Karnataka High Court
Halesha vs State By Belur Police on 3 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:157
CRL.RP No. 749 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 749 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. HALESHA,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
2. PRASANNA,
S/O MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
[
BOTH ARE R/O
KORACHARAHALLI
BUKKASAGARA,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C. AND
SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed STATE BY BELUR POLICE,
by SANDHYA S
Location: High
HASSAN DISTRICT,
Court of REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Karnataka
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2014
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN
CRL.A.NO.233/2013 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2013 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:157
CRL.RP No. 749 of 2014
C.C.NO.175/2012 AND THE PETITIONERS TO BE ACQUITTED
FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioners have filed this revision petition
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur in
C.C.No.175/2012 dated 17.12.2013 (for short hereinafter
referred as 'trial Court'), which is confirmed by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.233/2013 dated
19.08.2014.
2. The rank of the parties in this petition are referred
to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution is that:
On 03.04.2012 at about 5.30 a.m., the complainant as
usual performed pooja at the door of Shankar Mutt and after
performing pooja, she was returning to her house. At that time,
accused persons gathered near Shankar mutt with an intention
to commit robbery, accused No.2 robbed the gold Mangalya
chain forcibly and took away on motor cycle bearing
NC: 2024:KHC:157
Reg.No.K.A.18-V-2789. Therefore, the complainant lodged had
a complaint. Thereafter, police had investigated the case and
submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
4. After taking cognizance against the accused, a case
was registered in C.C.No.175/2012 and since from date of
arrest of the accused, they were in judicial custody till the
disposal of the case. Charges were framed by the trial Court
and the same were read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, eight witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked six documents
as Exs.P1 to 6 and one material object mangalya chain marked
as M.O.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused
had totally denied the material evidence appearing against
them, but they did not chose to lead any defence evidence on
their behalf.
NC: 2024:KHC:157
6. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted
the accused for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period three years and fine of Rs.4,000/-
each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. Out of fine amount of
Rs.4,000/- each, in total Rs.8,000/-, in which 4,000/- is
awarded as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of
Cr.P.C. After suspension of sentence by this Court, accused
remitted the fine amount Rs.4,000/- each.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused had
preferred an appeal before Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in
Crl.A.233/2013. The same came to be dismissed on
19.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Appellate
Court, as well as trial Court, the revision petitioners/accused
have preferred the present criminal revision petition.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of revision
petitioners/accused has submitted his arguments that, though
he has taken several grounds in his revision petition, he will
NC: 2024:KHC:157
restrict his argument only to the extent of modifying the
sentence. He submits that the accused have already undergone
the sentence of 1 year 9 months. The trail Court has imposed
rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence, he sought for
reducing the same from 3 years to 1 year 9 months. He further
submits that the revision petitioners have not committed any
offences prior to this alleged commission of offence.
Considering the nature and grounds, he sought for modification
of sentence. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on
the decision passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Suryamoorthy and Another v/s Govindaswamy and Others,
reported in 1989 (3) SCC 24.
9. As against this, learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri. M.R.Patil has submitted his arguments that, the
trail Court has properly awarded the sentence and the same is
confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence he sought for
dismissal of this revision petition.
10. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the
records, the following points would arise for my consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC:157
(i) Whether the revision petitioners/accused have
made out grounds to modify the order of
sentence passed by the trial Court, which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court?
(ii) What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.(1) : In the affirmative,
Point No.(2) : As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
12. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this Court. The revision petitioners have not disputed as
to the conviction passed by the trail Court which is confirmed
by the Appellate Court. The trail Court has passed a sentence
of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4000/-
each in addition to imprisonment.
13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused that the accused were in judicial custody for a period
of 1 year 9 months 13 days, which is not in dispute by the
other side.
NC: 2024:KHC:157
14. The prosecution has not placed any material to
show that the accused were convicted in any offences prior to
this alleged commission of offence. Alleged commission of
offence is the first offence. Age of accused No.1 was 24 years
and accused No.2 was 20 years at the time of alleged
commission of offence. Considering the nature and gravity of
offence, age and occupation of accused, antecedents of revision
petitioners, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to
reduce the sentence from 3 years to 1 year 9 months 13 days.
Accused have already remitted the fine amount of Rs.4,000/-
each as per order of the trial Court. Hence I answer point No.1
in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
15. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is partly
allowed;
ii) The judgment of conviction passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur in
C.C.No.175/2012 dated 17.12.2013 which is
NC: 2024:KHC:157
confirmed by the Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.233/2013 dated 19.08.2014 is
confirmed;
iii) The sentence imposed by the trial Court is
modified as under :
The accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for 1 year 9 months 13 days
and pay fine amount of Rs.4,000/- each.
The fine amount is already remitted by the
accused. The said fine amount shall be
returned to the victim as per the order
passed by the trail Court.
iv) Benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
shall be given to the accused;
v) Registry to send a copy of this order along with
TCR and SCR to the concerned Courts.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PGG
CT:SNN
