Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Yallappa Dundanatti vs State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100085 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA DUNDANATTI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. ANUSUYA W/O. RAMAPPA DUNDANATTI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. SARASVATI W/O. NAGAPPA DUNDANATTI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O: NINGAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KULGOD P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR HIGH COURT BUILDING,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI DHARWAD.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 AND CONVICTION DATED
15.02.2020 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54/2019 PASSED BY THE XII
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT
GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY BE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.02.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT
GOKAK IN CC NO.1862/2010 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326,
323, 504 & 506 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER', THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
2. The accused in C.C. No.1862/2010 has preferred
this revision petition, being aggrieved by the judgment dated
18.02.2019 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC at Gokak (for short, 'the trial court'), convicting him
for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, and
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC'), as well as the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.54/2019 by the XII Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak (for short, 'the
appellate court').
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.10.2010
at about 3:00 p.m., PW.1 and her husband were residing in a
hut situated on the land belonging to CW.4. The accused
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
persons, alleging that PW.1 had taken away a pair of scissors
belonging to them, picked up a quarrel with her. Accused No.1
is alleged to have assaulted PW.1 on the head with a stone,
thereby causing grievous injuries. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are
alleged to have assaulted her with hands and legs, sharing a
common intention. Based on the report of the incident, marked
as Ex.P1, an FIR was registered as per Ex.P6 for the offences
punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid
offences. The prosecution examined 09 witnesses, marked 06
documents as exhibits and produced 01 material object.
4. The trial court, upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence, held that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1
with a stone, thereby causing grievous injuries and that
accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted her, resulting in simple injuries.
In arriving at the said conclusion, the trial court placed reliance
on the wound certificate marked as Ex.P5. It was further held
that the injuries sustained by PW.1 were grievous in nature and
that the accused had committed the offences punishable under
the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, the trial court concluded
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. The trial court sentenced accused No.1 to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Similarly, accused Nos.2 and 3
were each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
said offence. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 were each sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. They were also each
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, and
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
6. The accused preferred an appeal before the
appellate court. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
findings recorded by the trial court, the appellate court
modified the judgment and order. It confirmed the conviction of
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and
504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and also confirmed the
conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of the IPC. However, the appellate court set aside
the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and further set
aside the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence
punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
7. The appellate court, based on the report of the
Probation Officer, modified the sentence of accused No.1 and
directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of
the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month each for the offences punishable under Sections 323
and 504 of the IPC. The fine imposed on accused No.1 was left
unaltered. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the PO Act'),
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
accused Nos.2 and 3 were released on probation for good
conduct.
8. Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, submits that the alleged incident occurred on
08.10.2010 at about 3:00 p.m., whereas the complaint was
lodged only on 12.10.2010. It is further submitted that PW.1-
the injured was taken to the hospital on 10.10.2010 at 5:00
p.m. Though the incident is alleged to have occurred on
08.10.2010, the injured was taken for treatment two days
later, and the complaint was lodged two days thereafter. The
delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained either by
PW.1 or by the prosecution. It is contended that such delay
casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case and suggests that
the injuries may not have been caused in the manner alleged.
It is further submitted that there is a discrepancy between the
nature of injuries as recorded in Ex.P1 and those noted in the
medical certificate, which further raises doubt regarding the
correctness of Ex.P1 and the prosecution's version. It is also
submitted that Ex.P1 is said to have been scribed by another
person at the instance of PW.1, however, the said scribe has
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
not been examined, thereby raising serious doubt about the
genuineness and admissibility of Ex.P1.
9. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that
PWs.1 and 2 are eye-witnesses to the incident. PW.1 is the
injured victim and PW.2 is her husband. Both the trial court and
the appellate court, on appreciation of the evidence on record,
have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The learned
Additional Government Advocate further submits that the delay
in lodging the complaint has been satisfactorily explained. With
these submissions, the learned Additional Government
Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on
the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, and the wound certificate
marked as Ex.P5. PW.6, the treating doctor, was examined to
prove the nature of the injuries. PW.5 is the father of accused
No.1 and PW.2. PW.1 has deposed that accused No.1 inflicted
injuries upon her. It is also evident from the record that there
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
was a land dispute between the accused and PW.1. PW.1
further stated that she suffered an injury to her ear. The
evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the testimony of PW.2,
who is her husband and also the brother of Accused No.1. PW.2
has likewise admitted to the existence of a land dispute
between himself and accused No.1. Efforts at mediation
through the elders of the family are stated to have failed.
PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile but supported the prosecution to
some extent. PW.5, the father of accused No.1 and PW.2, also
turned hostile. PW.6, the treating doctor, issued the wound
certificate marked as Ex.P5. As per the evidence of PW.6 and
the details in Ex.P5, there was no fracture found on the chest.
Injury No.1 was described as grievous in nature, while the
remaining injuries were simple. However, upon an overall
examination of the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6, and Ex.P5,
the injuries appear to be simple in nature and do not constitute
'grievous hurt' as contemplated under Section 320 of the IPC.
12. The vehement contention of the petitioners
regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is met by the evidence of
PW.2, which indicates that the delay was occasioned due to the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
intervention of the elders, who attempted to resolve the dispute
amicably. In light of the existing land dispute between the
brothers, the possibility that elder members of the family or
villagers attempted to dissuade PW.1 from lodging a police
complaint against her own family members cannot be ruled out.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. The trial court and the appellate court, upon
due examination of the evidence, have rightly arrived at the
conclusion that the accused have committed the offences.
14. Upon confirmation of the conviction, the next aspect
that requires consideration is the correctness of the sentence
imposed. Both the trial court and the appellate court have held
that accused No.1 has committed offences punishable under
Sections 323, 326 and 504 of the IPC. However, a perusal of
Ex.P5 clearly reveals that the injuries sustained are not of such
a nature as to satisfy the requirements of 'grievous hurt' under
Section 320 of the IPC. Consequently, the conviction recorded
under Section 326 of the IPC is not sustainable, as the essential
ingredients of the said provision are not fulfilled. Insofar as the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, having
regard to the nature of injuries and the findings recorded
above, it is established that the injuries would attract the
provisions of Section 323 of the IPC.
15. Insofar as the offence under Section 504 of the IPC
is concerned, the essential ingredients include intentional insult
with a view to provoke breach of the public peace or to commit
any other offence. In the present case, the verbal exchange
took place between two brothers and their respective family
members. It is established that there existed a land dispute
among the family members, and the quarrel was a
consequence of such pre-existing dispute. The altercation
appears to have arisen out of personal discord and not with the
intent to insult or provoke breach of the public peace.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 504 of the IPC are not
satisfied.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the IPC are not satisfied. Accordingly, accused
Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the said offence.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
17. In view of the confirmation of conviction under
Section 323 of the IPC, the question that arises for
consideration is whether the sentence imposed by the appellate
court warrants interference. The trial court had sentenced the
accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC,
which was confirmed by the appellate court. It is pertinent to
note that Section 323 of the IPC prescribes punishment with
imprisonment, or fine, or with both.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits
that the alleged incident arose out of an existing land dispute
among family members and occurred during an exchange of
words. It is contended that there was no intention on the part
of the accused to cause any injury. It is further submitted that
subsequent to the incident, the brothers and their respective
family members have reconciled and are presently maintaining
a cordial relationship. Learned counsel also submits that any
imprisonment of accused No.1 at this stage would disturb the
settled understanding among the family members. Considering
the age of accused No.1 and the fact that he is the sole
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
breadwinner of the family, it is prayed that the sentence be
modified and confined to imposition of fine alone.
19. This Court finds merit in the submission advanced
and is of the view that it warrants due consideration.
20. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is evident that
the quarrel arose out of a pre-existing land dispute, and that
accused No.1 and PW.2 are brothers, while PW.1 and accused
Nos.2 and 3 are co-sisters. All the parties involved are
members of the same family. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that the confirmation of the sentence
of imprisonment imposed on accused No.1 is likely to cause
further disruption in the family appears to be well-founded.
21. It is also submitted by the learned Additional
Government Advocate that, apart from the incident which
forms the subject matter of the present petition, accused No.1
is not involved in any other criminal case. Considering the
familial relationship between PWs.1 and 2 and the accused, this
Court is of the view that a lenient approach is warranted.
Accordingly, the sentence imposed on accused No.1 is liable to
be modified by confining it to fine alone. An additional factor
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
CRL.RP No. 100085 of 2020
HC-KAR
justifying such modification is the considerable lapse of time,
the incident having occurred in the year 2010. In the opinion of
this Court, enhancement of the fine would adequately meet the
ends of justice.
22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, and in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal revision petition is allowed-in-
part.
ii. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC and
acquitted of the offence under Sections 326
and 504 of IPC.
iii. Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/-. In default of fine, accused No.1
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months.
iv. Fine of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited within
a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order and the said
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8114
HC-KAR
amount shall be paid electronically in favour
of PW.1, after due identification.
v. The amount if any, in deposit made by
accused No.1, shall be adjusted towards fine
amount.
vi. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby acquitted of
all charged offences.
vii. The bail bonds if any, stand cancelled.
Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records along
with copy of this order for further action.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
CT: UMD
