1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.673/2012

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI RAMESH

S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/AT V.MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

NONAVINA KERE HOBLI,

TIPTUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

2.

SRI NATARAJU

S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/AT BILIGERE VILLAGE,

KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI,

TIPTUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

3.

SHIVALINGAPPA

S/O NANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/AT V.MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,

2

TIPTUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

4.

SMT MAHADEVAMMA

W/O SRI RAMESH,

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

R/AT V.MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

NONAVINA KERE HOBLI,

TIPTUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W

MS. VAIBHAVI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY NONAVINAKERE POLICE ,

TIPTUR TALUK,TUMKUR DISTRICT

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLICPROSECUTOR

OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING

BANGALORE-560001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V. S. VINAYAKA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DATED 25.06.2012 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.4/2011 PASSED BY

P.O., F.T.C., TIPTUR AND ALSO THAT OF THE JUDGMENT

AND ORDER AND SENTENCE DATED 22.12.2010 IN

C.C.NO.722/2008 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE &

J.M.F.C., TIPTUR.

3

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Heard Sri. D. L. Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel

along with Ms. Vaibhavi, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioners and Sri. V. S. Vinayaka, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent and

perused the records.

2.

This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioners/accused persons challenging the order passed

in C.C. No.722/2008 dated 22.12.2010 passed by the

Court of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC at Tiptur

whereby the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have

been convicted for the offence punishable under Section

326 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4

are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324

read with Section 34 of IPC and all the accused were

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504

and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced

4

to undergo imprisonment and fine, which was confirmed in

Crl.A. No.04/2011 by order dated 25.06.2012.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Upon the complaint lodged by Nanjamari S/o.

Mahalingappa about the pathway to reach a garden land,

police registered a case against the accused persons.

Thereafter, investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet

before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused

persons. Learned Magistrate framed the charges. The

accused persons pleaded not guilty and the trial was held.

4.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

the prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7

and relied on the documentary evidences, which were

exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Thereafter,

accused statement, as contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate wherein,

the accused persons denied all the incriminating materials.

There was no defence evidence adduced. Thereafter,

learned Magistrate heard the matter and taking note of the

5

material evidence on record convicted the accused Nos.1

and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read

with Section 34 of IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 are

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324

read with Section 34 of IPC and all the accused were

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 504

and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused

persons prefe