Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 28^TH OCTOBER 2014 PASSED IN C.C. NO.31/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. JMFC AT MUDHOL, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324 AND 504 OF IPC, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88/2014 BY A JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16^TH MARCH, 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI.

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶23

Heard Sri.Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel for the

¶24

revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

¶25

State/respondent.

¶26

Revision is by the accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.31/2010 dated 28.10.2014 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2014 dated 16.03.2017.

¶27

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶28

A complaint came to be lodged with Mahalingapur Police, Mudhol Taluk alleging that on 01.11.2009 in the evening at 6.00 p.m., there was an altercation, wherein the complainant and his son were injured besides accused hurling abusive words to them.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶31

4. Police after thorough investigation, filed the

¶32

charge sheet.

¶33

5. Learned Trial Judge after due trial, convicted

¶34

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 of IPC and sentenced as under:

¶35

“Acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶36

Acting U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶37

Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶38

The above said sentences shall run cuncurrently.

¶39

Acting U/s 357(A) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant and injured victim P.W-3 Santosh.”

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶42

Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

¶43

appeal before the First Appellate Court in

¶44

Crl.A.No.88/2014.

¶45

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, upheld the order of conviction and sentence.

¶46

Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision.

¶47

Sri.Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that panch witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and so also the complainant in part and seizure of MO.1 - club and MO.2 - stone is not properly proved by the prosecution and therefore, order of conviction and sentence has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶49

Alternately, he would further contend that since the revision petitioner is the first time offender and close relative of the complainant, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶50

Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned judgments.

¶51

He would further contend that very fact of seizure of material objects and portion of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the wound certificate marked at Exs.P.5 and 6 which were issued by P.W.7, material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction and sentence and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶52

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶55

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that case of the prosecution stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record especially in the light of oral testimony of injured witnesses which is to be kept on higher pedestal coupled with the wound certificates marked at Exs.P.5 and 6 issued by P.W.7.

¶56

Order of conviction cannot be lightly interfered in the revisional jurisdiction having regard to the scope of revisional jurisdiction as is held in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . Therefore, order of conviction needs no interference.

¶57

However, taking note of the fact that revision petitioner is the first time offender and before ordering the sentence of imprisonment, learned Trial Judge was duty bound to consider the beneficial piece of legislation namely Probation of Offenders Act, which has been ignored by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶59

Thus, this Court in the revision, is of the considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.15,000/-, if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside, ends of justice would be met in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶60

Same would also better serve the ends of justice inasmuch as complainant and revision petitioner are close relatives and harmony would be reinstated between them.

¶61

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶64

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4485 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2017

¶66

revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.15,000/on or before 15.04.2025 failing which the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court shall stand restored automatically.

¶67

iii. After the fine amount is recovered, sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant – Balappa who is examined as P.W.1 and sum of Rs.5,000/- to P.W.3 - Santosh under due identification.

¶68

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith.

¶69

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶70

KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37

Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj S/O Gangappa Harinashikari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Maruthi S/O. Dyamappa Nagaralli Alias Angadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Slv Gold Company Vs Sri Manjunath S/O Basavaraj Indi

Puneeth S/O Malatesh Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Santosh Fakkirappa Mane @ Aanchi

Smt. Laxmi Manohar Kugaji Vs Lokamangal Multi State Co. Operative Society Ltd.