Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Mohammad Ismail Yane Nanyabai S/o Abdul Raheem Sab - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 200058 of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of criminal conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's examination of the evidence. (Para 3 , 13) |
| 3. details on first appellate court judgment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments presented by the revision petitioner. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. state's position on appellate court's decision. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 6. factual events surrounding the incident. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. the court rigorously examined the evidence presented, emphasizing the reliance on witness credibility. (Para 19) |
| 8. legal reasoning regarding witness testimony. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. conclusion on double jeopardy and legal interpretation. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 10. court's stance on the necessity for interference. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 11. consideration of the accused's status and sentence adjustment. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 12. final order and directions given by the court. (Para 30) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.445/2014 dated 24.02.2020 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholi, for the offence punishable under Sections 186 , 189, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as under:
| Offence punishable under Section | Sentence | Fine | Default sentence |
| 186 | -- | Rs.500/- | Simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
| 189 | Six months simple imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 332 | Six months imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 353 | Simple imprisonment for 01 year | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 504 | -- | Rs.1,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 01 month. |
| 506 | -- | Rs.1,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 01 month. |
3. Validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.31/2020.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, by the judgment dated 15.01.2025 allowed the appeal in part and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 189 , 332, 353 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
5. State did not challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Therefore, it has become final.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders, accused is before this Court on the following grounds:
(1) That, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial judge is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.
(2) The reasons assigned by the learned trial judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous and as such he has slipped into an error and passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of revision petitioner.
(3) That, the one independent witness by name Mareppa was examined as PW.9. He totally turned hostile to the prosecution case where he failed to throw light upon the prosecution case.
(4) Furthermore, the prosecution got examined other independent witnesses as PW-1, 2, 4, 5, 11. They too turned hostile to the prosecution case.
(5) The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of PW-6, 7, 8 and PW-10 supported witnesses who are the interest witnesses to the prosecution and they are all the police constables of the same Police Station, where the complainant is deputed.
(6) That, the revision petitioner was the President of the Transport Owners Association and the Police were collecting illegal gratification, due to which the Police personal plotted the present case as against the revision petitioner.
(7) That, both the court below have erred in taking note of the fact that there
AI
The court clarified that overlapping charges under the IPC should not lead to double jeopardy, affirming convictions for serious offences while acquitting on lesser ones due to legal principles.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and not to be exercised lightly; it will not intervene unless clear errors in the law or significant injustices are evident.
First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Conviction under Section 504, 353, and 332 IPC upheld, with modifications to sentencing reflecting the merging of offences.
A revisional court shall not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice; conviction for assaulting public servants requires proof that the incide....
Amicable settlement between parties mitigates criminal liability under IPC.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The appellate court must demonstrate clear error or perversity in a trial court's acquittal to overturn it, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
