Ramsingh Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/SEC. 438 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF JMFC AT CHINCHOLI IN C.C.NO.351/2018 DATED 09.12.2020 CONVICTING THE REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 189, 224, 332, 353, 504, 506 OF IPC AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IV ADDL. DIST.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2948 CRL.RP No. 200024 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN CRL.APPEAL NO.44/2020 CONVICTING THE REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 189, 332, 353, AND 504 OF IPC AND INCONSEQUENCE THE REVISION PETITIONER ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 189, 224, 332, 353, 504 OF IPC. TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

Heard Sri. Mahantesh H. Desai, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil,

¶29

learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶30

The accused has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.351/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 189, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC, which was modified in Criminal Appeal No.44/2020, whereby, his conviction for the offence under Sections 189, 332 and 353 and 504 of IPC was maintained, has preferred the present revision petition.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2948 CRL.RP No. 200024 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

At the outset, Sri. Mahantesh Desai would submit

¶34

that, the accused has already undergone custody period of 26 days as against one month imprisonment imposed for the higher offence under Section 353 of IPC. He further submits that, accused has already deposited fine amount of Rs.7000/-.

¶35

Therefore this Court may entertain the revision petition and set aside the remaining portion of the sentence by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the said

¶37

submission.

¶38

Having heard the arguments from both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶39

On such perusal of the records meticulously, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment if set aside, ends of justice would be met, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2948 CRL.RP No. 200024 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Accordingly, the following order:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The revision petition is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the accusedrevision petitioner for the offence under Sections 189, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC., the custody period already undergone by the accused-revision petitioner is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- payable on or before 10^th of July, 2025.

¶46

(ii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of the conviction of the revision petitioner and the imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court for the proved offences.

¶47

(iii) Office is directed to send back the trial Court records with copy of an order forthwith for issue of modified conviction order.

¶48

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶49

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT:PK

Ramsingh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsingh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjanasha and Ors. Vs Anjuman E Islam Committee and Anr.

Preetiraj Vs the State and Anr.

Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankargouda Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka