Karnataka High Court
Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
CRL.A No. 402 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC:COOLIE AND AGRICULTURIST
R/O MATTIGATTA VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.DAYANAND S PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING
SUMITHRA R BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI. B.LAKSHMAN., HCGP)
High Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2)CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 27.3.2012 PASSED IN S.C.NO.71/2011 BY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI,
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.326 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
CRL.A No. 402 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court at
Bhadravathi in SC No.71/2011.
2. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34
of IPC. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Sessions
Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC and
convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 326 IPC and acquitted accused No.2.
3. In this case, the complainant-injured is the
younger sister of accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the wife
of accused No.1. The case of the prosecution is that on
24.10.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. in front of complainant's
house, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with her and
assaulted on her right ear, right cheek and right side of
her neck with a chopper (MO1) with an intention to do
away with her life and caused grievous injuries to her.
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed
an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and affidavit of
the appellant/accused as well as the complainant/victim.
5. It is stated that the complainant/victim is none
other than the sister of the appellant/accused and the
victim is a spinster and presently she is being taken care
by the appellant himself. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the incident took
place on account of a trivial issue and the parties have
settled their dispute and they are living amicably.
6. In the affidavit filed by the complainant/victim
she has stated that her brother-appellant herein is taking
care of her and all the civil litigations are also withdrawn
and they have settled their dispute.
7. On 23.11.2023 the appellant as well as the
victim personally appeared before the Court. The victim
has stated that she has settled all the dispute with her
brother and she has been now looked after by her brother
appellant. It is also stated that she was given a sum of
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation as determined by the
elders of the family.
8. The material on record reveal that on
24.10.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant was
sitting in front of her house, both accused Nos.1 and 2
came and started quarrelling with her in connection with
the complainant chasing away some hens belonging to the
accused. Initially, accused No.2 started quarrelling with
her. At that time, accused No.1 i.e., the appellant herein
intervened and in the heat of moment he gave a blow to
the complainant with a chopper.
9. The parties are closely related to each other.
As per the statement of the complainant and the affidavits
filed, the parties are living amicably and they have settled
their disputes. The settlement appears to be genuine.
The complainant who is a spinster is being taken care of
by the appellant-brother.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court In Ramgopal and
another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
(2022) 14 SCC 531, has held that 'the 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 or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.
Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering
justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always
subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that
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, the fashion 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 incidence'.
11. Except the one incident which took place in the
year 2009, there is no other untoward incident which has
taken place prior to or subsequent to the said incident.
Dispute is private in nature. As already stated, the
NC: 2023:KHC:44753
incident in question has taken place on account of a trivial
issue. In view of the relationship between the parties and
the settlement between them, I am of the view that this
is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice, keeping in view the
observations made in Ramgopal's case (supra).
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned Judgment and Order dated
27.03.2012 passed by the Court of Fast Track Court at
Bhadravathi in SC No.71/2011 is set aside.
iii. The accused No.1/appellant is acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TL
