State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1277 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE BY SARGURU POLICE STATION SARGURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DEVENDRA KUMAR SONI S/O BASANTHILAL SONI RESIDING AT CHOPAT VILLAGE ALIRAJ PUR DISTRICT. - 457 887 MADHY PRADESH STATE.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MOR SINGH S/O DIPLA RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 331.

¶14

DINESH THAKUR S/O PUL SINGH RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 221.

¶15

MOHAN

¶16

S/O CHETU @ TER SINGH RESIDING AT BAMORI VILLAGE KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 221.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHOTA MOHAN @ KOR SINGH S/O SURAJ RESIDING AT JULAVANI VILLAGE BAGA TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 221.

¶20

SHIVA @ SHIVA NARAYANA S/O RAMADCHANDRA SHARMA RESIDING AT MANGALI VILLAGE SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 453 551.

¶21

HARI SINGH S/O LATE MUNNA RESIDING AT DEVAD VILLAGE KUKSHI TALUK, DHAR DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 331.

¶22

RAJENDRA PURI S/O JAGADISH PURI RESIDING AT HAVUD VILLAGE SANWER TALUK, INDORE DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH - 454 331.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(R-1 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.07.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.123/2017 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The State is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order of sentence passed against the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondents herein in CC No.462/2015 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Heggadadevanakote, by judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 and by the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, in Crl.A.No.123/2017 disposed off on 02.07.2018.

¶33

Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner/State.

¶34

Facts leading to filing of this criminal revision petition as revealed from the records are, respondents herein, who were tried in CC No.462/2015 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Heggadadevanakote, were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC by judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 and for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. For the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, the respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentences

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

were ordered to run concurrently. Seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the State had filed Crl.A.No.123/2017 before the Court of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, against the respondents and the Appellate Court vide the order impugned dated 02.07.2018 had partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner/State and had modified the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. For the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, the respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and ten months and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, the respondents/accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each and in default, to serve simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Seeking further enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondents, the petitioner/State is before this Court.

¶38

Learned HCGP having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

have inappropriately sentenced the respondents who were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Respondents are habitual offenders and the both the Courts have been lenient on them while sentencing them for the alleged offences.

¶42

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that respondents/accused had pleaded guilty before the Trial Court and the Trial Court having taken into consideration that respondents/accused were in custody for a period of one year five months and ten days, having convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, had sentenced respondents/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.2,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, respondents/accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The Appellate Court having found that respondents/accused had committed theft of Rs.1,000/- from a petty shop, had modified the order of sentence passed by the

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Trial Court and had partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner/State.

¶47

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that respondents/accused were also involved in another criminal case registered by Koppa Police Station, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, for similar offences in Crime No.31/2015. Insofar as

¶48

the present case is concerned, the allegation against the respondents/accused is of committing theft of Rs.1,000/- from the petty shop of the first informant. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court modifying the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is justified and is proportionate to the allegations made against respondents. I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed .

¶49

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶50

DN

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

State by Sarguru Police Station v. Devendra Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by Sarguru Police Station v. Devendra Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Vs State by

Shri Satya Narayan Tulysan Vs M/S Krishna Enterprises

M/S Sarvana Alloy Steels P Ltd. Vs M/S Xindia Steels Limited

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Govindaraju

T B Venkataswamy Vs H M Chandrashekharaiah

Mohammed Asghar Vs Riyaz @ Riyaz Ahmed