Karnataka High Court
Vinod S/O. Bangari Borkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100256 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VINOD S/O. BANGARI BORKAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
YELLAPUR, DISTRICT: KARWAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by V
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.29
11:58:23
+0530 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR
SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26/2007 AND
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 420
OF IPC DATED 25.01.2007 PASSED BY THE JMFC, YELLAPUR IN
C.C.NO. 758 OF 2000 CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned
counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent.
2. Sri Muralidhar, one of the dependants of the
deceased de-facto complainant is present before the
Court.
3. The present revision petition is filed challenging
the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.758/2000 and
confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2007.
4. The sentence portion reads as under:
"The accused is convicted Under Section
248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, for the
offence punishable under section 420 of
Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
Out of the said fine, the compensation of Rs.
4500/- is to be ordered to be awarded to the
PW-1.
Office is directed to give a free copy of the
Judgment to the accused."
5. There was a civil proceeding between the
parties which ultimately carried up to this Court and on
account of the death of the plaintiff, the second appeal
came to be dismissed as abated.
6. At the outset, Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B.
Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner submits
that the as per the civil Court decree, the sum payable
with modified interest rate is to the extent of
Rs.1,28,400/-.
7. On behalf of the complainant, it is submitted
that if the civil decree is satisfied and reasonable amount
of compensation is ordered in the present case, the matter
can be disposed of by amicable settlement. A memo is
filed in this regard.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
8. Memo reads as under:
"The undersigned respectfully submits that the
Complainant's brother has no Objection in
acquitting the petitioner/accused if the Decree
passed in O.S.No.142/2006 and the
RA.No.77/2010 was modified to the extent of
granting 6% future interest on the suit claim of
Rs.60,000/- is paid. Today in the Open Court
the brother of complainant Muralidhar
Venkatesh Revankar has received a Sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- in words One Lakh Fifty Thousand
rupees which includes the Suit Claim amount
along with 6% interest till date and the
additional compensation of Rs.21,600/- on
behalf of other representative of the deceased
complainant and give up all their claim in the
suit and in the Criminal Case and not press the
execution."
9. Placing the memo on record, following the
dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal
and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, this Court is of
the considered opinion that revision petition can be
disposed of by modifying the sentence ordered by the Trial
(2022) 14 SCC 531
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court by
setting aside the imprisonment period by enhancing the
fine amount reasonably.
10. By payment of sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, one of the
legal representatives of deceased de-facto complainant
would acknowledge that not only the civil decree is
satisfied but also the compensation payable to the de-
facto complainant.
11. If there is any inter se dispute among the other
two legal representatives of deceased de-facto
complainant, it is for Sri Murlidhar Revanakar to work out
and pay necessary share to the other legal
representatives.
12. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC, taking note of the fact
that a sum of Rs.5,000/- fine has already
been paid towards the defraying expense of
the State, sentence of imprisonment is
satisfied by imposing the additional fine
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (said sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- is towards the civil Court
decree in O.S.No.142/2006 modified in
R.A.No.77/2010) which works out to
Rs.1,28,400/- as on day and remaining sum
of rupees as compensation to the de-facto
complainant which is now being received by
Sri Murlidhar Revanakar being one of the
legal representatives of the deceased de-
facto complainant.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with
a copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:PA
