Ravindra Kumar Vs the State by Aldur Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State by Aldur Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of compromise; judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 in Spl.C. No.23/2011 set aside; appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act; bail bond, if any, cancelled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal against the conviction dated 28.10.2013 in Spl.C. No.23/2011 can be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the appellant and respondent No.2, per their joint application I.A No.2/2025 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

The joint compromise application I.A No.2/2025 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. was accepted and the criminal appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 passed in Spl.Case No.23/2011 by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikmagalur were set aside.

Key takeaways

The appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and any bail bond executed stands cancelled.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013, decided 11.09.2025, High Court of Karnataka, S. Rachaiah J.): Appellant convicted by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikmagalur in Spl.C. No.23/2011 (judgment dated 28.10.2013; order on sentence dated 31.10.2013) for offences under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant and respondent No.2 (the injured/victim) are residents of the same village who, since 2016, sorted out their differences and resumed living peacefully; they jointly moved I.A No.2/2025 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. to dispose of the appeal in terms of compromise, stating the incident arose out of a financial transaction (a loan of Rs.15,000/-) and was not caste-motivated. Following Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and noting the injured party was perfectly alright and wished to live peacefully, the Court allowed the application, disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of all the above offences, and cancelled the bail bond, if any.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2013 (C)

BETWEEN:

RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O VARDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

COFFEE PLANTER

R/O MEGALA HANDI VILLAGE

ALDUR HOBLI

CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST 5772230

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE BY ALDUR POLICE CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE

PREMA

W/O VENKATESH

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/O MEGALA HANDI VILLAGE

ALDUR HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND

DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI.PARAMESWARAIAH D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. S.J.AND SPECIAL JUDGE. CHIKMAGALUR IN SPL.C. NO.23/2011 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) & 3(2)(v) OF SC & ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Sri.Parameshwaraiah D.C, learned counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record.

This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 in Spl.Case No.23/2011 on the file of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikmagalur, wherein the appellant /accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

Heard Sri.Mahantesh S.Hosmath, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Parameswaraiah D.C., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

The appellant and respondent No.2 have filed application – I.A No.2/2025 under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) along with affidavits seeking to dispose of the appeal in terms of compromise. The same are taken on record.

The appellant and respondent No.2 are present and are identified by their respective counsels. The application for compromise is duly signed by the appellant, respondent No.2 and their respective counsels. Paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the application, which read thus:

“3. It is submitted that the appellant and the Victim both are resident of Megalahandi Village, Haldur Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk and residing in neighbourhood knowing each other from decades. And both were working as coolies.

4. It is submitted that the above alleged offences were not committed as premeditated or planned with intention. It is submitted that the victim P.W.-4 had borrowed sum of Rs.15,000/- and not returning to the appellant due to the financial transaction scuffle has took place and fit of rage the appellant has assaulted.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

5. It is submitted that since from 2016 the appellant and victim and her family members resumed talking to each other and sorted out their differences and living peacefully, wherein neither the victim P.W.-4, her husband P.W.-9 has no issues and consented and request this Hon’ble Court to mould the sentence and give set of the punishment which the appellant has already undergone and release the appellant for the better future of both the families.”

6. It is submitted that the provisions of SC & ST Act does not attract as the said offences not motivated to target their cast and section 307 also not attracted as none of the injuries has caused on vital part of the body, hence this Hon’ble Court for the best interest of the parties may allowed to compound the above case.

7. It is submitted that neither the appellant nor the victim or her husband has any animosity with each other and are living very peacefully in a neighbourhood.

8. It is submitted that both the appellant and P.W.4 and P.W.9, victim and her husband most humbly prays this Hon’ble Court to allow

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

HC-KAR

them compound the above offences for their better and harmonious future.”

Considering the averments of the said application, it appropriate to accept the same in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARINDER

SINGH & OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB &

ANOTHER¹ .

In the present case, though it appears that the accused had caused injury to P.W.4 – Smt.Prema, the nature of injury which she had allegedly sustained would indicate that she is perfectly alright and she intends to live peacefully in the village. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, they compromised the matter. Hence,

the same has to considered in accordance with law.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.

1 2014(6) SCC 466

NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013

7 -

HC-KAR

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 passed in Spl.Case No.23/2011 by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikmagalur, is set aside.

(iii) The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

(iv) Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

UN

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30