IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1118 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

1. BASAVARAJA S/O. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS COOLIE WORKER.

2. SURESHA S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS COOLIE.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT YEREHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 245.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA STATE BY HOSAMANE SHIVAJI Location: High Court of Karnataka CIRCLE POLICE STATION BHADRAVATHI REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, H.C.G.P.)

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5-12-2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BHADRAVATHI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.2234 OF 2013 AND CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5035 OF 2016 DATED 7-9-2018.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Vishwanath R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, and Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 5-12-2016 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadravathi, (for short, 'trial Court'), in Criminal Case No.2234 of 2013, which is confirmed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi (for short, 'First Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No.5035 of 2016 dated 7-9-2018.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 5-12-2012 around 2:30 p.m., while PW1/victim was working in the agricultural land bearing Survey No.20/21 situated at Mosaralli Village of Bhadravathi Taluk, accused Nos.1 and 2 took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, outraged her modesty, assaulted her with sickle and also made criminal intimidation and threatened her with dire consequences. Thus, her oral statement was recorded, which led to registration of an First Information Report and investigation.

5. Soon after registration of the charge-sheet, the trial Court secured the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, took cognizance, framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 354, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.5035 of 2016 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective. The Courts below have totally ignored the bristling inconsistencies and improvements in the evidence of PW1, who is an injured witness. Further, the Courts below have