Karnataka High Court
Balakrishna Masali vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830
CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.754 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
BALAKRISHNA MASALI
S/O. VITTAL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, 3RD CROSS,
1ST MAIN, GORAGUNTEPALYA,
YESHAWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
by R
MANJUNATHA HIGH COURT BUILDING
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 14.10.2015 PASSED BY THE VI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830
CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018
HC-KAR
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.991/2011 AND
CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2018 PASSED BY
THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-59), AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1371/2015 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 AND 509 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C No.991/2011 for having misbehaved with the two young girls, while he was working as an Officer in Child Welfare Committee, Bengaluru.
3. Based on the complaint, police registered the case and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet.
4. After due trial, accused was convicted by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and sentenced as under:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR "Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/S 354 and 509 of IPC.
Accused is convicted u/S 248(2) Cr.P.C with simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for another one month."
5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1371/2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the Appeal of the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.26 to 40 as under:
"26. By considering the evidence produced on record and reappreciation of the same, this court is of the opinion that the participation of the accused in the crime is proved by unimpeachable evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 4 the two victims of the crime and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.
27. With regard to arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is concerned the first argument is delay in lodging of the first information report after the commission of the alleged crime.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR
28. The apex court of the land in a decision reported between A.Joseph V/s.State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1 has held that No duration of time in abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter of determination by the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging FIR with the police is therefore not necessarily as a matter of law, is fatal to the prosecution case.
29. Further the apex court of the land in another decision reported between State of H.P. V/s.Gianchand reported in AIR 2001 SC 2075 has held that Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging first information report.
30. In light of the above ratio of cited decisions, a perusal of the contents of Ex.P.1 first information statement discloses that though the alleged incident had occurred on 10.08.2010, P.W.3Kumari Nithya, the victim of the incident has revealed the incident to the members of the AFSA organization on 03.09.2010 when she was again required to be produced before the child welfare committee. After the victim has revealed the incident to the first informant he had made enquiry at the children protection home against the allegations made against the accused and confirmed the allegations and thereafter lodged Ex.P.1 first information statement on 09.09.2010. In the present case, sequence of events soon following -5- NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR the crime as stated in Ex.,P.1 first information statement sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for delay. Considering the nature of the offence and explanation furnished for delay caused in lodging the first information report, this court is of the opinion that the delay caused in lodging the first information report is satisfactorily explained and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be itself a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire case.
31. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that P.W.3 and P.W.4 the alleged victims of the incident are interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated by any independent evidence and hence, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and trial court has erred in placing reliance on the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and erred in convicting the accused.
32. However, it is pertinent to note that with regard to concept of interested witnesses, the apex court of the land in a score of decisions has held that the term interested postulate that the persons concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is some how or other convicted because they had some animus against the accused.
33. In the present case in hand, it is pertinent to note that P.W.3 and P.W.4, the two victim girls have no reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused in the alleged offence. Hence, P.W.3 and P.W.4 the victim girls -6- NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR are no stretch of imagination can be considered as interested witnesses. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the trial court has erred in relying on the interested evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 in convicting the accused cannot be accepted.
34. With regard to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/accused pertaining to conviction of the accused by the trial court only on the basis of evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the quality of the evidence matters and not the quantity. There is no bar for conviction of an accused based on sole evidence of witness if its inspires confidence.
35. The apex court of the land in a decision between Chittalal V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in 2003 SCC (crime) 1377 has held that Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witness would have been the legislative intent cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crime the offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touch stone of credibility and reliability. If testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR It is quality and not quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.".
36. In light of the above cited decision, a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 the two victim girls discloses that they are helpless minor girls taking shelter in the organizations protecting the helpless girls and they have absolutely no reasons to give false evidence against the accused. A perusal of evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 the two victim girls on the touch stone of credibility and reliability discloses that it inspires confidence. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the accused cannot be held guilty on the sole evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 victim girls cannot be accepted.
37. The last limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the trial court has erred in not considering the fact that the accused is having no criminal antecedents and in spite of it the trial court has erred in convicting the accused to undergo imprisonment, thereby awarded harsh punishment to him.
38. With regard to imposing of sentence is concerned, in a decision reported between Savekaperumal V/s. State reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463, the apex court of the land has held that undue sympathy to impose adequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law and society cannot long endure under serious threats. It is the duty of every court to award proper -8- NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.
39. It is settled principle that measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon atrocity of the crime, conduct of the criminal and defenselessness and unprotected state of victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which court response to the societies cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that court should impose punishment befitting the crime, so that courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.
40. In the present case evidence on record discloses that the accused being member of the child welfare committee having the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the children produced before him has took undue advantage of innocence and helplessness of the minor girls produced before him and has used criminal force against them by touching their body inappropriately and intruding upon their privacy with an intention to outrage their modesty. Considering the atrocity of crime, conduct of the accused and defenseless unprotected state of the victims, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly not shown as leniency to the accused and rightly convicted the accused to undergo imprisonment. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the trial court has awarded harsh punishment to the accused cannot be accepted."
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court.
7. Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended with vehemence that testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 would not be sufficient enough to convict the accused for the offence under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the very complaint itself is a motivated complaint which has been ignored by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.
8. He would further contend that the contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of PWs-3 and 4 is totally ignored by the learned Trial Magistrate and sought for allowing the revision petition.
9. Alternatively, Sri Kulkarni would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that, as on the date of the incident the statute did not prescribe compulsory imprisonment, may enhance the fine
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR amount reasonably and set-aside the imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
10. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, while supporting the impound judgments, would contend that petitioner being the Child Welfare Officer was expected to behave with such high degree of morality besides the duty cast on him which the post which occupied by him commanded.
11. But ignoring his responsibility, both official as well as moral, he has gone to the extent of misusing his position and misbehaved with PWs-3 and 4 which is evident on record and therefore no mercy can be shown to the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, in a matter of this nature the oral testimony of the victim girls if inspires the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR confidence of the Court, that alone can be a reason for recording an order of conviction without seeking for corroboration.
14. In this regard, this Court gainfully places reliance on the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karthi @ Karthick vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in (2013)12 SCC
710.
15. In the case on hand, oral testimony of PWs-3 and 4 not only inspired the confidence of the court, but the victim girls have deposed with graphic details as to what happened in the ante-chambers of the accused.
16. Further, searching cross-examination of the victim girls did not advance the innocence of the accused. But, it further proved the case of the prosecution.
17. Some questions which were put to the victim girls in their cross-examination were up against the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakshi vs.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR Union of India and others reported in the (2004)5 SCC
518.
18. Nevertheless, the gist of the oral testimony has been discussed by the learned Trial Magistrate while finding out the ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, which reads as under:
"10. CW-2 Kum. Nithya was examined as PW.3 and she has stated that accused-Balakrishna Masali was alone on that day. He informed PW.2 that he has to talk with CW.2 separately and thereby sent PW.2 outside his chamber. During counseling accused misbehaved with her. In her cross-examination it is suggested that, members usually sits very close to the children and talk to them with all love and affection. Further it is suggested that when members are talking to the children intimately there is chances of suspecting same to that of misbehavior. It is also suggested that PW.3 is deposing before the court as instructed by PW.2. It is also suggested that PW.3 is not at all having knowledge to know about outrage of her modesty.
11. CW.3 Ranjitha was examined as PW.4. Even she has supported the case of prosecution and deposed before this court that accused misbehaved with her asking that whether she is married and doing all such
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR activities what actually husband and wife will do and thereby made her embarrassed. PW.4 further deposed that accused touched her cheeks and also on her chest. In her cross-examination similar suggestions were made by suggesting that there is ill-will between accused and AFSA organization authorities and thereby this false complaint has been crated against accused."
19. The First Appellate Court in its detailed discussion, in the light of the appeal grounds, in the impugned judgment not only re-appreciated the material evidence while concurring with the finding of the Trial Magistrate about the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, but also supplemented additional reasons to uphold the order of conviction as referred to supra.
20. This court having regard scope of the revisional powers following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR
21. Scope of revision is again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the earlier cases, in the case of after considering the earlier judgments in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069.
22. Thus, with the limited revisional powers, when the material on record is reconsidered in the light of the arguments put forth with vehemence on behalf of the revision petitioner by Sri Kulkarni, this Court is of the considered opinion that testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 was sufficient enough to record an order of conviction which would attract the offence under Section 354 and of the Indian Penal Code.
23. In fact, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Ordinance was in place and for the reasons best known to the Investigation Agency, those provisions of the ordinance was not pressed into service.
24. At this distance of time, when the prosecution agency has not resorted to the provisions of the ordinance, this Court
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR cannot consider the nature of offence when accused was not charge sheeted by the investigation agency.
25. Further, in the accused's statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming with regard to the incriminatory circumstances culled out from the prosecution evidence except denial.
26. Accused must have spoken about what transpired on that day and whether he was well within the official parameters in examining the victim girls, which did not attract the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
27. Moreover, accused being a male member, though occupied the position of Child Welfare Officer, whenever such child is brought to his office, it is incumbent on him to examine that child if necessary, in the presence of yet another female. Such a precaution has not been taken by the petitioner in the case on hand.
28. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, this Court does not find any material whatsoever much less good grounds
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by both Courts.
29. Having said thus, this Court took into consideration the alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.
30. Admittedly, incident has occurred in the year 2010. As per the report of the learned High Court Government Pleader, victims/PW-3 and PW-4 have been married and living elsewhere and they are not found in the address which was furnished to the prosecuting agency at the time of trial.
31. The incident has occurred long ago should not be re- agitated by calling them to the Court to have their say with regard to the alternate submission at this distance of time.
32. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that accused is now aged about 55 years, if the fine is enhanced in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- of which Rs.50,000/- each can be paid as compensation to PW-3 and PW-4 by modifying the sentence of imprisonment and directing to undergo simple imprisonment for the day, ends of justice would be met.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR
33. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 25th May 2026 before the Trial Court.
iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, the order of sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22830 CRL.RP No. 754 of 2018 HC-KAR iv. On receipt of the fine amount, learned Trial Magistrate shall secure the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 and pay them compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
v. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58