Karnataka High Court
Hiragappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
CRL.RP No. 200020 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200020 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HIRAGAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA AMBIGER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI RAMESH S/O HIRAGAPPA AMBIGER,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. SRI RAMESH S/O RAVAT GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. SRI MUTTAPPA S/O SHANKARAPPA GHOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: 5. SRI SADASHIV S/O PUNDALIK KOLAKAR,
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
OF
KARNATAKA
6. SRI PUNDALIK S/O SHIVAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
7. SRI HANAMANTH S/O MALLAPPA SONNAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
ALL ARE R/O. MADAGUNAKI VILLAGE,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
CRL.RP No. 200020 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BABALESHWAR PS,
REP BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SEC.
401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41/2019 AS
WELL AS THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2019 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE II ADDL. JMFC, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN
C.C.NO.3193/2017 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 323, 341 R/W. SEC.
149 OF IPC.
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 S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the
revision petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -
State.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
HC-KAR
2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons,
who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.3193/2017
for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 149 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 9 months, which is the major
punishment imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused
persons filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No.41/2019. The learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the
arguments of the parties and modified the conviction and
sentence by setting aside the conviction of the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 read
with Section 149 of IPC as there was no blood injury
caused using the weapon. Being further aggrieved by the
same, accused persons are before this Court.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners would submit that since the First Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
HC-KAR
Court itself has modified the conviction order and
specifically noted that the material on record would be
sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the accused
under Section 323 of IPC; petitioners are before this Court
seeking lenience as they are all first time offenders and
benefit of probation needs to granted by imposing
reasonable amount of fine.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned judgments and fairly
submits that the State has not preferred any appeal for
acquittal of the revision petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC and requested the
Court to confirm the order of sentence for the proved
offence under Section 323 of IPC and sought for dismissal
of the revision petition.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
HC-KAR
7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
noticed that though the learned Trial Magistrate and the
learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to
properly appreciate the material evidence on record same
while passing the order of sentence.
8. It is settled principle of law and requires no
emphasis that the role of the Court while passing an order
of conviction is all together different from the role to be
played while passing the sentence in an appropriate case.
9. Since the accused persons are first time
offenders, non granting of benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act has resulted in miscarriage of justice
seeking interference in the revisional jurisdiction by this
Court.
10. Having said thus, it is seen that the injuries are
simple in nature and therefore, if the accused persons are
directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC with default sentence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
HC-KAR
of one month simple imprisonment and portion of the fine
amount if paid as compensation to the injured - PW.1,
ends of justice would be met.
11. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
a) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
b) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
persons for the proved offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC, each of the accused persons
are directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
c) Time is granted till 20.07.2025 to pay the fine
amount.
d) Failure to pay the fine amount on or before
20.07.2025, the order of imprisonment ordered
by the First Appellate directing the accused
persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months would stand restored
automatically.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3204
HC-KAR
e) Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is
ordered to be paid as compensation to PW.1 -
injured under due identification and balance
amount shall be appropriated towards defraying
expenses of the State.
f) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with copy of this order forthwith.
g) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
