Allowed

B.C.Nagesh v. the State of Karnataka by the

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024CRL.A/748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal for compounding a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The court set aside the conviction but maintained the fine and compensation awarded, cancelling bail pending the settlement.

What did the court decide?

The conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside, the appeal for compounding was allowed, the fine and compensation were maintained, and the bail bond was cancelled.

B.C.Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka by the — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.C.NAGESH S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O RAMPURA GRAMA, MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMAULI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K A CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP; SRI. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR PW-2 (INJURED)

¶16

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.

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The trial Court has mainly taken into consideration the evidence of the injured namely PWs.2

¶28

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

¶29

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).

¶30

To convict accused No.1 for the offence under

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

that initially the quarrel took place between his brother

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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 crossexamination 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,

¶48

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

¶49

the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

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.2R.V.Kirshnamurthy and the appellant/accused No.1. Applications are signed by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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.

¶57

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:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Appeal is Allowed.

¶60

The judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Court,

¶61

11 -

¶62

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

¶63

Ramanagara at Kanakapura, Ramanagara District in

¶64

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

¶65

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.

¶66

The bail bond executed by the appellant stands

¶67

cancelled.

¶68

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

B.C.Nagesh v. the State of Karnataka by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.C.Nagesh v. the State of Karnataka by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Sanjeev Kumar Vs State

Mohammed Latheef @ Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Gulwady Alias Tinku Vs State by

Charan J S Vs State of Karnataka

Sharath Babu L S Vs Smt. Megha

Sri Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka