[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahesh S/O Ramappa Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287
CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100186 OF 2020
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHESH S/O RAMAPPA DODDAMANI
AGE- 25 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE,
R/O- HIREMATTUR, TQ- HIREKERUR,
NOW R/AT- ISLAMPUR ONI,
BYADGI, DIST- HAVERI-581115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI OF BYADGI POLICE STATION,
THROUGH ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 11/03/2020 IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.37/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT RANEBENNUR OFFENCE U/S 380 OF IPC
Date: 2026.02.03
15:09:49 +0530
6 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 15/03/2019 IN CC NO.416/2014 PASSED BY THE JMFC,
BYADGI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 380 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE
CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287
CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.416/
2014 on the file of the JMFC, Byadagi, confirmed in Criminal
Appeal No.37/2019 on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, for the offence
punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code is the
revision petitioner.
3. The Trial Court sentenced the accused as under:
"DgÉÆæ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 380 CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ
C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1 ªÀµÀð ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀzÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ
ºÁUÀÆ 2 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. zÀAqÀ
¥ÁªÀw¸À¢zÀÝ°è 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."
4. Facts of the case in a nutshell for the disposal of the
present revision petition are as under:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287
HC-KAR
In respect of the theft committed in the house of the
complainant by the accused, who is none other than the tenant
of the complainant, a complaint came to be lodged with the
Haveri Police.
5. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
against the accused. There was recovery of stolen articles i.e.,
two gold chains from the custody of the accused. Trial ended in
conviction of the accused.
6. The defence that was taken before the Trial Court, before
the First Appellate Court and before this Court by the accused is
that he was tenant and in order to evict him from the premises,
a false case has been foisted against him.
7. Such a defence was not probabilised by placing necessary
material evidence, as the recovery of the golden chains was the
pivotal point on which the conviction came to be recorded.
8. In order to evict the accused, why would the police and the
complainant would implant two golden chains in the custody of
the accused and show it as a recovery, is a question that
remains unanswered.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287
HC-KAR
9. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the matter,
order of conviction recorded against the revision petitioner
cannot be interfered, that too in the revisional jurisdiction,
having regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander
and another reported in (2012)9 SCC 460. Accordingly,
conviction order is to be maintained.
10. Having taken note of the fact that the conviction order is to
be maintained since the accused is a first time offender and he is
now settled comfortably in life and he has also vacated the
premises which was in occupation of the complainant, the Trial
Court ought to have granted the benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act which has not been taken note of by the First
Appellate Court. Thus, ends of justice would be met by setting
aside the imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount in a sum
of Rs.20,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287
HC-KAR
(i) Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 380
of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment
is set aside by enhancing the fine amount to
Rs.20,000/- payable on or before 28th February
2026.
(iii) Office is directed to return Trial Court Records
with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified
conviction warrant.
(iv) It is made clear that if the enhanced fine
amount is not paid on or before 28th February 2026,
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands
restored automatically.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm CT:CMU/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30
