Karnataka High Court

Nagesh S/O Apparaya Dekun vs State Through on 3 September, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111
                                                 CRL.RP No. 200089 of 2020


                   HC-KAR




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                   KALABURAGI BENCH

                     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                         BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200089 OF 2020
                                 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   NAGESH S/O APPARAYA DEKUN,
                   AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                   R/O. NARONA VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND,
                   DIST. KALABURAGI- 585 302.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI BASAVALING NASI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   THE STATE,
by SUMITRA         THROUGH NARONA P.S.,
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
                   KALABURAGI,
COURT OF           REP. BY HCGP,
KARNATAKA          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   KALABURAGI BENCH.
                                                           ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)

                        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
                   UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
                   THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
                   SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
                   NO.27/2018 DATED 05.03.2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
                   ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.238/2011 DATED
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111
                                       CRL.RP No. 200089 of 2020


HC-KAR




05.05.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, ALAND.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA


                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA)

The revision petitioner being the accused in C.C.

No.238/2011 on the file of the learned Additional Civil

Judge and J.M.F.C., Aland [for short 'Trial Court'], is

impugning the judgment of conviction and order sentence

dated 05.05.2018 convicting him for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code [for

short, 'IPC'] and sentencing to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two years and a pay fine of

Rs.3,000/- in default to pay fine undergo simple

imprisonment for six months; convicting for the offence

punishable under Section 506 of IPC and sentencing to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and

a pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

imprisonment for two months, which is confirmed in Crl.A.

No.27/2018 on the file of the III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi [for short 'First Appellate

Court'].

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the informant

is the wife of the accused. She is examined as PW2. She

has contended that their marriage was performed on

21.08.2008. After marriage, PW2 went and started

residing with accused in her matrimonial house. PW2

lodged the first information on 21.02.2011 against the

accused alleging that the accused under the influence of

alcohol used to abuse and assault her very frequently.

After sometime, she informed this fact to her parents i.e.,

PWs.4 and 5, who convened the panchayat of elders.

Even though elders have advised the accused to behalf

properly, he continued his misbehavior with the informant

and treated her with cruelty. It is stated that on the date

of incident, the accused abused the informant in filthy

language and criminally intimidated to cause her death.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

She was forced to go back to her parents house. Hence,

she lodge the complaint and requested the Police to

registered. Investigation was completed. The charge-

sheet came to be filed. The accused appeared before the

Trial Court, pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled

against him. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got

marked Exs.P1 to P5 to prove its contention. The accused

has denied all incriminating materials available on record,

but has not led any evidence in support of his defence.

3. The Trial Court after taking into consideration

all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that

the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

came to be passed.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has

preferred Criminal Appeal No.27/2018 on the file of the

First Appellate Court. The first Appellate on re-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

appreciation of entire material available on record has

dismissed the appeal by confirming judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused-appellant is before

this Court.

5. Heard Sri Basavaling Nasi, learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna Yadav, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the

Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

7. It is the contention of the prosecution that PW2

is the wife of the accused and their marriage was

performed on 21.08.2008. After marriage she was

residing in her matrimonial house along with the accused.

These facts are admitted by the accused. It is the

contention of PW2 that she was being abused and

assaulted by the accused very frequently she had also

criminally intimidated to cause her death. PW2 has

deposed before the Court regarding the incident. Even

though she was subjected to cross-examination, nothing

has been elicited to disbelieve her version. PWs.4 and 5

are the parents of PW2. They have also deposed in

support of case of the prosecution and stated that they

have arranged panchayat to advice the accused, inspite of

that he has not corrected himself. Even during cross-

examination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable for

conviction.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contends that, the Trial Court imposed simple

imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section

498A of IPC and one year for the offence under Section

506 of IPC, which is disproportionate to the offence in

question. Hence, he prays for showing leniency in favour

of the revision petitioner/accused.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader even

though opposed such submission, submitted that it is left

to the discretion of the Court, which can be excised its

judicious mind.

10. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the

marriage of the parties performed on 21.08.2008. Present

complaint came to be filed on 21.02.2011. It is stated

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5111

HC-KAR

that the accused was in judicial custody for a period of 1½

months during trial. I do not find any reason to impose

maximum sentence to the accused. Under such

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned

order of sentence may be modified in the interest of

justice. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed

in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction

dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Trial Court

convicting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC

is hereby confirmed.