Karnataka High Court

B.C.Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka By The on 1 October, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                           -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:41124
                                                     CRL.A No. 748 of 2013




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2013
                BETWEEN:

                1.    B.C.NAGESH
                      S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA,
                      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                      R/O RAMPURA GRAMA,
                      MARALAVADI HOBLI,
                      KANAKAPURA TALUK,
                      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMAULI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                    SRI. K A CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE
                      POLICE OF HAROHALLI POLICE STATION,
Digitally             RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.
signed by                                                   ...RESPONDENT
LAKSHMI T       (BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP;
Location:       SRI. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR PW-2 (INJURED)
High Court of
Karnataka            THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING SET
                ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
                25.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & S.J.,
                RAMANAGARA AT KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DIST. IN
                S.C.NO.130/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
                FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC.


                     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
                DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:41124
                                         CRL.A No. 748 of 2013




CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal preferred by accused No.1 is directed

against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 passed

by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Court,

Ramanagara at Kanakapura in S.C.No.130/2011, wherein

appellant/accused No.1 has been found guilty and

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of

IPC.

2. It is alleged that on 11.01.2010 at about 10.00

a.m., at Janatha Colony of Gattalu of Rampura Village, on

account of previous enmity, accused Nos.1 to 4, with a

common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW.6 -

R.V.Ramachandraiah by means of Kudulu and also

assaulted with a club and accused No.1 assaulted

R.V.Krishnamurthy (PW.2) with a crowbar and thereby

committed offences punishable under Section 324, 307

r/w 34 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

3. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned

judgment was pleased to acquit accused Nos.1 to 4 of the

offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and

accused Nos.2 to 4 of the offence punishable under

Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC, however, found accused

No.1/appellant herein guilty of the offence punishable

under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-,

in default to pay the fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of 1

year.

4. The prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses

and got marked 14 documents and MOs.1 to 3. On behalf

of the defence Exs.D1 and D2, portion of the statement of

PW.4 were marked.

5. As against the acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4 is

concerned, the findings recorded by the trial Court has

become final, as the State has not challenged the same.

6. The trial Court has mainly taken into

consideration the evidence of the injured namely PWs.2

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

and 6 and also the medical evidence, to convict accused

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

It is observed that the prosecution has not proved that

accused Nos.2 and 4 with previous enmity voluntarily

caused hurt to Ramachandra (PW.6) and accused No.3

assaulted him by club on his back. It is held the

prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.2 to 4

with a common intention attempted to commit the murder

of Krishnamurthy (PW.2).

7. To convict accused No.1 for the offence under

Section 307 of IPC, the trial Court has come to the

conclusion that he has assaulted on the head of

R.V.Krishnamurthy with a crowbar with an intention to kill

him.

8. To appreciate the case of prosecution, it is

necessary to examine the testimony of two injured namely

PWs.2 and 6 and the medical evidence.

9. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 goes to show

that initially the quarrel took place between his brother

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

PW.6 and accused No.2 and he tried to pacify the said

quarrel. At that time, accused No.1 came on a

motorcycle. Once again some verbal conversation took

place between accused No.1 and PW.2 and at that time

accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted on the head of

PW.2. The injured/PW.2 was shifted to Harohalli Hospital

and then to BGS Hospital for treatment.

10. The evidence of PW.6 would also reveal that

initially the quarrel took place between himself and

accused No.2 and the present appellant i.e., accused No.1

came subsequently and alleged to have assaulted on the

head of PW.2.

11. From the above evidence on record, it is clear

that the incident took place in a quarrel and both the

witnesses have stated that accused No.1 has assaulted

once on the head of PW.2 with a crowbar. If the appellant

had any intention to take away the life of PW.2, then he

would have inflicted more blows, whereas, he admittedly

gave one blow, though on the vital part of the body of

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

PW.2. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be

said that the appellant had an intention to take away the

life of PW.2.

12. The next question is as to whether the offence

committed by the appellant/accused No.1 would attract

the ingredients of 326 or 324 of IPC.

13. PWs.14 and 18 are the medical officers, who

have treated the injured, PW.2. PW.14 was working at

Harohalli Government Hospital at the relevant time. He

has stated that on 11.01.2010 injured R.V.Krishnamurthy

was brought to the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., with the

history of assault which took place at 11.30 a.m. They

noticed one injury on the left side of his head measuring

about 8 x 6 cm. He has noticed one external injury. He

issued the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P6.

14. PW.18 is the Doctor who treated the

injured/PW.2 at BGS Global Hospital. He has stated that

the injured had sustained about four injuries and injury

No.1 was a cut lacerated wound on the head. He noticed

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

swelling on the left eye lid and left ear. According to him,

the frontal bone was fractured and therefore, he opined

that injuries Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. He has

issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P14.

15. Injury No.2, mentioned by PW.18 is obviously

the corresponding injury to injury No.1. The witnesses

have categorically stated that accused No.1 gave only one

blow.

16. PW.18 has given opinion regarding the nature

of injury on the basis of the X-ray report. He has stated

that there was a fracture of frontal bone. In the cross-

examination he has stated that they had taken the X-ray.

However, the prosecution has failed to produce the X-ray.

The oral evidence of PW.18 is not supported by any

documentary evidence. Further, PW.2 the injured himself

has not deposed anywhere that he sustained fracture.

Further, neither PW.14 nor PW.18 have stated that the

injury sustained by PW.2 was dangerous to his life. Hence,

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of

Section 326 of IPC.

17. The material on record, particularly the

evidence of injured PW.2 coupled with the evidence of

PW.6 and the eye witnesses PWs.4 and 6 and the medical

evidence are sufficient to hold that the prosecution has

established the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1 for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

18. The learned counsel for appellant has filed an

application for compounding the offence. It is submitted

that the appellant and PW.2/injured in this case have

resolved all their disputes and they are living cordially in

the village and in view of the settlement arrived between

them, the injured has no objection to allow the appeal and

to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by

the trial Court. It is also submitted that the parties are

closely related to each other and they have entered into

compromise on their own will and volition, without any

threat or coercion by anybody.

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

19. Learned counsel Sri A.V.Ramakrishna has filed

vakalath on behalf of PW.2/injured namely

R.V.Krishnamurthy. Both the parties i.e., PW.2 and

accused No.1 are before the Court. They have submitted

that they have settled their dispute amicably and living

peacefully in their village. PW.2 - R.V.Krishnamurthy

submits that he has no objection to compound the

offence. The application is supported by an affidavit filed

by the injured/PW.2- R.V.Kirshnamurthy and the

appellant/accused No.1. Applications are signed by the

learned counsel for both sides.

20. This Court is of the considered view that the

settlement between the parties is bonafide. In

'Ramagopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh'

reported in 'AIR online 2021 SC 1356', the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that criminal proceedings involving

nonhenious offences or where the offences are

predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled

irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.

In cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the

High Court can exercise its discretion, 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.

21. Having regard to the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view

that this case fulfil the above conditions therefore, the

application filed for compounding the offence is accepted

and the same is allowed. Consequently, the following:

ORDER

Appeal is Allowed.

The judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 passed by

the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Court,

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41124

Ramanagara at Kanakapura, Ramanagara District in

S.C.No.130/2011 is hereby set aside.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

compensation of Rs.20,000/- ordered to be awarded to the

victim - R.V.Krishnamurthy and fine of Rs.5,000/- ordered

to be credited to the State is not disturbed.