Karnataka High Court
Mahesh Maruti Dukare vs State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100379 OF 2025 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHESH MARUTI DUKARE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAXMI GALLI, KINAYE,
TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590003.
2. NAMADEV KASHINATH DUKARE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAXMI GALLI, KINAYE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590003
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High
Court of
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY THE XTH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C.NO.130/2023
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 435 R/W. 34 OF
IPC WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF FINE OF RS.35,000/- EACH BY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
CRL.A No. 100379 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent - State.
2. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 11 of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("PO Act" for short) by the
by accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking to set aside the order dated
16.04.2025 passed by the learned X Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.130/2023 for the offence
punishable under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short.) with respect to payment
of fine of Rs.35,000/- each by appellants and another.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as
under:
The complainant and the accused persons are residents
of Kinaye village. There was a financial transaction between
both the families. In this regard one Bhagirati agreed to pay
Rs.12,00,000/- to her parents to perform the marriage of her
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
HC-KAR
younger sister Durgadevi. She executed a bond in this
regard. The said bond was with the accused as they had
mediated. On 30.08.2020, when father of the defacto
complainant demanded the bond from Mahesh - accused
No.1 there was a scuffle between him and the accused
persons. Therefore, the accused persons damaged the
electricity meter of the house of the complainant, damaged
his bike, and also assaulted the parents and the sister of the
complainant. Thus, the complainant and his family members
lodged a complaint against the accused persons on
01.09.2020. On 01.09.2020 at about 8:30 p.m. all the
accused persons set fire to the house of the defacto
complainant and caused loss to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/-.
This led to registration of FIR and investigation.
4. The Trial Court ultimately convicted the
appellants and another for the offence punishable under
Section 435 read with Section 34 of IPC and directed them to
pay fine of Rs.35,000/- each as compensation to the
complainant, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial
Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the
ground that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is
excessive one and without any corroborative piece of
evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
though the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of IPC,
however it convicted the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 435 of IPC and exercised the
provisions of PO act and accordingly, granted compensation
to the defacto complainant. Thus, prayed to reduce the
compensation.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent - State contended that the Trial Court has
passed the impugned judgment, which is based on the
evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial
Court are well founded and hence, he prayed for dismissal of
the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
HC-KAR
8. I have perused the material available on record.
On 21.03.2025, the Trial Court passed an order under
Section 4 of PO Act and on 16.04.2025, the Trial Court
passed an order, which reads as under:
"ORDER
The Report of the Probation Officer is accepted.
By invoking the power conferred under section 4 of
P.O. Act, the accused 1 to 3 are ordered to be released on
probation of good conduct, on their executing personal
bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety for the like
sum.
The Probation Officer is directed to supervise the
accused 1 to 3 for 6 months. The P.O. shall report any
non compliance by the accused-1 to 3 forthwith for further
action in the matter.
The accused 1 to 3 are directed to appear and
receive the sentence at any time when called upon by the
Court within 3 years, if they commit any offence or violate
the probation of good conduct.
Further, invoking section 5[1] of P.O. Act, the
accused 1 to 3 are directed to deposit a total fine of
Rs.1,05,000/- [i.e. Rs.35,000/- each), to be paid as a
compensation and cost to the complainant.
If the accused persons fails to pay, the same may be
recovered as per section 421 or 431 of Criminal Procedure
Code.
The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
HC-KAR
MO-1 to 5 be returned to the complainant after the
appeal period is over.
Furnish the copy of judgment to District Magistrate,
Belagavi in compliance with section 365 of Criminal
Procedure Code."
9. On perusal of the above order, it appears that the
Trial court has directed the appellants to pay compensation
of Rs.35,000/- each to the complainant. The Trial Court
came to the conclusion on the basis of the statement made
by the defacto complainant and materials on record. As per
Ex.D.1, the statement of PW.1, he calculated the
compensation on an approximate manner and he has not
produced any material to that effect. Further, the defacto
complainant - PW.1 in Ex.D.1 stated about burning of cash
in his house and in Ex.P.1 - panchanama there is no
reference about the burnt currency notes. The defacto
complainant has not furnished any material before the Court
to substantiate the extent of loss. Hence, in the absence of
any material particulars, the Trial Court imposed
compensation of Rs.35,000/- each on the accused payable to
the complainant is excessive. If a sum of Rs.25,000/- as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8762
HC-KAR
compensation is imposed on the appellants, it would meet
the ends of justice. Hence, the Criminal appeal deserves to
be allowed in part. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass
the following.
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the X
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi in S.C.No.130/2023 for the offence
punishable under Section 435 of IPC is hereby
confirmed.
(iii) However, the order with regard to payment of
fine or compensation imposed on the
petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 3 of
Rs.35,000/- each, is hereby modified and they
are directed to pay compensation/fine of
Rs.25,000/- each to the defacto complainant.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
EM /CT-AN
