Karnataka High Court
Pavankumar S/O Manjunath Manchi vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100024 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
PAVANKUMAR S/O. MANJUNATH MANCHI,
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. GANESHNAGAR, SIRSI,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT AND
SRI. A.P. HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, NEW MARKET POLICE STATION, SIRSI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT: DHARWAD BENCH,
AT: DHARWAD-011.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C., SIRSI IN C.C.
NO.300/2019 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2021
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT: SIRSI IN
CRL.A.NO.5003/2020 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 504 AND 324 OF IPC, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
2. The accused in C.C. No. 300/2019 has preferred
this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.11.2019 passed by the I Additional
J.M.F.C., Sirsi, and the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl.A.
No. 5003/2020 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi.
3. The prosecution has made out a case against the
accused to the effect that on 01.06.2015 at about 10:30 a.m.,
the accused, along with his minor brother, while removing mud
from the fence between the house of the complainant and that
of the accused, assaulted the complainant with an iron rod on
the head, causing severe injuries, when the complainant
questioned their actions. It is further alleged that the accused
also abused the complainant in filthy language.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
4. The complainant reported the incident, pursuant to
which FIR was registered. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed
for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, and
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC‘, for
short). The prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8,
and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10, in addition to
1 material object. A photograph was marked as Exhibit D1. The
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 448, 326, and 504 of the
IPC, while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 323
and 506 of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence under Section 448, one year of imprisonment for
the offence under Section 326, and further imposed a fine of
₹2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
IPC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. The accused preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Court. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on
record, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part. The
conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 of
the IPC was modified to one under Section 324 of the IPC, and
the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-.
7. Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submits that the evidence brought on record by
the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of
the alleged offences. He contends that the witnesses examined
by the prosecution and relied upon by the Trial Court are
interested witnesses, whose testimonies suffer from
contradictions and appear unrealistic. It is further submitted
that there is no independent eyewitness to support the case of
the prosecution. PWs.2, 3, and 4, being related to the
complainant, are interested witnesses, and their evidence lacks
credibility.
8. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
submits that the Trial Court has recorded the conviction based
on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is sufficient
to establish the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the
Appellate Court has taken a lenient view by modifying the
conviction from the offence punishable under Section 326 of
the IPC to one under Section 324 of the IPC. The findings
recorded by both the Courts are well-reasoned and do not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Accordingly,
he prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
10. It is evident that the prosecution has made out a
case to the effect that the accused assaulted the complainant
and caused severe injuries with an iron rod. In support of its
case, the prosecution examined the injured complainant as
PW1. PW2 is a spot mahazar witness, while PWs.3 and 4 are
examined as eyewitnesses. PW1, who is the wife of PW3–the
injured, deposed that on 01.06.2015, she heard a commotion
behind her house and saw the accused quarreling with her
husband. She further stated that the accused, along with his
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
younger brother, abused her husband and thereafter assaulted
him with a crowbar, resulting in serious injuries. Her husband
lost consciousness and was shifted to the hospital in a bleeding
condition.
11. PW3 is the injured witness. According to his
testimony, the accused and his brother were engaged in some
work near the fence adjacent to his house. When he questioned
them, both allegedly abused him in filthy language, and
thereafter, the accused assaulted him on the head with a
crowbar, causing injuries.
12. PW4, who was examined as an eyewitness, stated
that while he was standing at a pan shop, he heard a
commotion involving PW3. On proceeding to the spot, he found
the accused and PW3 abusing each other, while PW1 was seen
consoling her husband. He further deposed that after some
time, the accused went to the house of PW1 and assaulted PW3
with an iron rod.
13. PW6 is the doctor who examined the injured and
deposed regarding the nature of the injuries sustained and the
treatment administered. PW2, the mahazar witness, has
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
supported the case of the prosecution by corroborating the spot
mahazar and seizure proceedings.
14. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence
of PWs.1, 3, and 4, concluded that the accused had entered the
house of PWs.1 and 3 with the intention to quarrel and
assaulted PW3, thereby committing the offence punishable
under Section 448 of the IPC. Further, based on the evidence of
PW4–an eyewitness, the Trial Court held that the accused had
also committed the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
IPC. The Appellate Court, upon re-assessment and re-
appreciation of the evidence, held that the prosecution had
proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section
324 of the IPC, but not under Section 326 of the IPC as held by
the Trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 326
was modified to one under Section 324 of the IPC.
15. Learned counsel for both parties have invited the
attention of this Court to the evidence on record as well as the
findings recorded by the courts below. Upon anxious
consideration of the material on record, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
Court and the Appellate Court. Both the judgments are well-
reasoned, and the conclusions drawn therein are supported by
the evidence on record. No material has been pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that would warrant a
different view. Though the Appellate Court modified the
sentence, the State has not preferred any appeal against such
modification. In that view of the matter, the order of the
Appellate Court modifying the sentence is upheld.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
alternative, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment as
imposed by the Appellate Court may be modified to a sentence
of fine. It is contended that the accused was 20 years old at the
time of the incident and, owing to immaturity and ignorance of
the consequences, committed the offence without any intention
to cause harm to PW3. It is further submitted that the accused
is now married and is the sole earning member of the family,
and that imprisonment would result in severe hardship to the
entire family. It is urged that if the sentence is modified to
payment of fine, the possible hardship to the family can be
alleviated.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
17. The incident in question occurred in the year 2015.
At the time of the incident, the accused was approximately 20
years of age. The case made out by the prosecution does not
suggest any prior preparation or premeditated motive behind
the act. On the contrary, the incident appears to have arisen
out of mutual provocation. While the accused has been rightly
convicted for the offences proved, the Court is required to
balance the interest of justice with the potential hardship that
may be caused if the accused is subjected to incarceration. It
has also been submitted that subsequent to the incident, the
accused and PW3 have maintained a cordial relationship, being
neighbours. The learned Additional Government Advocate has
fairly submitted that this is the only case in which the accused
has been involved and that he has no criminal antecedents.
18. Having regard to the above peculiar facts and
circumstances, including the age of the accused at the time of
the incident, the absence of any prior criminal record, the
passage of time, and the present societal and familial
responsibilities of the accused, this Court is of the view that a
lenient approach is warranted. In the interest of justice, the
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
sentence of imprisonment is accordingly modified to one of
fine. Further offence under Section 324 of IPC attracts
imprisonment or fine or both. In the facts of the case, the
sentence of imprisonment can be modified/substituted with
payment of fine.
19. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order in Crl.A.No.5003/2020 dated
30.11.2021 is upheld to the extent of convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC. However, sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months is modified to payment of fine of
Rs.50,000/-.
(iii) The fine amount shall be deposited within a
period of six weeks before the trial Court.
(iv) In default of fine, revision petitioner shall
undergo imprisonment for a period of six
months.
(v) The trial Court shall release the fine amount in
favour of the victim/injured viz., Puttappa
Shettar electronically on due identification.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7909
CRL.RP No. 100024 of 2022
HC-KAR
(vi) Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Registry to return the trial Court records along with a
copy of this order for compliance.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
CLK
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21