Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Basvaraj Pujari And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
CRL.RP No. 200005 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200005 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SANTOSH S/O BASVARAJ PUJARI,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER,
2. SADDAM S/O HAMEED DUNDASI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
BOTH R/O. YOGAPUR COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. SHRIDEVI B. ALBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA
THROUGH APMC P.S.,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI..
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2020 PASSED BY PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.32/2019 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED BY ADDL.
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 324, 326, 504, AND 506, R/W SEC. 34 OF
IPC, AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING
THIS PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
CRL.RP No. 200005 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 Sangoli Naganna and Smt.Shridevi B.Alba,
learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt.Arati Patil,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have
suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.20/2018 on the file of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayapura, and sentenced
as under:
"Acting u/Sec 248(2) of Cr.P.C. the A-1 and A-2 are
convicted and sentenced as under:
For the offence punishable u/Sec.323 of IPC, they are
sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable u/Sec.324 of IPC, they are
sentenced to undergo S.I.for 2 years and with a fine of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, they
shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two month.
For the offence punishable u/Sec.341 of IPC, they are
sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable u/Sec.504 of IPC, they are
sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC, they are
sentenced to undergo S.I.for 6 months and with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
All sentences above shall run concurrently."
3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was
questioned in Criminal Appeal No.32/2019 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing
the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by
the judgment dated 19.08.2020 dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Trial Judge.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
5. Being further aggrieved by same, accused persons are
before this Court.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would contend that given the scope of revisional jurisdiction,
there is not much to submit in respect of conviction is
concerned. But contended that insofar as the sentence is
concerned, since the accused persons are the first time
offenders, this Court may show leniency by setting aside the
imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code and other offences, by enhancing the fine amount
reasonably.
7. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader opposes the said submission made on
behalf of the revision petitioners and contended that voluntarily
the revision petitioners have assaulted P.W.1. The wound
certificate marked at Ex.P3 depicts that the injuries are simple
in nature. However injury No.2 was shown to be grievous in
nature.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
8. She further contended that the witnesses have deposed
before the Court including the injured witness who specifically
deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what
transpired on the day of the incident and therefore their
evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt, in
Ex.P-3, injury No.2 is shown as a grievous injury, which is loss
of teeth.
11. Taking note of the fact that there was no fresh bleeding
noticed by the Doctor, learned Trial Magistrate disbelieved that
in the incident P.W.1 lost the teeth and acquitted the accused
for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. State did not chose to file any appeal against the Order of
acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 326 of
the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the order of conviction for
remaining offences has become final.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
13. Taking note of the fact that the accused persons are first
time offenders, learned Trial Judge ought to have considered
the grant of probation. Though submissions were made on
behalf of the revision petitioners, learned Trial Judge took into
consideration that revision petitioners have made serious
allegations against PWs-1 and 2 about the alleged illicit
relationship. Therefore, he did not chose to grant the benefit of
probation. Same is not a proper reason for denying the relief
under the Probation of Offenders Act.
14. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis
that role of a Judge while passing an order of conviction is
altogether different from the role of the Judge while passing an
order of appropriate sentence in a given case.
15. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not bestow
its attention to the said aspect of the matter calling for
interference by this Court in this revision petition, only to the
extent of quantum of sentence.
16. Admittedly both petitioners were in custody for a period
of seven days before they were enlarged on bail.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
17. Taking note of the nature of allegations levelled against
the accused persons and learned Trial Judge acquitting the
accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC, if the custody
period already undergone by the accused persons is treated as
period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount
reasonably, ends of justice would be we met.
18. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioners/accused persons for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code the, custody period of
7 days already undergone by the revision petitioners
is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved
offences and to pay enhanced fine amount of
Rs.30,000/- each on or before 31st July 2025 before
the trial court.
(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would
automatically result in restoration of the sentence of
imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3882
HC-KAR
Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court.
(iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of
modified conviction warrant.
(v) On receipt of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid to P.W.1 as
compensation.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
CT:PK
