State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the petition is dismissed and the Appellate Court's enhanced sentence remains undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's criminal revision petition assailing the order of sentence had merit, i.e., whether the sentence modified by the Appellate Court for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC was inadequate and warranted further enhancement.

Court's answer

The order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court modifying the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is justified, and the sentence imposed is proportionate to the allegations made against the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

There is no good ground to entertain the petition; accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.) - CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018 (NC: 2026:KHC:1689), decided 12.01.2026: State by Sarguru Police Station v. Devendra Kumar Soni and seven others. Filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 Cr.P.C., the State sought further enhancement of sentences for offences under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC. Trial stage (CC No. 463/2015, Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Heggadadevanakote, judgment/order 20.01.2017): accused had pleaded guilty and had been in custody for one year five months and ten days; S. 457 IPC - simple imprisonment one year plus fine Rs. 1,000/- each (default simple imprisonment one month); S. 511 IPC - simple imprisonment six months plus fine Rs. 500/- each (default simple imprisonment one month); sentences concurrent. Impugned appellate order (Crl.A. No. 125/2017, VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru at Hunsur, 02.07.2018): State's appeal partly allowed and sentences enhanced - S. 457 IPC simple imprisonment one year six months plus fine Rs. 1,000/- each (default three months); S. 511 IPC simple imprisonment one year plus fine Rs. 500/- each (default two months); the Appellate Court had found the accused only attempted to commit theft. On revision, the court noted the prosecution allegation of an attempted entry into the Bharath Gas Agency office on 05.02.2015 foiled by the security guard, observed that undisputedly no theft of any articles was committed, held the Appellate Court's modified sentence justified and proportionate to the allegations made against the respondents, found no good ground to entertain the petition and dismissed the criminal revision petition. The respondents were recorded as also involved in a similar-offence case, Crime No. 31/2015, Koppa Police Station, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

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

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1280 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

STATE BY SARGURU POLICE STATION

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

…PETITIONER

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

AND:

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

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

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

DINESH THAKUR

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

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

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

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

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

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

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

…RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R-1 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DT: 15.11.2022 PETITION AGAINST R-6 & R-8 ARE DISMISSED)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.7.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.125/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR.B. MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.01.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.463/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HEGGADADVANAKOTE BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 457,511 R/W 34 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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 respondents herein in CC No.463/2015 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.125/2017 disposed off on 02.07.2018.

Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner/State.

Facts leading to filing of this criminal revision petition as

revealed from the records are, respondents herein, who were tried in CC No.463/2015 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Heggadadevanakote, were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC by judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 and for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, 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. For the offence

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

punishable under Section 511 of IPC, the respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the State had filed Crl.A.No.125/2017 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 457 of IPC, the respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and for the offence punishable under Section 511 of IPC, the respondents/accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.500/each and in default, to serve simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Seeking further enhancement of the sentence

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

imposed on the respondents, the petitioner/State is before this Court.

Learned HCGP having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have inappropriately sentenced the respondents who were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC. Respondents are habitual offenders and both the Courts have been lenient while sentencing them for the alleged offences.

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 511 of IPC, had sentenced respondents/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 511 of IPC, respondents/accused were sentenced to undergo simple

NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

6 -

HC-KAR

imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.500/- each. The Appellate Court having found that respondents/accused had only attempted to commit theft, had modified the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and had partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner/State.

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 the present case is concerned, according to the prosecution, the allegation against the accused is that on 05.02.2015, security guard of Bharath Gas Agency had heard some sound of opening the rolling shutters of his office and he had noticed that some persons tried to gain entry into the office. After seeing the first informant, persons who were trying to gain entry into the office had ran away. Undisputedly, no theft of any articles was committed in the present case. 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 sentence imposed is

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1689 CRL.RP No. 1280 of 2018

HC-KAR

proportionate to the allegations made against respondents. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is

dismissed .

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0