Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1277 (KAR)

Jaarthab S/o Akram Khan v. State of Karnataka

2025-11-19

VENKATESH NAIK T.

body2025
ORDER : 1. Criminal Revision Petition No.357 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1, Criminal Revision Petition No.631 of 2017 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 4, and Criminal Revision Petition No.822 of 2018 is filed by accused No.3 to set aside the judgment and order dated 1-2-2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 and to confirm the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alur, Hassan, in Criminal Case No.521 of 2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 3, respectively and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Accused Nos.1 to 4 joined together to commit house breaking of PW1. On 12-11-2013 at about 01.30 to 02.00 p.m., they broke open the back door of the first informant's house and they illegally trespassed into his house and committed the offence of theft by stealing gold ornaments and cash, which led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation. 4. The Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). 5. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.1 to 4 and framed charges for the alleged offences, for which, they pleaded guilty. The trial Court recorded the conviction on pleading guilty and acting under Section 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months for both the offences and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Questioning the inadequacy of the sentence being passed by the trial Court, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 before the First Appellate Court. 6. Questioning the inadequacy of the sentence being passed by the trial Court, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the criminal appeal and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the IPC with default sentences. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner(s)/accused Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court while appreciating the law erroneously held that accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed an application for plea bargaining. However, no such application had been filed by them before the trial Court and they have pleaded guilty in order to reform themselves and accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to convict them under Section 241 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner(s) filed these revision petitions. 8. The "scope of revision" refers to the limited authority of a higher Court to review judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, focusing on correcting errors in jurisdiction or gross legal/factual flaws rather than re- examining the merits of the case. This power is exercised sparingly and is intended to set right a patent defect, not to function as an automatic second appeal. The specific grounds and limitations vary between civil and criminal proceedings. Revisions can address situations where the decision is grossly inaccurate, not supported by evidence, or where relevant evidence was ignored. The review is not a fresh trial. Courts are generally barred from re-examining evidence or substituting their own judgment for the lower Court's on matters of fact unless the findings are demonstrably perverse or arbitrary. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the applicability and scope of revision in various decisions, which are highlighted hereunder: A. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNNA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER, ( 2001) 9 SCC 631 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. at paragraph No.3 has held as under: "3. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the applicability and scope of revision in various decisions, which are highlighted hereunder: A. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNNA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER, ( 2001) 9 SCC 631 while discussing the scope of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. at paragraph No.3 has held as under: "3. xxx xxx xxx The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." B. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. R. SOUNDIRARASU AND OTHERS, (2023) 6 SCC 768 at paragraph No.79 has held as under: "79. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." C. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR, (2008) 9 SCC 475 at paragraph No.16 has held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure." C. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR, (2008) 9 SCC 475 at paragraph No.16 has held as under: "16. xxx xxx xxx Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular court of appeal." Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 9. Admittedly, the State is at liberty to file an appeal before the First Appellate Court to challenge the inadequacy or legality of the sentence. In the instant cases, these accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC. Section 454 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Similarly, Section 380 of the IPC shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. 10. The object of imposing the sentence is not only to deter the accused from being committed similar offences, but also to reform them. Once the accused have pleaded guilty, they had no opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the witness. In these cases, the First Appellate Court, relying on various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, came to the conclusion that these accused have committed heinous offence. In a case where the accused faced full-fledged trial and convicted for the offences, which they have been charged, the trial Court would impose reasonable punishments, which is certainly justified. Whereas, if the accused have pleaded guilty, a lenient view must necessarily be given. Therefore, the reformative theory cannot be ignored while imposing the sentence. The object of enacting the reformative theory has to be considered, where ever the accused pleaded guilty to the charges. In the instant cases, the trial Court, while convicting these accused on plea of guilty, rightly sentenced them to undergo nine months imprisonment in respect of the alleged offences, as these accused had completed nine months imprisonment in the prison. 11. In the instant cases, the trial Court, while convicting these accused on plea of guilty, rightly sentenced them to undergo nine months imprisonment in respect of the alleged offences, as these accused had completed nine months imprisonment in the prison. 11. Having considered the nature of the offences and guilty pleaded by these accused, the sentence passed by the trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 4 is reasonable and no interference is called for. 12. Insofar as imposition of fine by the First Appellate Court is concerned, under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, there is a provision to impose penalty of fine and which is mandatory in nature. The First Appellate Court imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC and Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the IPC, which is in accordance with law. 13. Admittedly, the prosecution has not produced any antecedents of these accused either before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. In the absence of any antecedents of these accused, imposing a maximum sentence may not be appropriate. Therefore, the act of imposing the maximum sentence by the First Appellate Court is not justified and the same deserves to be modified. 14. In the light of the observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that these criminal revision petitions deserve to be partly allowed. Hence, I pass the following ORDER : i) The criminal revision petitions are partly allowed. ii) The judgment and order dated 1-2-2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2015, is hereby modified. The petitioner(s)/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall deposit fine of Rs.2,000/- each and Rs.3,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively. iii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16-4-2015 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alur, Hassan, in Criminal Case No.521 of 2014, is hereby confirmed. iv) It is made clear that deposit of fine amount is a condition precedent for release of the petitioner(s)/accused Nos.1 to 4 from the Prison. In view of the disposal of the revision petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.