Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ashokappa S/O Bheemappa Barki on 13 September, 2022
Bench: G Basavaraja
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100089 OF 2017 (397-)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HAVERI POLICE STATION
THROUGH ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
O/O THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
AND:
1. ASHOKAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA BARKI
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
2. KUBERAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA BARKI
AGE:39 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
3. CHANDRAPPA S/O LENKAPPA BARKI
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
4. CHANDRU S/O BHEEMAPPA BARKI
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
5. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LEKAPPA BARRKI
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
6. BEEMAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA BARKI
AGE:81 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
7. SIDDAPPA S/O LENKAPPA BARKI
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK
R/O NADINIRALAGI
SAVANUR TALUK
DIST:HAVERI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M B GUNDAWADE FOR R1-R5,R7.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2013 DATED 18.07.2016 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND TO CONFIRM
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.2013 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR IN C.C.NO. 20 OF 2011.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONER IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed under Sections 397
R/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. 1973, seeking to set aside the order
passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013, dated 18.07.2016 by
allowing this criminal Revision Petition and to confirm the
judgment and order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Civil
Judge and JMFC, Savanur in C.C.No. 20 of 2011.
2. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is
retained for the convenience of this Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on
22/11/2010 at about 7.30 a.m. at Nadiniralagi village, in
front of the complainant's house, the accused persons
formed an unlawful assembly and picked up quarrel with
CW.1 with a common object and assaulted C.Ws.1, 5
and 6 by bare hands and caused grievous hurt to CW.5
by means of stone and further, the accused persons
abused the complainant in a filthy language. The
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
accused persons caused criminal intimidation to the
complainant. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the
complaint before CW.10 and on receipt of complaint,
investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against
the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of
IPC. Charges were framed by the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Savanur, the accused appeared before the learned
Magistrate and they pleaded not guilty and claim to be
tried.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all ten
witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and got
marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to 5, and also got
marked one material object as M.O.1. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused
persons totally denied the evidence appearing against
them, but they have not chosen to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf. On hearing the arguments on
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of IPC. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the
respondent/accused preferred Crl.A.No.57/2013 on the
file of the Prl. District and Session Judge, Haveri. During
the pendency of the appeal, complainant, CWs.4 to 6
and accused have filed an application under Section 320
and 320(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to
compound the offence on the ground that, both the
parties have advised by the elders in the village for
compromise the case and accordingly, accused have
decided to compound in good and mutual relationship
between the parties in the village. The appellate Court,
without considering the objections raised by the
prosecution, allowed the application filed by the
complainant and CWs.4 to 6 and permitted them to
compound the offence by altering the charges from 326
of IPC to 325 or 324 of IPC. After altering of charges
only, the learned District and Sessions Judge has
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
allowed the compromise petition filed by CW.1 and
CWs.4 to 6, and permitted to compound the case with
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC, accepted the compromise
petition and acquitted the accused under Section 320(8)
of Cr.P.C. from the said charges.
5. I have carefully examined the material placed
before this Court on perusal of the same, it is crystal
and clear that, the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Haveri has passed an order dated 18/7/2016, wherein,
at para 8 of the impugned judgment, learned Sessions
Judge has observed that, during the pendency of the
appeal, the accused filed application 216 of Cr.P.C. for
alteration of charges in respect of the offence alleged
under Section 326 of IPC to one under Section 325 or
324 of IPC, and by the reasoned order, the learned
District and Sessions Court has allowed the said
application on hearing both parties and charges for
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
modified, and in its place, charge under Section 325 of
IPC was inserted by alteration. The State has not
challenged the order passed by the learned Prl. District
and Sessions Judge as to the alteration of the charges,
which is altered as 325 of IPC. After alteration of the
charges, the Prl. District and Sessions Judge has allowed
the compromise petition filed by CWs.1, CWs.4 to 6 as
major offences punishable under Sections 325, 323,
504, 506 of IPC are compoundable in nature. At the
relevant point of time, the learned Sessions Judge has
passed this impugned order in accordance with law.
Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment
does not call for any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
CRL.RP No. 100089 of 2017
The registry is directed to send the records to the
Court below along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
