Karnataka High Court
Sanket S/O Rama Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076
CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100134 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SANKET S/O. RAMA NAIK,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL WORK/ AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGOD, TQ. SIDDAPURA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE: 581355.
2. SHANTHOSH S/O. RAMESH NAIK,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL WORK/AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGOD, TQ. SIDDAPURA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE: 581355.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LAXMESH P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by V THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
N BADIGER
VN
Date:
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BADIGER 2025.03.29
11:51:58
HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580022.
+0530 THROUGH SIDDAPURA P.S.,
TQ. SIDDAPURA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581355.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397
R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.12.2022 IN
CRL.A NO. 5012/2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
07.01.2022 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. SIDDAPURA
IN C.C.NO. 122/2018 IN RESPECT OF OFFENCE P/U/SECTIONS 457,
380 OF IPC AND THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 MAY BE
ACQUITTED BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076
CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Laxmesh P. Mataguppe, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.122/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'IPC') which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.5012/2022, are the revision petitioners.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Siddapur Police Station on 22.11.2017 stating that on 23.11.2017 about 1:00 a.m. in Shiralagi High School within the jurisdiction of Siddhapura Police Station, there was a theft of two Indane -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 Gas Company cylinders worth Rs.6,000/-. Police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner and other accused persons. Six cylinders were recovered from the custody of the accused No.1, which was showed in a shed. Based on the recovery made by the police and voluntary statement of the accused No.1 coupled with other material on record, charge sheet came to be filed.
4. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and after due trial, revision petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Recovery of the stolen cylinders from three different places of which two cylinders belonging to the complainant-school is the factum that weighed the learned Trial Judge to record an order of conviction taking note of the fact that there was no explanation offered by the accused persons.
5. Thereafter, Trial Judge imposed sentence as under:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 "The accused persons are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting U/Sec. 248(2) of code of criminal procedure the accused persons are convicted for the offences Punishable U/Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused persons are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for the terms 2 years for the offence punishable U/sec. 457 of I P C and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default of payment of fine accused persons shall under go simple imprisonment of 3 months.
Further Accused persons are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for the terms 2 years for the offence punishable U/sec. 380 of I P C and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default of payment of fine accused persons shall under go simple imprisonment of 3 months.
The sentence imposed as above shall run concurrently.
Property seized under P.F.No.72/2017 which is registered under P.R.No16/2018 Item No. 1 Motorcycle interim order passed by this court on 1-1-2018 made absolute and Item No.2 is being worthless order to be destroy after expiry of appeal period. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 Property seized under P.F.No.73/2017, which is registered under P.R.No.16/2018 Item No. 3 interim order passed by this court on 14-2-2018 made absolute."
6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.5012/2022 along with accused No.3.
7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge.
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court in this revision petition.
9. Sri Laxmesh P. Mataguppe, learned counsel for revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that solely on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused No.1, present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the incident and therefore, order of conviction recorded by -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from legal infirmities and perversity and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. He would further contend that recovery of the cylinders is also from the place which was in the exclusive control of accused No.1. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the present petitioners and sought for allowing the present petition.
11. Alternatively, Sri Laxmesh would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, may consider the fact that the present petitioners are first time offenders and therefore, the custody period from 24.11.2017 to 05.12.2017 may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
12. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
13. He would further contend that in a matter of this nature, recovery of the stolen articles from one accused would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction against all accused persons especially material placed on record would indicate that but for the active assistance of the petitioners herein the act of theft could not have been committed.
14. He would further contend that the no explanation is offered by the accused persons at the time of recording of accused statement. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in recording an order of conviction based on the material on record and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
15. He would also contend that to people like revision petitioners are if shown mercy, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and may indulge in such repeated offences and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
16. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the accused-revision petitioners make out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error and thus calls for interference?
2) Whether the sentence needs modification?
3) What order?
Regarding points No.1 and 2:
18. In the case on hand, recovery of the stolen cylinders stands established by placing cogent evidence on record. Six cylinders were recovered from a shed wherein it was hidden and was in exclusive control of accused No.1. No doubt, the owner of the shed has turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution. But other material evidence placed on record including the photographs would go to show that six cylinders were recovered from -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 the shed. Voluntary statement of the accused No.1 led to recovery of six stole cylinders.
19. Therefore, Investigation Agency filed charge sheet not only against the first accused but also against the revision petitioners based on his statement. Voluntary statements of present petitioners were also recorded after their arrest. Motorbike which was used in the incident is also sized by the Investigating Agency. Absolutely there was no contra material placed on record on behalf of the accused at the time recording accused statement with regard to the recovery of stolen cylinders.
20. It is pertinent to note that cylinders belonging to Indane Gas Company and other companies, is not a freely available commodity in the society.
21. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity why would the investigate agency implant six cylinders only to foist a case against the petitioners is a question that remains unanswered.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
22. Material evidence placed on record would go to show that the complainant-school lost two cylinders in the month of November, 2017. The complaint came to be registered only on 22.02.2018; that is after the cylinders were traced and based on the voluntary statement given by the accused.
23. The recovery having been proved and stolen articles have been recovered, is a significant factor in a matter of this nature where offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC are alleged.
24. Therefore, the material evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while recording an order of conviction of the petitioners along with accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
25. Admittedly, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in the light of the grounds urged by the revision petitioners re-appreciated the material evidence on record and by supplementing the additional reasons to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 maintain the conviction, dismissed the appeal of the accused.
26. Oral testimony of PW-5 wherein identification of the accused has been discussed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court so also oral evidence of PW-6 have been taken note of by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while upholding the order of conviction. Evidence of mahazar witnesses was also discussed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court so also oral testimony of PW-3 and 4 has been noted by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while upholding the order of conviction.
27. Having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter to offset the finding recorded by both the Courts with sound and logical reasons.
28. Therefore, conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC needs to be maintained in this revision as well.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023
29. However, there is some force in the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners that they are first time offenders and there are no criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
30. Unfortunately, such a course has not been adopted by both the Courts in the impugned judgments. Therefore, taking note of the fact that accused persons were in custody from 24.11.2017 to 05.12.2017, directing the said period as the period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.40,000/- payable by each of the accused would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 are answered in negative and partly affirmative. Regarding point No.3 :
31. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5076 CRL.RP No. 100134 of 2023 ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, custody period of already undergone by the revision petitioners is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.40,000/- payable by each of the accused in two equal installments, one on 30.04.2025 and second on 15.05.2025.
(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30