IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1066 of 2010 BETWEEN D. RAJAPPA, S/O. LATE DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADANAVALU VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF BADANAVALU POLICE STATION, BADANAVALU, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN S.C.No.177/2009-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF Rs.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT Both the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent with their respective parties filed a Joint compromise application in I.A.No.1/2019 under Section 320 read with 482 of Cr.P.C seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence.
Same is taken on record.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is accused before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Sessions Case No.177/2009, dated 14.09.2010 for having been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. Though, the charges were against the appellant and two other accused, but accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 341, 506, 114, 307 read with 34 of IPC. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for all the offences, except the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as stated supra.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal came to be filed before this Court challenging the legality of the judgment. However, at this stage the appellant and PW.2- B.M.Murthy, who is injured in the said case, filed joint compromise petition under Section 320 read with 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the age of the appellant is about 79 years and both the appellant and PW.2-injured have settled their dispute and in this regard they have also filed affidavit in respect of the amicable settlement of the dispute between them. PW.2 also submitted before the Court that there is no coercion or force to compound the offence from the side of the appellant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned High Court Government Pleader, no doubt the offence under Section 324 of IPC was previously compoundable and bailable offence, but subsequent to the amendment, Section 324 of IPC has been deleted from Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. However, in this regard, this Court wants to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhim Singh and others vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1744. In a similar situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court compounded the case in view of settling the matter between the parties amicably and has granted permission to compound the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No. CRLMP No.18630/2016 in Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, has allowed the parties to settle the matter and compound the offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order, has held as under:
“ 6. The short question which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence under Section 394 could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
7. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties.”
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the appellant, who is already 79 to 80 years and is said to have lost one of his eye-sight as well as he is depending upon his children to come to the Court and though the offence under Section 324 of IPC is not compoundable, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the background of the parties that the age of the appellant and the long pending of case for eleven years, it is deemed fit and proper to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and grant permission to the parties to compound the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
8. Accordingly, the application in I.A.No.1/2019 filed by the parties is allowed. Permission is granted. The offence is compounded. In view of compounding of the offence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Sessions Case No.177/2009, dated 14.09.2010 is hereby set aside. The bail bonds stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant after due identification.
Sd/- JUDGE mv