Karnataka High Court
Nabi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200055 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NABI S/O MOHAMMED SAB CHAPPARESI,
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KUMNUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIR-584101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WADGERA P.S,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI,
Digitally signed REPTD. BY ADDL. SPP,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH HCK, KALABURAGI-585103.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
25.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC SHAHAPUR, IN C.C.NO.48/2013 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.7/2017 DATED 10.09.2020 ON THE FILE OF DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR AND TO ACQUIT THE REVISION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
CRL.RP No. 200055 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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)
1. Heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has
suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.48/2013 and
sentenced as under:
" ORDER
Acting U/sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is
hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/sec.
324 and Sec. 504 of IPC. Acting under S.248(1) of
Cr.P.C, accused is hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable U/s. 323 and Sec. 326 of IPC."
3. The validity of the Judgment of conviction and
order of sentence was questioned before the first appellate
Court in Criminal Appeal No.7/2017, wherein by Judgment
dated 10.09.2020, the Judgment of conviction and order of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
sentence is upheld by the first appellate Court, while
dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present
revision petition are as under:
4.1. A complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Mahiboob
with Wadagera Police Station on 28.05.2012 alleging that, on
27.05.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., the complainant and his wife
Mehboobbi and their children Moula Patel and Chand Patel
were sitting in front of their house and were consuming tea,
the accused came there and told the complainant that, he is
interested in selling his share of property to the extent of
one acre and told the complainant whether the sister of the
complainant is interested in purchasing the same.
4.2. The complainant replied that, he is not aware of
the where abouts of his sister as she has gone to Bengaluru
to eke out livelihood and at that juncture, being enriched by
such an answer, accused got enriched and abused the
complainant in filthy language and in this scuffle he has
beaten the middle finger of the complainant's left hand,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
resulting in causing grievous injury. On hearing the hue and
cry of the complainant, Sayyad Patel, Nabisab and others
came there an pacified the quarrel.
4.3. Upon receipt of the complaint, Wadagera Police
registered the case in Crime No.49/2012 and visited the
place of incident, conducted spot mahazar and recorded the
statement of the witnesses and after thorough investigation
filed the charge-sheet. The accused voluntarily appeared
before the Court and he was enlarged on bail.
5. Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences punishable against the accused under Sections 323,
504 and 326 of IPC and framed the charge. Accused pleaded
not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
6. Prosecution in order to establish its case,
examined eleven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 comprising of
complainant-injured, spot mahazar witnesses, eyewitnesses
to the incident, Doctor who examined the complainant and
issued wound certificate and Investigating Officer.
Prosecution also placed on record four documentary evidence
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, comprising of complaints, spot mahazar,
FIR and wound certificate. After due trial, learned trial Judge
convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra.
7. The trial Judge did not consider the grant of
probation though urged on behalf of the accused.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed
an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal
No.7/2017.
9. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in
the light of the appeal grounds and on re-appreciation of the
material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on merits.
Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this
Court.
10. Sri. Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition, vehemently contended that, both the courts
have not properly appreciated the material on record and a
trivial incident has been blown out of proportion in filing a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
false complaint against the petitioner and thus, sought for
allowing the revision petition.
11. Alternatively, Sri. Manvendra Reddy would submit
that, in the event this Court upholding the order of
conviction, a lenient view may be taken having regard to the
fact that, the accused is a first time offender and has been
convicted only for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, by
enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
12. Per contra, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader, supports the impugned Judgment. She
would further contend that, accused is not a stranger to the
complainant and when the complainant replied that, he does
not know about the where abouts of his sister, accused got
enraged and voluntarily caused grievous hurt by biting the
left hand middle finger of the complainant which has been
rightly appreciated by both the Courts. Therefore, no
lenience can be shown to the revision petitioner and sought
for dismissal of the revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that, when the complainant and his family
members were sitting in front of their house and consuming
the tea, it is the accused who voluntarily appeared there on
27.05.2012 at about 8.00 p.m, and enquired the
complainant that whether the sister of the complainant is
interested in purchasing one acre of the property of the
accused.
15. The complainant replied to the accused that he
does not know where abouts of his sister. In that regard, the
quarrel has begun and in the quarrel, accused not only
abused the complainant in filthy language but also bitten the
left middle finger of the complainant. Immediately,
complainant raised hue and cry and the neighbors namely
Sayyed Patel and Nabisab came there and they pacified the
quarrel. There is no loss of time in lodging the complaint and
wound certificate marked at Ex.P.4 depicts the injury caused
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
to the left middle finger of the complainant which sufficiently
corroborates the testimony of complainant and eyewitnesses.
16. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and
also the fact that, the injury caused to the complainant
cannot be classified as grievous injury as is contemplated
under Section 320 of IPC, learned trial Judge rightly
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC, but recorded an order of conviction and
sentenced the accused as referred supra.
17. It is pertinent to note that, the State did not
challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioner for the
offence under Section 326 of IPC and therefore, it has
become final.
18. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the material evidence, did not find any legal
infirmity or perversity so as to interfere with the order of
conviction and sentence.
19. Both the Courts have failed to note that the
accused is a first time offender. No proper reasons are
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
recorded by the learned trial Magistrate for not affording the
benefit of the probation of offenders Act.
20. Taking note of the fact that, under the statute for
the offence under Section 324 of IPC, there is no compulsory
punishment prescribed, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, if the accused is directed to pay enhanced fine
of Rs.25,000/-, of which Rs.20,000/- can be paid as
compensation to the P.W.1, ends of justice would be met in
the facts and circumstances of the case by setting aside the
imprisonment period.
21. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion
the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed
in part;
(ii) While maintaining the order of
conviction for the offence punishable under
Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, the order of
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year for the proved offences
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3378
HC-KAR
under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, is hereby
set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a
sum of Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Time is granted to pay the enhanced
fine amount till 30.07.2025.
(iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine
amount would automatically result in
restoration of the sentence of imprisonment
ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by
the first appellate Court.
(v) Out of fine amount recovered, a sum
of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to the injured-P.W.1 under due
identification. Balance amount shall be
appropriated towards the defraying expenses
of the State.
(vi) Office is directed to return the trial
Court records with a copy of this order for
issue a modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
