(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order
of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi, for the offence
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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."
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3534
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
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
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
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
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
HC-KAR
(v) Balance sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be
appropriated towards defraying expenses of
the State.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
CT:PK
