- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 888 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI THIMMAIAH SHETTY S/O JAVARASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT TOGARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 34. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH SHETTY (PETITION AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 IS ABATED VIDE ORDER DT: 10.02.2026) …PETITIONERS (BY KUM. PAVANA B.K, ADV. FOR SRI PRATHEEP K.C, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALUR POLICE STATION HASAN DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.88/2013 AND DATED 28.07.2012 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.07.2012 PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., ALUR IN C.C.NO.5/2009 AND ACQUIT THE PETRS. FOR THEO FFENCE P/U/S 341,324,504,506,326 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 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 of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2012 passed in CC.No.5/2009 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Alur, and the judgment and order dated 01.07.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.88/2013 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Accused no.1/petitioner no.1 herein and his wife (accused no.2) were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and were tried for the said offences in CC.No.5/2009 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Alur. Since accused nos.1 & 2 had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the said case, the prosecution in order to prove its charges against them had examined six charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and had got marked - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 five documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. Three material objects were got marked as MO-1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted accused nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. However, the Trial Court had granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to accused nos.1 & 2 while passing the order of sentence against them. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.5/2009 was assailed by the State before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.88/2013, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 01.07.2016 and accused nos.1 & 2 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, and the order passed by the Trial Court extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was set aside. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.1 & 2 had approached this Court in this revision petition. Accused no.2 has died during the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 pendency of this petition, and therefore, as against her, this petition stands abated. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.09.2008 when the injured victim PW-1 - Mohan Kumar was proceeding to agricultural property, accused nos.1 & 2 who had ill-will against him, with a common intention, assaulted him with weapons and caused grievous injuries. Based on the first information submitted by PW-1, FIR was registered against accused nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 read with 34 IPC. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 506, 326 read with 34 IPC. 5. PW-1 is the injured witness in the present case. PW-2 & PW-3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question which had taken place on 29.09.2008. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 & PW-3. 6. PW-5 - Dr. Sayyed Mudasir Mohammed is the doctor who had treated PW-1 - Mohan Kumar and had issued wound certificate - Ex.P-4. PW-5 has stated that injury no.1 which is a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 cut injury on the left ear by PW-1 was a grievous injury and the other two injuries are simple injuries. 7. PW-1 as well as PW-2 & PW-3 have stated that accused no.1 had assaulted PW-2 with a machete and had caused grievous injury on his left ear. It is under these circumstances, the Appellate Court having appreciated oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and also has set aside the order of Trial Court extending the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. 8. It is relevant to note here that accused nos.1 & 2 had not challenged the order of conviction passed against them by the Trial Court in CC.No.5/2009. It is only the State which had preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.5/2009 by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court having appreciated that the injuries suffered on the left ear by PW-1 was not only grievous, but the same was caused with a dangerous weapon without there being any provocation, has allowed the appeal filed by the State and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 9. So far as the sentence imposed by the courts below against accused is concerned, since the material on record would go to show that there was a case and counter case in respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 29.09.2008 and undisputedly, there was a civil dispute between the parties, leniency is required to be shown while sentencing the petitioner. 10. The incident in question had taken place in the year 2008 and more than 17 years have lapsed since the date of incident. Accused is now aged more than 67 years. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that at this stage it would not be necessary to send accused no.1 behind the bars. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAIB SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - (1986)4 SCC 401, in a case where the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC along with other offences - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 punishable under the provisions of IPC, had reduced the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and had enhanced the amount of fine imposed on the accused. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said benefit is required to be extended to petitioner no.1 who is aged more than 67 years now. Accordingly, the following order: 12. Revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below against petitioner no.1 is confirmed. The order of sentence passed against petitioner no.1/accused no.1 by the courts below is modified. 13. For the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, petitioner no.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay fine of Rs.7,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, petitioner no.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. For the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC, petitioner no.1 is sentenced - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8074 CRL.RP No. 888 of 2016 to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, petitioner no.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, petitioner no.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK