IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1 . SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2 . SRI THONTADAARYA S/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3 . SRI RUDRESHA S/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 4 . SRI DAYANDANDA S/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT AMMASANDRA VILLAGE TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572227 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI B G VIJAYAKUMARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DANDINASHIVARA POLICE STATION TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572227 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R D RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 AND 15.12.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., TIPTUR IN S.C. NO.10005/2013 – CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 114, 307, 326, 324, 506, 504, R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 15.12.2015 and sentence dated 15.12.2015 passed in S.C.No.10005/2013 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 324, 504, 506, 307, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 01.06.2018. The said memo has been signed by all the appellants and the complainants. The learned counsel therefore submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court may consider permitting the complainant and PW2 to compound the offences. It is however submitted that the offence i.e. Section 307 is non-compoundable. The learned counsel would place reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 896 and the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of H.B.Sathisha and another vs. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.247/2007 which was disposed on 22.08.2012.
3. The learned counsel, while taking this court through the case of Manjith Singh submitted that in that case too the appellants therein were convicted for the offence of 307 of I.P.C. which was non-compoundable. It was pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court took notice of the compromise entered into between the parties and sentence undergone by the appellants-accused and reduced the punishment from five years of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants-accused. The learned counsel however, pointed out from the case of H.B. Sathisha that it was also permissible for this Court to scale down the conviction from Section 307 of I.P.C. to Section 325 of I.P.C, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the compromise arrived at by the parties.
4. The complainant is present before the Court and consents for allowing the petition.
5. The learned H.C.G.P., on the other hand would submit that since Section 307 of I.P.C. is non- compoundable, the compromise petition may be rejected.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP, this Court is required to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the memo of compromise entered into between the parties, having regard to the findings given by the Trial Court and thereafter the reasons assigned by the Trial Court with regard to the guilt insofar as Section 307 of I.P.C. is concerned. In that regard, this Court has gone through the impugned order and finds that it is an undisputed fact that on 23.08.2012 at 4.30 p.m. when the complainant and PW2 were grazing the buffaloes in the coconut grove and plucking coconuts, the accused-appellants picked up a quarrel and abused the complainants in filthy language. Further, the accused assaulted the husband of the complainant, caused hurt to the complainant and further attacked them with clubs, cycle chain and sickle causing grievous injuries.
7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, if the intention of the appellants- accused persons were to kill the two persons then easily they would have committed the act of murder. The other important aspect is that both the parties are close blood relatives and there was a dispute between the parties with respect to immovable properties. The parties have come forward to settle the matter and have executed the memo.
8. The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 and the complainants who have executed the memo are present before this Court. In the light of the above, this Court deems it fit to reduce the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. to Section 325 of I.P.C. since the material on record would indicate that there was no intention to commit murder. This Court is satisfied that the offences and the overacts of the appellants would fall within the mischief of Section 325 of I.P.C., and accordingly their conviction for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside.
9. As a result, the memo is accepted and the same is allowed. The complainant is permitted to compound the offence punishable under Sections 114, 324, 504, 506, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
10. In view of compounding of offence, it shall have the effect of acquittal of all the appellants- accused as permissible since a memo is filed by the parties. The appeal is disposed of in terms of this order.
11. The Trial Court had imposed fine and directed the appellants-accused to deposit fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each while sentencing them under Section 114 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, fine of Rs.2,000/- each for conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- each for offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the appellants-accused would submit that the fine amount as directed by the Trial Court has been deposited by the appellants-accused.
12. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that in addition, a sum of Rs.2,000/- each shall be deposited by the appellants-accused which shall enure to the benefit of the complainant as well as PW-2 and further sum of Rs.1,000/- each shall be deposited by them which shall be defrayed towards the cost of the State.
It is ordered accordingly.
The parties i.e., appellant-accused Nos.1 to 4 and the complainant and PW2 who are present before the Court shall sign the order sheet and the learned Counsels shall identify the same.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-