.W.2 who is a mentally retarded person and she was not knowing what is happening and accused having pulled her to the mango grove and tried to disrobe her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse which itself shows intention of the accused and such persons cannot be shown any leniency and thus, sought for dismissal of the petition in toto. 18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 have unequivocally deposed about the incident that occurred on 23.09.2011 at 3.30 p.m., near the garden land of Venkatappa in Singanahalli Village. Whereas the mother of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 victim girl has gone to the spot little as she came to know about the incident from P.W.1 and P.W.8 who are the independent witnesses to the incident. 20. P.W.1 and P.W.8 have specifically deposed that after hearing the hue and cry of the victim girl who is the daughter of P.W.2, they went near the spot and on seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. 21. One of the witnesses has also deposed that accused trying to gag the mouth of the victim girl. Further, nighty worn by the victim girl was torn and was marked at M.O.1. 22. P.W.1, 2 and 8 are totally strangers to the incident and did not possess any previous enmity or animosity as against the accused to falsely implicate the accused in the incident by pledging the dignity of the victim girl. 23. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by learned Judge in the First Appellate Court more so in the absence of any plausible explanation, in the accused statement is just and proper and requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 24. Having said so, the incident is an isolated incident and thereafter, there is no complaint against the accused. Material on record also shows that accused did not have any criminal antecedents. 25. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that the incident has occurred way back in the year 2011 and complainant/mother of the victim is ready to accept the reasonable amount as compensation, the imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, needs modification by exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 26. More so, when the learned Trial Magistrate failed to exercise the power vested in it under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, which was not even considered by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court. 27. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till raising of the Court by imposing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, ends of justice would be met. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 28. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day and pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.04.2026. (iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, same shall be paid as compensation to the mother of victim/P.W.2 under due identification. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatically restoration of sentence of imprisonment ordered by learned Trial - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15851 CRL.RP No. 388 of 2017 Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59