Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Ismail Yane Nanyabai vs The State on 1 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200058 OF 2025
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL YANE NANYABAI,
S/O ABDUL RAHEEM SAB,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585305
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH,
Digitally signed MIRIYAN POLICE STATION,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH DIST.KALABURAGI, NOW REPRESENTED BY,
COURT OF ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI BENCH -585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP )
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 R/W 442 OF
BNSS PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN CC NO.
445/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINCHOLI DATED
24.02.2020 AND FURTHER THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY
THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN CRL.APPEAL No.31/2020
BY JUDGMENT DATED 15TH JANUARY 2025.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Avinash A.Uploankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.445/2014 dated 24.02.2020 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi, for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 189, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence Fine Default sentence punishable under Section 186 -- Rs.500/- Simple imprisonment for 15 days.
189 Six months Rs.1,000/- Simple
simple imprisonment for
imprisonment 02 months.
332 Six months Rs.1,000/- Simple
imprisonment imprisonment for
02 months.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025
HC-KAR
353 Simple Rs.5,000/- Simple
imprisonment for imprisonment for
01 year 02 months.
504 -- Rs.1,000/- Simple
imprisonment for
01 month.
506 -- Rs.1,000/- Simple
imprisonment for
01 month
3. Validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.31/2020.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, by the judgment dated 15.01.2025 allowed the appeal in part and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 189, 332, 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. State did not challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it has become final.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders, accused is before this Court on the following grounds:
That, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial judge is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.
The reasons assigned by the learned trial judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous and as such he has slipped into an error and passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of revision petitioner.
That, the one independent witness by name Mareppa was examined as PW.9. He totally turned hostile to the prosecution case where he failed to throw light upon the prosecution case.
Furthermore, the prosecution got examined other independent witnesses as PW-1, 2, 4, 5, 11. They too turned hostile to the prosecution case.
The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of PW-6, 7, 8 and PW-10 supported witnesses who are the interest witnesses to the prosecution and they are all the police constables of the same Police Station, where the complainant is deputed.
That, the revision petitioner was the President of the Transport Owners Association and the Police were -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR collecting illegal gratification, due to which the Police personal plotted the present case as against the revision petitioner.
That, both the court below have erred in taking note of the fact that there was obstruction or deterrence in discharge of duty so as to bring it U/s.353 of IPC. That, the invoking the provision of Section 353 of the IPC there must be a clear allegation of assault or criminal force by the accused for preventing the public servant from discharging his duty.
That, the reasons given by the trail court in believing interested witnesses is not proper and there are number of contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. The reasons given are not proper and contrary to principles of criminal jurisprudence.
That, there is no consistency in evidence of PWs hence the story of prosecution cannot believe. There are many contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, it give rise that doubt about the prosecution story. The benefit of doubt it to be given to revision petitioner and he is entitled for acquittal.
That, the reason assigned by the learned trial judge while passing impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentences are erroneous and as such he as slipped in to and error and passed by the judgment order of conviction and sentence resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice of case of revision petitioner." -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition, contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
8. Alternatively, Sri Avinash Uploankar, contended that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, custody period already undergone for a period of one month may be treated as the period of imprisonment for the proved offences by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and the remaining period of imprisonment may be set-aside and sought to allow the revision petition to that extent.
9. Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments.
10. He would fairly submit that the State did not challenge the Order of acquittal of the accused passed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. He further submits that, for the remaining offences, material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction and this Court cannot interfere with the factual aspects of the matter in revisional jurisdiction and sought to dismiss the revision petition.
12. He further contended that no lenience can be shown to the revision petitioner on the ground that he is a first time offender as he assaulted the police constable on duty in uniform and therefore, showing any lenience to such person would send a wrong message to the Society and thus sought for dismissal of the petition in toto.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that on 27.06.2014 at about 5.30 pm, the revision petitioner/accused voluntarily appeared infront of Miriyana Police Station and questioned the police as to why the lorry has been illegally taken to custody and why false case has been foisted against him.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. When P.W.3 and others questioned the action of the revision petitioner, high handedly, the revision petitioner caused injury to P.W.3.
16. The revision petitioner further interfered with the discharge of work by the police and therefore, case was registered, investigated and charge sheet came to be filed. The injuries sustained by P.W.3 is corroborated by the wound certificate issued by Dr.Jagadishchandra Bulla, who is examined as P.W.13. Wound certificate is marked at Ex.P.7.
17. Apart from injuring the P.W.3, the uniform worn by P.W.3 was also damaged by the action attributable to Revision petitioner. The buttons of the shirt worn by P.W.3 and the shirt were also seized by the police. They were marked before the learned Trial Magistrate as M.Os.1 and 2.
18. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity nurtured by the police against the revision petitioner, why would they falsely implicate the revision petitioner by concocting the wound certificate as well as M.Os.1 and 2 is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the revision -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the accused statement.
19. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while recording an order of conviction for the charged offences.
20. In the appeal filed by the accused, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from the prosecution evidence.
21. While re-appreciating the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that, apart from police personnel, independent eye witness by name Mareppa has been examined as P.W.9. Though he has turned hostile, the extent to which he supported the case of the prosecution is taken note of by the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
22. It is also observed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court that merely because the case rests on the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR testimony of the official witnesses, that itself would not be a bar for recording an order of conviction.
23. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in this regard placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyan vs. State of Kerala reported in (2023)13 SCC 767 and held that there is no bar for placing reliance on the testimony of the official witnesses in a given case.
24. However, while acquitting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, at paragraphs 40 and 41 has held as under:
"40. Furthermore, Indian Constitution provides for no double jeopardy as under Article 20(2), hence the police had charged the accused U/Sec.186, 189, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. But it is interesting to note that Sec.186 and 353 of IPC has overlapped and Sec 353 offence is the offence of higher magnitude. Hence the accused need not be punished as U/Sec.186 of IPC. In similar lines accused was even held liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC. Where it appears to this court, Sec.189 of IPC is of higher magnitude in the said case which would exactly fit in the current case and the accused being held liable even U/Sec.506 of IPC which amount to double jeopardy.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
41. Hence, on all the above observations made by this appellate court, it is crystal clear accused has committed the offence, by having abused PW.3 and then having come in the way of said witness so as to deter him from discharging his public duty. furthermore assaulting him by twisting his hand and then intimidated him with dire consequences of life for which the accused liability exclusively arises as U/Sec.504, 353, 332 and 189 of IPC. However Sec.186 and 506 are offences of lesser magnitude and those ingredients are already present as U/Sec.353 and 189 of IPC. Hence, accused liability stands absolved for the offences punishable U/Sec.186 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative holding that accused liability very much arises for the offences punishable U/Sec.504, 353, 332 and 189 of IPC."
25. In the usual course, if there is a revision or an appeal by the State with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court might have taken a different view.
26. But in the absence of any such appeal or revision on behalf of the State, in a revision or appeal filed by the accused, this Court cannot hold against the revision petitioner or appellant, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR case of Govind Ramji Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1990)4 SCC 718.
27. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Judge modified by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition.
28. Having said thus, it is noticed that accused is admittedly a first time offender. He claims to be the President of Lorry Owners' Association. However, that would not give him a licence to misbehave with the State machinery including the police.
29. But, since the revision petitioner/accused is a first time offender and offences proved against him are not so grave so as to compulsorily award imprisonment, having regard to the language employed including offence punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that custody period already undergone by the revision petitioner, if treated as period of imprisonment, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- of which
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR Rs.20,000/- if paid to P.W.3 as compensation, ends of justice would be met.
30. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine in a sum of Rs.25,000/- for all the offences payable on or before 31st July 2025.
(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 31st July 2025, the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate modified by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court for the proved offences stands restored automatically.
(iv) Out of fine amount of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/-
is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.3 under due identification.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534 CRL.RP No. 200058 of 2025 HC-KAR
(v) Balance sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT:PK