Karnataka High Court

Sri. Indudhar S/O Basappa Gouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402
                                                        CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020


                      HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                 BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                             CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100011 OF 2020
                                        (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. INDUDHAR S/O. BASAPPA GOUDA,
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O: BASHI, TQ: SIRSI,
                      DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      THROUGH BANAVASI PS,
                      DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
                      NOW REP. BY SPP,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by                                                  ...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                      SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
                      JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO.3118/2004 PASSED
                      BY THE 2ND ADDL. J.M.F.C., SIRSI AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT/ORDER
                      MODIFIED SENTENCE DATED 05.12.2019 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
                      NO.12/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
                      UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, SITTING AT: SIRSI, BY ALLOWING THE
                      REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,.

                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON         FOR
                      HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402
                                   CRL.RP No. 100011 of 2020


HC-KAR



                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. The accused in C.C. No. 3118/2004 on the file of

the II Additional JMFC, Sirsi, and the appellant in Crl.A.

No.12/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi,

has preferred this revision petition.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on

18.09.2003, while the informant was returning home at

about 10:00 p.m., near the shed of one Narendra

Puttappa Naik, some liquid was thrown on her, due to

which she experienced a burning sensation and shouted

for help. Her parents, sisters, and other neighbours rushed

to the spot, took her home, and noticed that her right

cheek, neck, and right forearm had sustained burn

injuries. Her clothes were also found to be burnt. The

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

informant initially suspected that some person, with an

intention to harass or disfigure her, might have thrown a

substance resembling acid to cause burn injuries. She was

thereafter shifted to the Government Hospital at Sirsi for

treatment, where she lodged a complaint before the

Police, which came to be registered as Crime No. 68/2003

for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 109

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The Police filed a charge sheet against accused

Nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and

marked 10 documents as exhibits and 5 material objects.

5. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence on record, convicted accused

No. 1 / the revision petitioner herein for the offence

punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code,

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹50,000/-, and

in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for

a further period of ten months. Being aggrieved by the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

judgment of conviction and sentence, accused No. 1

preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.12/2004.

6. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the

evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court,

proceeded to allow the appeal in part. While maintaining

the conviction of the accused, the Appellate Court modified

the sentence and directed the accused to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

₹10,000/-.

7. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, submits that the case of the

prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence and

that there are no eyewitnesses to establish the guilt of the

accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the

father of the informant/victim were involved in a financial

dispute, and in order to avoid repayment of the said

amount, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

case. Learned counsel also contends that although the

incident is said to have occurred on 18.09.2003 and the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

victim was shifted to the hospital on the same day, the

Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report was prepared only on

19.09.2003, and the complaint came to be registered

thereafter. The delay in registering the complaint, it is

urged, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the

statement made by the informant/victim.

8. Learned counsel, referring to Ex.P-1 the

complaint, submits that the name of the accused was not

mentioned therein. It is further submitted that the

complainant, who was examined as PW-1, has given a

statement that is inconsistent with the contents of Ex.P-1.

It is also contended that the name of accused No. 1 was

introduced only during the course of the restatement

recorded on 19.09.2003, which amounts to an

improvement in the prosecution's case. Learned counsel

submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely

on the evidence of PW-1, which by itself is insufficient to

sustain the conviction of the accused.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

9. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State,

submits that the incident occurred late in the night on

18.09.2003, and that the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was

registered at the earliest on the following day, whereafter

the complaint came to be lodged. Owing to the mental

condition of the complainant, a restatement was recorded

on the same day, during which the victim named accused

No. 1. Learned AGA further submits that the testimony of

PW-1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1 and is

further corroborated by Ex.P-5, the wound certificate of

the accused which records the presence of burn injuries

over both his thighs.

10. Having considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the

material evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the

victim sustained burn injuries. The burn injuries suffered

by the accused, as recorded in Ex.P-5, are also not

seriously disputed. PW-1 has provided a detailed account

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

of the incident, which is consistent with the contents of

Ex.P-1. PW-1 has further deposed that the accused had

proposed marriage to her, which she had refused, and

that, due to such refusal, the accused attacked her with

acid. The defence has extensively cross-examined PW-1

and put forth various suggestions. However, despite such

cross-examination, no material contradictions or

admissions have been elicited to disprove the allegation of

acid attack made by PW-1 against accused No. 1.

11. Ex.P-7, the wound certificate of PW-1,

establishes that she sustained burn injuries over the side

of her cheek, ear, neck, shoulder, forearm, and hand, and

that the said injuries are grievous in nature. Further, Ex.P-

5, the wound certificate of accused No. 1, also confirms

the presence of acid burn injuries over both thighs.

Notably, accused No. 1 has failed to offer any explanation

for the presence of such injuries on his body, an

explanation which only he is in a position to provide. It is

pertinent to note that the injuries sustained by both the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

victim and accused No. 1 occurred on 18.09.2003, the

date of the alleged incident.

12. PW-7, the father of the victim, has offered an

explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.

According to PW-7, immediately after the acid attack, his

daughter was taken to the hospital on 18.09.2003. It was

only on the following day, i.e., 19.09.2003, after she had

regained stability, that the police complaint came to be

registered. PW-7 has further reiterated that accused No. 1

had, about six months prior to the incident, proposed

marriage to his daughter, which she had refused. Bearing

a grudge over such refusal, it is alleged that the accused

threw acid on the victim. Though the defence made

serious suggestions in cross-examination to indicate that

the victim was in relation with another person at the

relevant time, nothing substantial has been elicited to

discredit the prosecution's case.

13. PW-13, the doctor who treated accused No. 1,

was examined by the prosecution. He issued Ex.P-5, the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

wound certificate pertaining to accused No. 1. Ex.P-5

confirms that the injuries sustained by accused No. 1 were

caused due to acid burns.

14. PW-14 was examined to prove Ex.P-7, the

wound certificate of the victim. PW-14 treated the victim

on 18.09.2003 at about 11:10 p.m. She has deposed to

the presence of burn injuries on the right cheek, right ear,

right side of the neck, and right hand of the victim.

15. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the

evidence as referred to above, has rightly recorded a

finding of guilt against the accused. The Trial Court has

correctly held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. The Appellate Court, upon re-examination of the

evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, has

rightly confirmed the order of conviction. The concurrent

findings of both the Courts convicting the accused do not

warrant interference by this Court. No ground is made out

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

to hold that there is any error or illegality in the orders of

conviction recorded by the Courts below.

17. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, inviting the attention of the Court to

the sentence imposed by both the Courts below, submits

that the Trial Court erred in awarding a sentence of three

years' imprisonment. He further submits that, although

the Appellate Court reduced the sentence from three years

to one year, it failed to appreciate that even the reduced

sentence is excessive and not justified in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was unmarried at the time of the alleged

incident and that the said act was a result of immature

thinking, not driven by any intention to cause harm or

disfigurement to the victim. It is further submitted that,

subsequent to the incident, the victim has married and is

presently well-settled in her matrimonial life. The accused

is also married and has two minor children born out of the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

said wedlock. He is stated to be the sole breadwinner of

his family. Learned counsel contends that if the sentence

of imprisonment as affirmed by the Appellate Court is

upheld, the family of the accused would suffer irreparable

hardship. It is also submitted that, considering the

absence of any premeditated motive or malicious intent

and in view of the fact that the victim did not suffer

permanent disfigurement or grievous injury, the sentence

of imprisonment may be modified and confined to

imposition of a fine alone.

19. This Court is conscious of the nature and gravity

of the offence committed by the accused. At the same

time, the Court has taken into consideration the age at

which the offence was committed, as well as the present

circumstances of the accused. The fact that the accused is

the sole breadwinner of his family, which includes his wife

and two minor children, is a relevant factor that cannot be

overlooked. While adopting a sympathetic view, it is

incumbent upon the Court to balance the need for

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402

HC-KAR

punishment with the broader interests of justice,

particularly in cases where the statute permits the

imposition of either imprisonment or fine. In the present

case, the welfare of the minor children of accused also

merits due consideration. If sentence is modified to heavy

fine and such fine is paid to the victim, the hardship

caused can be mitigated. In that view of the matter, while

upholding the conviction, the sentence imposed by the

Appellate Court warrants modification.

20. In view of the above discussions, following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Order of conviction in C.C.No.3118/2004 dated 03.01.2014 on the file of II Addl. JMFC, Sirsi confirmed in Crl.A.No.12/2014 dated 05.12.2019 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, is hereby confirmed.

(iii) The order of imposing sentence is modified as under:

- 13 -

                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:7402



 HC-KAR



                Accused is directed to pay a fine of
             Rs.5,00,000/-.       Fine      amount      shall    be

deposited within eight weeks from the date of this order. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. After deposit of amount, the Trial Court shall ensure release of fine amount electronically in favour of victim (Geeta Irappa Naik) after due identification.