The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.331 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O PUTTE GOWDA. 2. KRISHNA @KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED 40 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/O ALADAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHI GRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573168.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI SUHAS G, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1, SRI SYED UMMER, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. THE STATE BY DUDDA POLICE, REPT. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE JUDGMENT DATED 05.05.2016 PASSED BY THE III IN AND ADDL. C.C.NO.4653/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 504, 427, 324, 323 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE JUDGMENT J.M.F.C., HASSAN JUDGE CIVIL - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 DATED 06.02.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS CRL.A.NO.116/2016 CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE OF THE LOWER COURT. HASSAN JUDGE, IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 427, 324, 323 and 506 of IPC. For the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 427, 323 and 506 of IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- each is imposed and in respect of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each is imposed. Against the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.116/2016 and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the incident was taken place on 01.12.2004 i.e., 20 years back and no such incident was taken place. However, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court appreciated the evidence available on record. The learned counsel contend that taking note of the incident was taken place in 2004, instead of simple imprisonment, this Court can modify the order by imposing the fine amount. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Exs.P.3 and 4 wound certificates. On perusal of the wound certificates, it discloses pain in the shoulder and abrasion. No doubt, the allegation is made that assault was made with club and having taken note of the nature of injuries, they are simple in nature. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submits that though learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aged about 70 years, when the case was registered and when they were subjected for trial, there age was mentioned as 48 years and 40 years. The incident was taken place in 2004 and taking note of the said fact into consideration, now they may be aged about 68 years and 60 years and not 70 years as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Both the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 Courts taken note of the evidence available on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that they assaulted and the same has been discussed in paragraph No.19 of the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also re-appreciated the same and hence it does not require any interference of this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and also taking note of the fact that the incident was taken place on 01.12.2004 and also the grounds urged in the revision petition, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the order? (ii) What order? 6. Having considered the material available on record, the very case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2004 at about 12 p.m. at Aladahally Village, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal trespass into the house of C.W.1 with an intention to commit the offences and abused in a filthy language and caused the mischief by damaging the tiles, TV, glass and also assaulted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 with the club and with their hands. In order to substantiate their case, the injured witnesses have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.4. Having taken note of the wound certificates at Exs.P.3 and 4, injuries are simple in nature i.e., abrasion and pain in shoulder. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to modify the judgment of the Trial Court, since the incident was taken place 20 years ago and now the petitioners are aged about 68 years and 60 years and they are senior citizens. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment may be modified as fine instead of simple imprisonment. Having considered the nature of injuries found in Exs.P.3 and 4 and also taking note of that the incident was taken place long back, it is appropriate to modify the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- each though the Trial Court imposed fine of Rs.3,500/- for all the offences and no need of subjecting them for simple imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each would meet the ends of justice. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: (i) The revision petition is allowed in part.
Decision
ORDER - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1048 CRL.RP No. 331 of 2017 (ii) The conviction is upheld and sentence is modified to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each by the revision petitioners. Out of the said amount, Rs.9,000/- each is payable to P.W.2 and P.W.4, on proper identification. The remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- shall vest with the State. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72