Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O Shivalingappa Bailwad vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100442 OF 2022
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MARUTI S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BAILWAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TEREDKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SAVADATTI,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
THROUGH SAVADATTI POLICE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by V
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date: 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., IS SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
2025.04.03
10:52:46
+0530
PERTAINING TO CC NO. 814/2004 FROM JMFC COURT, SAVADATTI
AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153/2007 FROM FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI AND EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS,
LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF FINDING IN PASSING THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE AND TO ALLOW THIS
CRL. REVISION PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER/A.1 BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 04.07.2007 AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.07.2007 PASSED BY JMFC COURT,
SAVADATTI IN CC NO. 814/2004 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS
323, 326 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE COURT OF FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 153/2007
DATED 30.09.2021.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
CRL.RP No. 100442 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.B.S.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered
an order of conviction after due trial in C.C.No.814/2004
and sentenced as under:
"The accused 1 and 2 are sentensed to
undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay
fine of Rs.2000/-each for the offence under
Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and in default
of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo
further S.I. for two months
Further the accused 1 and 2 are sentensed to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence
under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and
indefault of payment of fine amount, the
accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of one
month.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
On realisation of the fine amount.P.W.10 be
paid Rs.4,000/- as compensation.
The bail bonds of the accused stand
cancelled.
M.0.1 axe be confiscated to the State after
the appeal period is over. M.Os 2 to 4 be
destroyed as worthless, after the appeal period
is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by
him, corrected and then pronounced by me in
open Court on this the 5th day of July 2007)."
3. Conviction was based on the testimony of the
eye witnesses and the injured eye witness.
4. Validity of the said conviction order was
questioned before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.153/2007.
5. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal against the second accused noting
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
that he was no more and confirmed the order of conviction
insofar as accused No.1 is concerned.
6. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present revision petitioner are as under:
6.1 In Teredakoppa village, complainant-Suresh
Hanamanthappa Bailwad was residing with his parents and
the family of his uncle. They owned family properties and in
respect of the same, there were some disputes. Accused in
respect of the boundary dispute and watering the lands,
picked up the quarrel and abused the complainant in filthy
language and threw a stone which hit on the head of the
complainant. Complainant immediately raised the alarm
seeking help.
6.2 At that juncture, father of the complainant came
there and questioned accused No.1 as to why he has
assaulted his son. At that juncture, accused No.2 brought
an axe and handed it over to accused No.1 and told him to
take away the lives of complainant and his father. Being
encouraged with such provocation, accused No.1 again
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
assaulted the complainant on the neck of the father of the
complainant with the axe. In order to rescue them, mother
of the complainant raised alarm. Fakkirappa Bailwad and
Gadigeppa Bailwad who were working in the neighboring
lands came there and pacified the quarrel. Incident took
place around 4 p.m.
6.3 In respect of the incident, a complaint came to
be lodged and later on same was investigated and charge
sheet came to be filed. Father of the complainant who was
shifted to the hospital was treated and wound certificate
issued by the doctor shows that, father of the complainant
sustained grievous injuries.
6.4 On consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, learned trial Magistrate
convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra.
6.5 Learned trial Magistrate took into consideration
the answers given by the accused at the time of recording
the accused statement, wherein they denied the incident as
well.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
7. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal came to be
filed against the order of the trial Magistrate which got
dismissed. When the appeal was pending before the Court,
accused No.2 who is father of the present revision petitioner
died. Therefore, the appeal against him stood abated.
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court.
9. Sri.S.B.Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in respect of the civil dispute, all of a
sudden incident has occurred and accused was in custody
for a period of 2½ months which may be taken note of and
the same may be treated as period of imprisonment by
enhancing the fine amount reasonably. More so, having
regard to the fact that accused and complainant are
relatives.
10. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the
revision grounds and the alternate submission canvassed on
behalf of the revision petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that
incident has occurred on 09.06.2004 at about 4 p.m.,
stands established not only by the oral evidence of the
complainant and other injured viz., Hanumanthappa but
also from the evidence of the witnesses who have pacified
the quarrel.
12. Wound certificate issued by the doctor with
regard to Hanumanthappa who is the father of the
complainant marked at Ex.P3 would establish that father of
the complainant sustained fracture near left perital and
occipital region. Said injury is treated as grievous injury in
view of the X-ray film placed on record vide Exs.P6 and P7.
13. Further, complainant has also sustained simple
injuries as could be seen from the Ex.P4. Accused persons
are not strangers and they are close relatives of the
complainant. Pre-existing land dispute is the motive for the
incident.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
14. Taking note of the above factual aspects of the
matter, seizure of the weapon used in the incident based on
the voluntary statement given by the accused, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the order of conviction
recorded by both the Courts needs no interference.
15. This would take this Court to the alternate
submission made on behalf of the accused by
Sri.S.B.Kukanagouder. He submits that parties are close
relatives and taking note of the fact that the accused No.2
is already dead, accused No.1 being in custody for a period
of 2½ months, same may be treated as period of
imprisonment. Same is opposed by Sri.Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavara with vehemence.
16. Taking note of the fact that incident had occurred
at a spur of the moment, on account of the previous land
dispute also considering the fact that parties are close
relatives; accused No.2 is no more, treating the custody
period already undergone by the accused No.1 and
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
paid as compensation to the Hanumanthappa who suffered
grievous injury examined as PW.10 would meet the ends of
justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
17. Accordingly, following Order:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioner for the offences punishable
under Section 326 and 323 of IPC, sentence of
imprisonment of one year ordered for the aforesaid
offence under Section 326 IPC is modified by
directing the custody period already undergone by
the revision petitioner as period of imprisonment
for the proved offence under Section 326 IPC and
directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced
fine amount of Rs.50,000/-.
(iii) Time is granted till 30.04.2025 to pay the
enhanced fine amount before the trial Court.
(iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount
would automatically result in the sentence of
imprisonment of one year ordered by the trial
Magistrate under Section 326 of IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5676
(v) After receipt of the enhanced fine amount
entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be
paid as compensation to PW.10-Hanumanthappa
under due identification.
(vi) Return the trial Court records with copy of this
order to trial Court forthwith for issuance of
modified conviction order.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
HMB
CT:PA
