Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA
Prakash S/O Gundurao Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Smt. Hema L. K., Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, H.C.G.P., for the respondent- State.
2. These three revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.5, 1 and 3, respectively in C.C.No.4300/2011 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi.
3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the above revision petitions are as under:
Upon the charge-sheet filed by Brampur Police, in respect of Crime No.157/2010 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and after due trial, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 for the offence under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 468 and six months for the offence under Section 465 and 471 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- each to the aforesaid offences with default sentence.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.84/2018, 83/2018 and 86/2018, respectively.
First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The court emphasized that sentences imposed on guilty pleas should consider reformative justice, prioritizing leniency unless serious prior conduct is evidenced.
The revisional jurisdiction is distinct from appellate power; it allows intervention only when there's a gross miscarriage of justice, confirming convictions for crimes like trespass and assault.
The appellate court's power to modify sentences must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it, and the fine imposed should not exceed the jurisdi....
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.
The court upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.
The court clarified roles of individual defendants in an assault case, affirming different charges and penalties for each based on evidence of participation.
The court upheld convictions for theft while modifying sentences based on the right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The appellate court erred by remitting the matter for probation instead of granting it directly, as it had the jurisdiction to do so under the law.
The court considered the revisionist's personal circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentence under sections 380 and 411 IPC.
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
