Karnataka High Court

Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485
                                                        CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100125 OF 2017
                                   (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      YALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA BANNIKOPPA,
                      AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. BELAGALI VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL,
                      DIST. BAGALKOTE.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      THROUGH MAHALINGAPUR PSI,
                      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      BENCH AT DHARWAD.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
        Digitally     (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
        signed by V
        N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.14
        16:00:05
        +0530               THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                      SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
                      AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28TH OCTOBER 2014 PASSED IN
                      C.C. NO.31/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. JMFC AT
                      MUDHOL, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENCE
                      PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324 AND 504 OF IPC, WHICH
                      HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88/2014 BY A
                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16TH MARCH, 2017 ON THE FILE OF
                      THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE
                      TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI.

                          THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485
                                      CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017




                           ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri.Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State/respondent.

2. Revision is by the accused who suffered an

order of conviction in CC No.31/2010 dated 28.10.2014

which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2014 dated

16.03.2017.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as

under:

A complaint came to be lodged with Mahalingapur

Police, Mudhol Taluk alleging that on 01.11.2009 in the

evening at 6.00 p.m., there was an altercation, wherein

the complainant and his son were injured besides accused

hurling abusive words to them.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

4. Police after thorough investigation, filed the

charge sheet.

5. Learned Trial Judge after due trial, convicted

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323,

324, 504 of IPC and sentenced as under:

"Acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

          The     above    said    sentences   shall   run
     cuncurrently.

Acting U/s 357(A) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant and injured victim P.W-3 Santosh."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the First Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.88/2014.

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties

in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, upheld the order

of conviction and sentence.

8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court, in this revision.

9. Sri.Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

revision petition vehemently contended that panch

witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution

and so also the complainant in part and seizure of MO.1 -

club and MO.2 - stone is not properly proved by the

prosecution and therefore, order of conviction and

sentence has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought

for allowing the revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

10. Alternately, he would further contend that since

the revision petitioner is the first time offender and close

relative of the complainant, sentence of imprisonment may

be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and

thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

11. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

supports the impugned judgments.

12. He would further contend that very fact of

seizure of material objects and portion of the oral

testimony of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the

wound certificate marked at Exs.P.5 and 6 which were

issued by P.W.7, material evidence placed on record is

sufficient enough to maintain the conviction and sentence

and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that case of the prosecution stands

established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on

record especially in the light of oral testimony of injured

witnesses which is to be kept on higher pedestal coupled

with the wound certificates marked at Exs.P.5 and 6 issued

by P.W.7.

15. Order of conviction cannot be lightly interfered

in the revisional jurisdiction having regard to the scope of

revisional jurisdiction as is held in the case of Amit

Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in

(2012) 9 SCC 460. Therefore, order of conviction needs

no interference.

16. However, taking note of the fact that revision

petitioner is the first time offender and before ordering the

sentence of imprisonment, learned Trial Judge was duty

bound to consider the beneficial piece of legislation namely

Probation of Offenders Act, which has been ignored by the

learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

17. Thus, this Court in the revision, is of the

considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount in a

sum of Rs.15,000/-, if the sentence of imprisonment is set

aside, ends of justice would be met in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

18. Same would also better serve the ends of

justice inasmuch as complainant and revision petitioner

are close relatives and harmony would be reinstated

between them.

19. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions

following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the

accused/revision petitioner for the

aforesaid offences, sentence ordered by the

learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First

Appellate Court is modified by directing the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485

revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine

amount of Rs.15,000/- on or before

15.04.2025 failing which the sentence of

imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial

Judge confirmed by the First Appellate

Court shall stand restored automatically.