Karnataka High Court
Marigowda vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 415 OF 2017
IN CRL.RP No. 454/2017
BETWEEN:
1. KEMPEGOWDA
S/O MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/OF TB BADAVANE,
NAGAMANGALA-571432
2. SHIVALINGAIAH
Digitally signed S/O MARIYAPPA,
by SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH R/OF TB BADAVANE,
COURT OF NAGAMANGALA-571432
KARNATAKA
3. BASAVEGOWDA
S/O CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O MUDALKOPPALU VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
4. SATISH
S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O HARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
5. RANGASWAMY
S/O SRINIVAS SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/O K.MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
6. SRINIVASA
S/O ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
7. DEVARAJA
S/O ADITER DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O TUPPASDAMADU VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
8. RUDRESH
S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O TOTALI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
9. SATHISH @ AUTO SURESHA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/O TOTALI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
10. BOMBAYSURI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
S/O SATHYA,
R/O TUOOADAMADU VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
11. KUMAR @ CHANNEGOWDA
S/O CHANDAPPA,
SAREMEGALAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
12. MALLESH
S/O CHANNAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O UPPARALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
13. RAJEGOWDA
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O KELGAGUND VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571432
MANDYA DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE-571432
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION FILED U/S.397 R/W
401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. S.J., MANDYA IN
CRL.A.NO.23/2014 AND 28/2014 DATED 21.02.2017
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA IN C.C.NO.805/2003
DATED 30.06.2014 CONVICTING THE
PETITIONERS/ACUSED AND SENTENCING THEM TO ONE
YEAR IMPRISONMENT FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 143,147,148,
341, 323, 427, 332, 506(2) R/W 149 OF IPC AND TO
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED
AGAINST THEM.
IN CRL.RP NO. 415/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MARIGOWDA
S/O. LATE. BENNE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT BOMANNAHALLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571432
2. RAVI @ RAVI KANTHE GOWDA
S/O. GANGADHARA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
KARIGERE VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571432
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. TEJASWINI V., ADVOCATE FOR
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.REVISION PETITION FILED U/S.397 R/W
401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143,147,148,341, 323,332,427,506(2) R/W 149 OF
IPC IN C.C.NO.805/2003 DATED 30.06.2014 ON THE
FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NAGAMANGALA
AND CRL.A.NO.27/2014 DATED 21.02.2017 ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND THE
PETITIONERS MAY BE ACQUITTED.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the
revision petitioners in Crl.RP.No.454/2017, Ms. Tejaswini,
learned counsel for the revision petitioners in
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
Crl.RP.No.415/2017 and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned
HCGP for the respondent in both the matters.
2. These two revision petitions arise out of the
order of conviction recorded in C.C.No.805/2003
confirmed in Criminal Appeal Nos.23/2014, 27/2014 and
28/2014.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost
necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions are
as under:
A charge sheet came to be filed by Nagamangala
Rural Police against the revision petitioners and others for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
4. The gist of the charge sheet material would
include that in respect of a President and Vice-President
election of Haradanahalli Village, all the accused persons
formed an unlawful assembly and hijacked the election
process and pelted stones. When the election was
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
postponed by the returning officer, they got enraged
further and attacked the returning officer, they damaged
the government jeep and also gave the returning officer a
life threat.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was
taken and presence of the accused persons was secured
before the Trial Magistrate and a plea was recorded. The
accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
6. After due trial, the learned Trial Judge convicted
the accused for the aforesaid offences and for the offence
under Section 332 of IPC, imposing one year of simple
imprisonment, and for other offences also imposed a fine
and imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
7. Being agreed by the same, three appeals came
to be filed as referred to supra.
8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
and by impugned common judgment dated 21.02.2017
dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons and
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused
Nos.1 to 15 have preferred the above revision petitions.
During the pendency of these revision petitions, Accused
Nos.3 and 14 have died.
10. Sri Bipin Hegde and Ms. Tejaswini, learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petitions, vehemently
contended that no injury has been caused to the returning
officer by pelting the stones as is propounded by the
prosecution.
11. Further, they would contend that even
according to the prosecution, the incident has occurred
after declaring that the election is postponed and coming
out of the office, and therefore, the main ingredients to
attract the offence under Section 332 of IPC that a
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
government servant was prevented from discharging his
official work, get into insignificance. Therefore, the main
offence for which one year imprisonment is ordered by
Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court
needs to be set aside by imposing the fine.
12. Per contra, Sri Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP
supports the interim judgment.
13. He would further contend that the revision
petitioners took the law into their hands and pelted stones
on the government jeep and restrained from moving
further. This itself shows that the ingredients of all the
offences are against the revision petitioners, which stands
established with cogent and convincing evidence on
record, and having regard to the scope of the revision, this
Court cannot revisit into the order of conviction and
sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
15. On such a perusal of the material on record, the
presence and participation of the accused persons in the
incident are established by placing necessary material
evidence on record.
16. Though there is slight force in the argument put
forth on behalf of the revision petitioners that offence per
se under Section 332 of IPC cannot be held to be proved.
But while returning to his office, hijacking the returning
officer when he was proceeding in the official jeep itself
would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of
the offence under Section 332 of IPC. Therefore,
contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners,
cannot be countenanced in law that too in the limited
revisional jurisdiction.
17. Having said so, taking note of an isolated
incident that has occurred in the year 2001 and 25 years
have lapsed from the date of the incident that has
occurred and the revision petitioners not having any
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
criminal antecedents, if the conviction is maintained and
sentence is modified from directing the petitioners to
undergo simple imprisonment for a day by asking them to
pay the enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/-
each for the proved offences, the ends of justice would be
met.
18. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i) Revision petitions are allowed in part
ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 341, 332, 323, 427 and 506(2) r/w
Section 149 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the
Trial Magistrate which was confirmed by the
First Appellate Court is thereby modified by
directing the revision petitioners to undergo
simple imprisonment for the day till the rising
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14256
CRL.RP No. 454 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 415 of 2017
HC-KAR
of the Court and to pay the enhanced fine
amount on or before 31.03.2026.
iii) If the petitioners fail to pay the enhanced fine
amount on or before 31.03.2026, they shall
undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial
Magistrate which was confirmed by the First
Appellate Court.
iv) Office is directed to return the trial Court
records with a copy of this order forthwith for
issue of a modified conviction order.
SD/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50