Karnataka High Court
Sri Yashawantha vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.798 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI YASHAWANTHA,
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGEDA BOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANTHARASANTE
VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BEECHANAHALLI POLICE,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M REPRESENTED BY THE
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., HEGGADADEVANAHA KOTE IN C.C.NO.840/2013
AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06.10.2020
PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.66/2020 -CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 448 OF IPC, IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 DAYS, FURTHER TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.4,000/-
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 OF IPC,
IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 20 DAYS AND TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-
IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that this petitioner who is the owner of
the premises in which the victim was a tenant barged into the
house of the complainant on 16.02.2013 at 2.00 p.m. when the
husband of the complainant was not in the house. The
petitioner asked for water and when the complainant went inside
the house to get the water, at that time he followed her and he
held her from backside and outraged the modesty of a woman
and an attempt was made to commit the rape and when making
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
an attempt the nighty of the P.W.1 was torn. At that time,
P.W.2 came inside the house and noticed the same and
immediately P.W.2 brought P.W.3 and on the arrival of P.W.2
and P.W.3, the petitioner left the house. The complainant
lodged the complaint and case was registered and investigation
is completed and charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC
since an attempt was made to cause life threat by using towel
on the neck of the complainant. The accused was secured and
he did not plead guilty and hence trial was conducted and the
complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2
to P.W.10 and marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6(a).
P.W.3 turned hostile and P.W.4 is the husband of P.W.1. The
Trial Court having considered the material available on record,
particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and considering
M.O.1 to M.O.3 which were marked i.e., torn nighty, towel and
red colour broken bangles, convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC.
The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one month with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 448 of IPC. The accused was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
year with fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 354 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the material available on record, in paragraph
No.28 comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is
corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. The
Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 is the
victim housewife at the time of the incident and also made an
observation that ordinarily a woman by making false allegation
of acts committed against her would not put her character at
stake. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent, convincing
and reliable evidence. P.W.2 - eye witness to the alleged
incident supported the case of the prosecution that the accused
committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of the
complainant and outraged modesty of the complainant by
dragging her and tore her clothes and made her to fell down on
the ground and there was no reason for them to speak a lie had
they been inimical they could have exaggerated the fact but
they have stated what they have witnessed at the time of
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
incident. The Appellate Court also taken note of that there was
no enmity between the complainant and the accused at the time
of the incident though suggestion was made that the accused
was objecting the persons who were coming to the house of the
complainant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error and miserably failed to appreciate the charges leveled
against the petitioner and contend that the relationship between
the petitioner and the victim is tenant and landlord and there
was a dispute between them with regard to vacating the leased
house. In that background, both the Courts ought to have
considered the material on record, but not appreciated the same
in proper perspective. In fact, no independent witness was
examined by the prosecution and P.W.2 is a relative witness and
the alleged eye-witness P.W.3 has not supported the case of the
prosecution. P.W.7 doctor as per Ex.P.5 deposes that there are
no external injuries on the body of P.W.1. When the medical
evidence not supports the case of the prosecution, the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have accepted the
case of the prosecution and hence it requires interference of this
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent would contend that P.W.1
is the victim and the evidence of P.W.1 corroborates with the
evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, M.O.1 to M.O.3, which have
been seized speaks about the incident and nighty was torn and
the same is marked as M.O.1. M.O.2 is the towel and M.O.3 are
the bangles which have been damaged during the course of
incident. The evidence of P.W.2 is consistent with the evidence
of P.W.1 and the same has been considered by both the Courts.
The scope of revision is very limited and only if any perversity is
found in the findings of the Trial Court, then only this Court can
interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent and also having taken note of the material
available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of
this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an
error in convicting and sentencing the
petitioner and whether the Appellate Court
has committed an error in confirming the
order of the Trial Court and whether it
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
requires interference of this Court by
exercising the revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident was
taken place on 16.02.2013 at 2.00 p.m. The case of the victim
P.W.1 is that when she was alone at home, the accused came to
the house and asked her about her husband and when she
replied that her husband is not in the house, he asked her to
give water and when she went inside, he followed her and held
her from the backside. When she resisted, her cloth was torn
i.e., nighty and when she was made to fell on the ground, her
bangles were damaged and in the meanwhile, P.W.2 came to
the house and witnessed the incident and immediately she
called P.W.3 and the accused left the house. The evidence of
P.W.1 is supported by the prosecution witness P.W.2. The
learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this
Court the detailed cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
Having perused the same, the evidence of P.W.2 corroborates
with the evidence of P.W.1 and though some minor
discrepancies are found, the same cannot be a ground to
interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The learned
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
counsel brought to the notice of this Court the wound certificate
Ex.P.5 as well as the evidence of P.W.7 doctor. No doubt, on
perusal of the wound certificate, no injuries are found on P.W.1
and the case of the prosecution is that when a attempt was
made, at that time P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.1. The
Court has to take note of not only the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, but also other circumstantial material placed before the
Court i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.3.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that,
P.W.3, according to the prosecution has turned hostile and the
evidence of P.W.2 is an interested witness and the said
contention cannot be accepted. No doubt, P.W.2 is the relative
of P.W.1 and at the same time, the Court has to take note of
whether there was any animosity between P.W.1 and the
accused and there is no such animosity between them. The fact
is that the accused is the owner of the premises and P.W.1 took
the premises on lease in the month of October and the incident
was taken place in the month of February itself. The very
ground urged in the petition that there was a ill-will between
them with regard to vacating of the premises cannot be
accepted and no such attempt was made to get P.W.1 vacated
from the house and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the animosity is concerned.
When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Trial Court while
convicting the accused given the reason that the evidence of
P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. The Appellate Court
also taken note of the fact that no woman will come forward to
depose before the Court when her modesty is at stake. When
the allegation of outraging the modesty of a woman is alleged,
the same is discussed in paragraph No.28 of the order of the
Appellate Court and a detailed discussion was made with regard
to whether the victim can speak a lie when there was no
animosity between them and appreciated the material on record
and hence I do not find any ground to exercise revisional
jurisdiction.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of STATE v. SANJIV BHALLA reported in (2015) 13 SCC
444, exercising the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned
counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.9 of
the judgment, wherein discussion was made with regard to
challenge was made for invoking of Probation of Offenders Act in
a case of invoking of an offence under Sections 120B and 420 of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
IPC. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court
paragraph No.12, wherein discussion was made that every
accused person need not be detained, arrested and imprisoned-
liberty is precious and must not be curtailed unless there are
good reasons to do so. In paragraph No.15, the Apex Court
taken note that the Apex Court in the case of Hari Kishan v.
Sukhbir Singh and others held that extending the benefit of
probation to first time offenders is generally not inappropriate.
The humanizing principle was extended even to a conviction
under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC in State of Karnataka
v. Muddappa, in which case the benefit of release on probation
was granted to the convict. The learned counsel also brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph No.26, wherein discussion
was made with regard to exercising of Probation of Offenders
Act. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was
already in custody for a period of one month and the same may
be set off and he may be enlarged invoking the Probation of
Offenders Act.
10. The learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that the said judgment is not applicable to the case on
hand. In the reported case the offence invoked is under
Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and in the case on hand, it is an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
offence against a woman outraging the modesty of a woman
when the husband was not in the house and the same cannot be
extended. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court that minimum sentence was imposed by the Trial Court
i.e., one year and not imposed any maximum sentence and
hence it does not require interference of this Court.
11. No doubt, with regard to the principles laid down in
the judgment referred supra, it is a case with regard to invoking
of Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and the learned counsel for the
petitioner brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9,
12 and 15 of the said judgment. No doubt, it is held that every
accused person need not be detained, arrested and imprisoned-
liberty is precious and must not be curtailed unless there are
good reasons to do so. Having considered the said principle
also, the Court has to take note of the factual aspects of each
case while invoking the Probation of Offenders Act.
12. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that in the
absence of the husband of the complainant, the petitioner
trespassed the house of the complainant at 2.00 p.m. and asked
the victim for water and when the complainant went inside the
house, he held her from the backside. When she resisted, her
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
cloth was torn and the same is evident from M.O.1 and she was
made to fell on the ground and at that time her bangles were
damaged and the damaged bangles were seized and marked as
M.O.3. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.2 is clear that she
witnessed the incident. When such material is available on
record, when the offence is outraging the modesty of a woman,
the question of invoking the Probation of Offenders Act, as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not
arise. Hence, taking note of the factual aspects of the case,
minimum sentence of one year is imposed. The provision of
Section 354 of IPC subsequent to the amendment with effect
from 03.02.2013 is clear that shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine. The penal provision is amended with effect
from 03.02.2013 and the incident was taken place on
16.02.2013 subsequent to the amendment. The punishment
imposed is one year and the same also commensurate with the
gravity of the offence. Hence, I do not find any substance in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner even to
reduce the sentence as well as to invoke the Probation of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2860
Offenders Act to release him. Hence, I answer the point for
consideration in the negative.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
