Karnataka High Court
Bidaraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9968
CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 643 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. BIDARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARIYANNA
2. KUMARA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O BIDARAIAH
3. MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O BIDARAIAH
4. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O BIDARAIAH
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V
Location: HIGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
COURT OF THONACHIGONDANAHALLI,
KARNATAKA
DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DIST, PIN-572 132.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANOHAR N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BADAVANAHALLI PS,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9968
CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU,
SITTING AT MADHUGIRI IN CRL.A.NO.5015/2018 AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2018 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MADHUGIRI IN
C.C.NO.670/2011 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
Though this matter was posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5015/2018 dated 08.04.2021 by the IV Additional Session Judge, Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the revision petitioners and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and -3- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 JMFC, Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in C.C.No.670/2011 dated 18.09.2018.
3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court
4. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:
The revision petitioners/accused and the complainant and injured i.e., PWs.1 to 3 are the relatives. On 18.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m. at Thonachagondanahalli Village, the accused trespassed PW.2's land bearing Sy.No.16/12, this led to a verbal altercation as they attempted to remove the fence on the property. Following which accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted PWs.1 to 3 with a club and machete i.e., MO.1 and MO.2 and also threatened them. Subsequently, PWs.1 to 3 were admitted to Government Hospital, Madhugiri. Later, based on the complaint lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P1, Badavanahalli Police registered a case against the petitioners in Crime.No.62/2011 dated 03.06.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the said police investigated the case and laid -4- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 chargesheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences.
5. On securing the presence of the accused, learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences.
6. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined in total 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7, marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to 13 and identified 2 material objects as MO.1 and MO.2.
7. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 324, 325, 323 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one year each -5- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine amount, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default of payment of fine amount, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC, lastly, the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also directed that all the sentences imposed shall run concurrently. Being -6- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.5015/2018.
8. The learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein by confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The said judgement is challenged under this revision petition.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that both the Courts have grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused by not appreciating the evidence and materials on record in right perspective. He further contended that there was a pending civil dispute between the injured and the accused, who were his family members. As such, a false case was registered against the accused by the complainant. He also contended that there are infirmities in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3-the injured -7- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 witnesses. They suffered simple injuries and PW.6-the Doctor deposed likewise. Further, the spot mahazar and recovery mahazar witnesses collectively turned hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Despite this, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused based on surmise and conjecture, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition.
11. Refuting the above submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on meticulously examining the evidence available on record, passed well reasoned judgments, which do not call for interference by this Court. He further contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3-injured eyewitnesses corroborates with each other and they have categorically deposed regarding the assault unleashed on them using MO.1 and MO.2. He also contended that the prosecution proved the motive for committing the crime. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the only point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and if the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal by confirming the conviction order?"
13. I have carefully perused the entire evidence on record and rendered my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel.
14. As could be gathered from the records, PW.1-the complainant in this case has lodged a complaint on 03.06.2011 as per Ex.P1 alleging that on the said date, accused Nos.1 to 4 trespassed his property and verbally abused him. When the complainant advised the accused not to indulge in verbal altercation, all the accused collectively assaulted him with club and machete, i.e., MO.1 and MO.2. Thereafter, he cried for help and PW.2 and PW.3 attempted to rescue him. However, the accused assaulted them indiscriminately. PW.1 reiterates the contents of his complaint and categorically deposed the same. One more eyewitness PW.2 deposed similarly to that of PW.1 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 and stated that the accused initially assaulted PW.1 and thereafter to himself and PW.3 and injured all of them. PW.3, another injured eyewitness deposed similarly stating she sustained grievous injuries on her left forearm she identified all the accused and the weapons used in the crime i.e. MO.1 and MO.2. The evidence of these witnesses categorically corroborates with the testimony of PW.6-the Doctor, who examined PWs.1 to 3 and issued the wound certificates as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 respectively. On perusal of these wound certificates, I learn that PWs.1 and 2 have sustained simple injuries and PW.3 has sustained grievous injuries. As such, the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 corroborates with the evidence of PW.6-Doctor. Further the evidence of PW.7-Investigating Officer also corroborates with the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3.
15. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the accused are the perpetrators of the crime and the charges levelled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506, 504, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubts. However, the conviction and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC is concerned it could be gathered from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, that owing to a pending civil dispute between the accused family and the complainant family, the alleged incident said to have occurred. The accused had no such intention or premeditative motive to inflict grievous hurt to PWs.1 to 3. Upon a free-fight, the alleged incident occurred in grave and sudden provocation. In such circumstances, the act of the accused falls within the exception stipulated in Section 325 for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC is required to be modified for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC and I deem it appropriate to impose the fine amount instead of sentencing for imprisonment.
16. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused are on bail since 2014 and that their family depended on them, except the instant case, there are no such bad antecedents against them. Hence, instead of the sentence imposed for the offence punishable
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 under Section 324 of IPC i.e., imprisonment for one year, a reasonable fine amount may be imposed with default sentence by retaining the conviction and sentence for other offences.
17. On careful perusal of the evidence on record and on considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the accused being close relatives of PWs.1 to 3, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, is required to be modified by imposing a reasonable fine to the accused with default sentence. However, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court involving rest of the offences is hereby kept intact.
18. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above as partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021 C.C.No.670/2011 dated 18.09.2018 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5015/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC is modified and the petitioners/accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC.
iii) The sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC by the learned Trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is modified and the revision petitioners/accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC instead of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
iv) The rest of the sentence imposed by the Trail Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court are kept intact.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9968 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2021
v) The revision petitioners/accused shall deposit the entire fine amount before the learned Magistrate within six weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
vi) If the revision petitioners/accused fails to deposit the fine amount, then the learned Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the accused and commit them to prison to undergo default sentence.
vii) If the fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioners/accused, the learned Magistrate is directed to intimate the same to PWs.1 to 3 and disburse Rs.35,000/- each on due identification as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The balance amount shall be submitted to the State Treasury.
viii) The bail bond executed by the revision petitioners/accused shall stand cancelled.
ix) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this order to the Trial Court, forthwith.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5