Karnataka High Court
Manohar Alias Mounesh S/O Dallappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100147 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MANOHAR @ MOUNESH
S/O. DALLAPPA ABBIGERI,
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SETTLEMENT, GANGADHARNAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD.
2. PARASHURAM @ KUDDA PARSHYA
S/O. JALAMI MULGUND,
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SETTLEMENT, GANGADHARNAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH 3. PRABHU @ PRABHYA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. PRALHAD CHAWAN,
AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR TARIHAL BYPASS ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020, DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P3;
P2 DEAD)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH APMC, NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118/2016 BY THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT
HUBBALLI, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 457, 380
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO.32/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
457, 380 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ETC.,.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Amicus Curiae for
petitioner Nos.1 and 3 / accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sri T.
Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondent-State.
2. The death of petitioner No.2 has been reported and
the same is taken on record.
3. This criminal revision petition is filed by accused
Nos.1 to 3, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 14.06.2016 passed in C.C. No.32/2015 by the
Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi
(for short, 'the trial Court'), and the judgment dated
04.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.118/2016 by the
Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad,
sitting at Hubballi (for short, 'the appellate Court').
4. It is the case of the prosecution that, on the night
of 14.07.2013, the accused persons entered the complainant's
residence situated at Ashraya Plot and committed theft of gold
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
and silver articles valued at Rs.60,800/-, after breaking open
the lock of the house. The accused were arrested, and a charge
sheet was filed against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC').
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and marked 29
documents as Exhibits P1 to P29, in addition to 04 material
objects marked as M.Os.1 to 4. The trial Court on appreciation
of the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under
Section 457 of IPC, and further sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 380 of IPC.
6. The appellate Court, appreciating the evidence on
record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the trial Court.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
7. The accused/petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were
unrepresented, Sri V.M. Banakar was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae,
appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 3, submits that the
case of the prosecution primarily rests on the evidence of
PWs.3 and 6, who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P11. It is
submitted that PW.3 turned hostile and did not support the
case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that Ex.P12-the
recovery mahazar, has not been duly proved. The evidence of
PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P12, suffers
from material contradictions and is not trustworthy.
Additionally, it is contended that the seizure memo does not
bear the signature of the accused and hence, the recovery
cannot be held to have been established. In the absence of
corroboration by other evidence, and in view of the
contradictions in the testimony of the panch witnesses, it is
submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
7.1. It is further submitted that the accused persons
were arrested merely on suspicion, and the arrest was
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
purportedly witnessed by PWs.8 and 9. However, both PWs.8
and 9 turned hostile and did not support the case of the
prosecution. In view of the above, the learned Amicus Curiae
submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the
conviction recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate
Court is unsustainable in law.
7.2. In the alternative, the learned Amicus Curiae
submits that, in the event this Court upholds the conviction, the
sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants modification. It is
contended that the imprisonment ordered is excessive and
harsh, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is
submitted that accused No.1 has four minor children and is the
sole breadwinner of the family. Accused No.3 is stated to be
similarly situated, being the only earning member in his family.
The alleged incident pertains to the year 2013, and it is
submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 have not been involved in
any other criminal offences apart from the present one. The
learned Amicus Curiae further prays for extension of the benefit
under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
year. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the
petitioners had undergone custody for a period of 48 days
during the course of trial.
8. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-
State, submits that Exhibits P11 and P12 clearly establish the
recovery of the stolen articles. The recovered articles have
been duly proved and are corroborated by the evidence of
PW.1-the complainant. The testimonies of PWs.4 and 5
corroborate the contents of Ex.P12. Further, Ex.P14 clearly
records the various stolen articles recovered from each of the
accused at their respective places. The details of the stolen
articles recovered from each accused are recorded in Ex.P12,
which stands proved through the testimonies of PWs.4 and 5.
8.1 The learned AGA submits that the evidence placed
on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that both the
trial Court and the appellate Court, upon due appreciation of
the evidence, have rightly concluded that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case against the accused. Further
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
submits that the concurrent findings recorded by both Courts
are supported by cogent reasoning and evidence on record, and
no infirmity or illegality is made out so as to warrant
interference by this Court.
9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels
for the parties and perused the record.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined the complainant as PW.1. PW.1 deposed that, on
14.07.2013, when she had been to the hospital and returned
the next day between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., she discovered that
her gold and silver ornaments had been stolen after the door of
her house was broke open. Based on her complaint, FIR was
registered and a spot mahazar was conducted. She further
stated that, about two months later, the police summoned her
to the police station for identification of the stolen articles said
to have been recovered from the accused. PW.1 identified the
gold ornaments as reflected in Exs.P2 and P3. PW.2 deposed
regarding the preparation of the mahazar.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
11. PW.12 deposed about the apprehension of the
accused persons and the seizure of gold ornaments, and is the
author of the mahazar marked as Ex.P11. PW.6, a mahazar
witness, deposed that gold ornaments were seized from the
possession of the accused persons as recorded in Ex.P11, and
he identified the said ornaments as per Ex.P2.
12. The testimonies of PWs.2 and 6 corroborate
Exs.P10, P11 and the report marked as Ex.P29, thereby
establishing the recovery of the gold ornaments from the
accused. PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch witnesses to the
recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P12, also corroborated the
contents of Ex.P12 in their depositions. From their testimonies,
it is evident that the stolen articles were recovered from the
possession of the accused persons. PWs.4 and 5 have given a
clear account, along with the details and description of the
articles seized from each of the accused. A perusal of Ex.P12
further reveals that the ornaments were recovered
independently from each of the accused. In that view of the
matter, the specific contention urged by the learned Amicus
Curiae that there were no details recorded regarding the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
ornaments recovered from each of the accused stands clearly
rebutted.
13. Though the learned Amicus Curiae has made
earnest efforts to point out certain discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimony of the panch witnesses and in
the mahazar proceedings, the said discrepancies, upon close
scrutiny, are found to be minor in nature and do not materially
affect the case of the prosecution. The presence of such minor
inconsistencies cannot overshadow the corroborative material
placed on record by the prosecution, which is sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt.
14. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon
appreciation of the evidence as discussed hereinabove, have
rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and established the guilt of the
accused. The conviction recorded by both the Courts is based
on cogent and reliable evidence. No material has been brought
on record to discredit the evidence adduced by the prosecution
or to warrant interference with the concurrent findings recorded
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
by the Courts below. In the absence of any infirmity,
perversity, or material irregularity in the judgments of the
Courts below, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
concurrent findings.
15. The learned Amicus Curiae has further persuaded
the Court to consider modification or reduction of the sentence
of imprisonment, having regard to the present circumstances of
accused Nos.1 and 3. The alleged incident pertains to the year
2013. It is submitted that the wife and four minor children of
accused No.1 are dependent on his earnings. It is further
submitted that accused No.3 is similarly situated, being the
sole earning member of his family. The learned Amicus Curiae
contends that enforcement of the sentence, as ordered by the
trial Court, would result in undue hardship to the families of the
accused. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact
that the offences committed by the accused persons are of a
serious nature and have broader societal implications. While
the immediate financial impact on the complainant may not
appear substantial, such offences do have a lasting and serious
consequence on the victim's sense of security and well-being.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
In such cases, the Court must exercise caution and balance
individual circumstances with the need for deterrence in
sentencing.
16. However, considering that the accused are not
habitual offenders and there is no material on record to show
their involvement in similar offences subsequently, they
deserve an opportunity for reformation. The offences charged
are punishable only with imprisonment, the submission made
by the learned Amicus Curiae to substitute the sentence of
imprisonment with imposition of fine is of no assistance.
17. Having regard to the nature of the offences and the
present factual circumstances concerning the families of the
accused, this Court is of the view that, while upholding the
conviction, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the
sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
18. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons
stated hereinabove, the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
CRL.RP No. 100147 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in
part.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence in C.C.No.32/2015 dated
14.06.2016 passed by the III Additional
Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Hubballi, and
order in Criminal Appeal No.118/2016 dated
04.03.2020 passed by the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting
at Hubballi, is upheld.
iii. The sentence of imprisonment for a period of
one year for the offence under Section 457 is
modified to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of six months and pay fine of
Rs.3,000/- each. In default to pay fine
amount, the accused persons shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 2
months.
iv. Similarly, accused persons shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months with
fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under
Section 380 of IPC. In default to pay fine
amount, the accused persons shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8639
HC-KAR
v. The sentences shall run concurrently.
vi. Bail bonds and their sureties if any, stands
cancelled.
vii. The accused persons are entitled to set off
the period of sentence already undergone.
Registry is directed to return the trial Court records along
with a copy of this order for compliance.
The Court places on record the appreciation for assistance
of Sri V.M. Banakar as Amicus Curiae. The honorarium to
Amicus Curiae Sri V.M. Banakar, is fixed at Rs.10,000/-, which
shall be payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee
for assisting the Court in this revision petition.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
CT: UMD
