The court has the discretion to modify a sentence imposed by a lower court if it finds that the lower court erred in not considering relevant factors, such as the provisions of the P.O. Act.

This revision petition is filed by the accused-revision

petitioners under Section 397 R/w 401 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, hereafter referred to as ‘IPC’)

challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the learned

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Jamakhandi in C.C.No.17/2011

dated

16.11.2012

whereby

the

learned

Magistrate

has

convicted the accused-revision petitioners herein for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 354 R/w

Section 34 of IPC which was confirmed by the learned I

Additional District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot sitting at

Jamakhandi in Crl.A.No.136/2012 dated 22.06.2016.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the

Trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that,

on 03.12.2010 in the afternoon the complainant and her sister-

in-law had been to the canal on Mudhol Road to wash the

cloths. At about 4.30 p.m. the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2

- 3 -

came there and started enquiring about the name of the

complainant and her address etc., When, the complainant

objected for all these details and questioned the reasons for

getting such an information. Then the accused abused her in

filthy language, pulled her sari and hair and tried to outrage

her modesty. In the said process, accused No.2 also kicked her

near the stomach and also assaulted her by hands on the cheek

and chest. When Kasturi tired to intervene, she was also

assaulted. The victims then returned to the home and after

informing in-laws and after arrival of the husband of

complainant, who had been to Guddapur village, lodged a

complaint on the next day. On the basis of the complaint, the

investigating officer investigated the crime and submitted the

charge sheet. After submission of the charge sheet, as there

are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the

cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused

were initially arrested and were later on enlarged on bail. The

prosecution papers were also furnished to the accused. After

hearing the arguments, the charge was framed against them

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 R/w

Section 34 of IPC and accused pleaded not guilty.

- 4 -

4.

To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has

examined in all 8 witnesses as PW1 to 8 and also placed

reliance on 6 documents marked as Ex.P1 to 6. After the

conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of

the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable

the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing

against the accused in the case of the prosecution and the case

of accused is of total denial. However, one witness was

examined as DW.1 on behalf of accused as a defence witness.

5.

After hearing the arguments and perusing the

records, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused-

revision petitioners herein for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 504 354 R/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced

them to imprisonment as well as fine. Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision

petitioners have approached the learned I Additional District

and Sessions Judge sitting at Jamakhandi, Bagalkot JMFC., in

Crl.A.No.136/2012. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected

the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence.

- 5 -

6.

Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, this

revision is filed.

7.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioners and learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the

records.

8.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners

would contend that, both the Courts below have not property

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and the

defence of the accused was not at all considered. It is also

conceded that, no reasons were given for not considering the

provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short,

h