K C Mahesh vs State By Periyapatna Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 6966 Kant

                               1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE:

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.661 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

K.C. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA,
R/AT KIRANGURU VILLAGE,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
PIN CODE 571107.                             ...   APPELLANT

[BY SRI. UDAYA FOR SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE]

AND:

STATE BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE,
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU-560 001.                           ...   RESPONDENT

[BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP]

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2017
PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR IN S.C. NO.221/2015 -CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELILVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the accused against judgment and

order dated 23.03.2017 passed in S.C.No.221/2015 on the file of

the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Mysuru

sitting at Hunsur.

2. Accused was charged for an offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC. Vide impugned judgment, the learned

Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the alleged act of

the accused will not attract provisions of Section 307 of IPC,

however, it attracts provisions of Section 324 of IPC. Hence, the

accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section

324 of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand only) in default of paying fine, to further undergo simple

imprisonment for 15 days.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant and

learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on

record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an

application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of IPC and a

joint memo signed by both accused/appellant as well as

complainant/injured. He has also filed an affidavit of the

complainant. It is submitted by him that the complainant and the

accused are own brothers. The incident has occurred on account

of a dispute in respect of the family property. Now both of them

have patched up their differences and amicably settled their

disputes. He submits that complainant wants to withdraw all the

allegations and both the parties want to live peacefully.

5. The accused/appellant and complainant/victim are

present before the Court. They submit that they are full brothers

and they have settled all the disputes and they want to live

peacefully. The complainant submits that he wants to compound

the offence and does not wish to precipitate the matter.

6. Case of the prosecution is that, on account of a

dispute with regard to partition of property belonging to their

father, accused used to quarrel with the complainant/PW-3 asking

for share in the property. In this regard panchayats were held in

the village and villagers advised the accused to give share to his

brother namely, PW-3. Hence, there was ill-will. On 07.01.2015 in

the morning at around 11:30 a.m., when the accused was doing

pipeline work in the land, the complainant went and objected him

for doing the work and reminded him about the decision taken in

the panchayat. Enraged by the same, accused picked up quarrel

with him and assaulted him on his head with a chopper and

caused injuries to him.

7. PW-8 is the doctor who has treated PW-3 and issued

wound certificate as per Ex.P.6. The wound certificate shows that

the injured suffered lacerated wound over the right side forehead

measuring 5 cm x 1/2 cm, lacerated wound over the right side of

the scalp measuring 5 cm x 1/2 cm and tenderness over the right

arm mid part. Evidence of PW-3 namely injured as well as

evidence of PW-1, the eye-witness to the incident, go to show that

when the accused was working in the land, PW-3 went and

objected and at that time a sudden quarrel took place and the

accused hit him on his head with the chopper which was in his

hand. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P.6 are stated to be simple in

nature. It is submitted that accused was in custody during trial for

a period of one month.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in RAMGOPAL AND

ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2021

SCC online SC 834 has observed that criminal proceedings

involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are

predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled, irrespective of

the fact that trial has already been concluded. The cases where

compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to

exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the

circumstances surrounding the incident, passion in which the

compromise has been arrived at and with due regard to the

nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the

accused, before and after the incident.

9. Considering the joint memo filed in this case and

considering the facts and circumstances, since the parties are

closely related and they have amicably settled their dispute,

wherein it is stated that even the civil case has been

compromised, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to

invoke the inherent jurisdiction and to allow the appeal.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 23.03.2017 passed

by the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Mysuru sitting at Hunsur in S.C. No. 221/2015 is hereby set aside.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK