IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

• 1 -

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 568 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE HUNSUR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

• 1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O. MAHADEVA SHETTY, D.NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR - 571 105.
• 2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O. MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, DO.NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR - 571 105.
• 3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O.LATE. KCP CHENNAPPA, C/O. SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR- 571 105.

NC: 2025:KHC:17524 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2018

4. G. SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O. GANGARAM RAO, TEMPO TRAVELS DRIVER, NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENSION, HUNSUR - 571 105.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. S.R. HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.48/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNUSR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

NC: 2025:KHC:17524 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2018

ORAL ORDER

The State has challenged the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.48/2015 dated 09.10.2017 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.1156/2014 dated 02.12.2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').

2. The factual matrix of the case is that:

On 17.08.2010 in the night hours, the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 4 committed lurking house trespass by breaking open the lock of the Government School situated at Hosapenjalli village and committed theft of gas cylinders. Hence, a complaint has been lodged by the Head Master of the said School on 18.08.2010 before Hunsur Rural Police Station as per Ex.P1 against unknown persons. On the strength of Ex.P1, FIR came to be registered against unknown persons in crime No.336/2010 dated 18.08.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The

• 3 -

accused were arrested in some other case and produced under body warrant before the trial Court. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences.

3. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 before the trial Court. In the meantime, the accused filed an application under Section 241 of Cr.P.C. and pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate, by recording the plea and considering the aspect that the accused were in custody for a period of nearly one year, allowed the application and sentenced them for the period they were already undergone i.e., seven months for the offence punishable under Section 457 r/w 34 of IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 34 of IPC and also imposed fine of Rs.100/- each, respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Further, directed both the sentences shall run concurrently. The said judgment was challenged by the State before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.48/2015 on the ground of inadequate sentence

• 4 -

imposed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

4. I have heard Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the appellant-State, Sri N. Shankara Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri S.R.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned HCGP for the appellant contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while imposing a flea-bite sentence to the accused i.e., for a period of seven and six months, respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC despite provided a maximum sentence of fourteen years for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and seven years for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. He further contended that the Courts below also erred while allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 241 of Cr.P.C. after completing the evidence of six witnesses. With these two grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the well reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that Section 241 of Cr.P.C., can be invoked by the accused at any time before pronouncing the judgment. Further, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court also considered that the accused were in custody in some other case and they were already undergone three to four years of imprisonment. In the instant case, the accused have undergone imprisonment nearly for one year. In such circumstance, the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for a period of seven and six months, respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, which was rightly confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, interference does not call for at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties and the documents placed before me.

8. It could be gathered from records, a complaint was lodged against unknown persons in the year 2010 and subsequently, these accused were arrested in some other crime and they were brought under body warrant and based on their voluntary statements implicated them in the present crime. Thereafter, a trial was conducted against the accused before the learned Magistrate. Though some of the witnesses were examined before the trial Court, the accused filed application under Section 241 of Cr.P.C. pleading guilty. Learned Magistrate, by considering the aspect that the accused have already undergone custody in some other case and particularly, almost one year imprisonment in the instant case, allowed the application and sentenced them to undergo seven months for the offence punishable under Section 457 r/w 34 of IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 34 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for both the offences. While allowing the application, learned Magistrate has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in

the case of Santhosh vs. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (2) Crimes 141, wherein it held that when the guilt is admitted by the accused and admission is found to be voluntary, there is no reason why Court should not allow him to withdrawn his claim to be tried and plead guilty. The First Appellate Court also, after meticulously considering the entire aspect, held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the trial Court i.e., learned Magistrate is just and proper. I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Accordingly, the revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23