B M Amogha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

B M Amogha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained; period of custody already undergone treated as the period of imprisonment; enhanced fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (in all Rs.4,00,000/- with the Sessions Court fine) payable on or before 28th February 2025, failing which two years' imprisonment; compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- to P.W.2 and Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.9 (Sessions Court's Rs.1,75,000/- enhanced), balance Rs.10,000/- to the State.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in a family dispute where the offence under Section 307 IPC is per se not compoundable, the sentence may be modified by treating the custody already undergone as imprisonment and enhancing the fine towards compensation to the injured mother and brother, on the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties.

Court's answer

Even though the offence under Section 307 IPC is per se not compoundable, following the dictum of the Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531, treating the custody period undergone by the appellant as period of imprisonment and enhancing the fine by a further Rs.2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

Ratio / Principle

Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is maintained, and the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is modified, the period of custody already undergone being treated as the period of imprisonment.

Key takeaways

In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, the appellant/accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.ratio¶49
Out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.1,90,000/- is to be paid as compensation to P.W.2 and Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.9 under due identification, with the balance Rs.10,000/- appropriated towards defraying the expenses of the State.ratio¶50
The compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to P.W.9 ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- by this Order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against conviction under Section 307 IPC by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur (judgment dt.3/10/2012 in S.C.No.73/2010, sentence: rigorous imprisonment five years). Dispute was inter se family members — the injured, P.W.2 and P.W.9, being the mother and brother of the appellant — and a joint memo was filed proposing release of the fine to P.W.9. Holding that the offence under Section 307 IPC is per se not compoundable but following the dictum in Ramgopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531, the High Court (V Srishananda J) allowed the appeal in part: conviction maintained; custody already undergone treated as the period of imprisonment; fine enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/- (in all Rs.4,00,000/-) payable on or before 28th February 2025, default entailing two years' imprisonment; Rs.1,90,000/- compensated to P.W.2, Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.9 (enhancing the Sessions Court's Rs.1,75,000/-), and Rs.10,000/- to the State.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1171 OF 2012 (C)

BETWEEN:

B M AMOGHA S/O B R NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT BASINKHAN SATTHIHALLI VILLAGE, ALDUR HOBLI CHIKMAGALUR

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI K N SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALDUR POLICE STATION

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DT.3/10/2012 PASSED IN S.C.No.73/2010 BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT

Case called out. On behalf of appellant, Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Advocate is present. Appellant is present. P.Ws.2 and 9 are the injured in the case and they are present.

After addressing the arguments for some time, Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Advocate submitted that dispute is inter se between brothers and injured are the mother and brother of the appellant. Therefore, Court may consider the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment and fine amount may be enhanced reasonably and portion thereof can be paid as compensation.

P.Ws.2 and 9 who are present before the Court were appraised of the above aspect of the matter and they have agreed for the proposal made on behalf of the appellant and a joint memo is filed. Apprehension of P.W.9 is taken care in the joint memo. Joint memo is placed on record which reads as under:

“Above named parties beg to submit as follows:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

1. Appellant, PW 2 Smt BJ Leelavathi and PW9 BN Adarsha are present before the Hon'ble Court. PW2 is the mother and PW9 is the brother of the Appellant

2. Appellant and his wife should maintain cordial relationships with PW2 and PW9.

3. Appellant and his wife should not interfere with the life of PW2 and PW9. And they should not interfere with PW2 and 9 in their enjoyment of the farm house standing in the name of PW1 Late B R Nanjegowda.

4. All the parties herein undertake to maintain peaceful and cordial relationship without causing any harm to each other.

5. PW2 and PW9 pray that the sentence imposed on appellant may kindly be set aside.

6. Fine amount deposited before the Court may kindly be directed to be released to PW9.”

Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The dispute is between the appellant and P.W.2 who is the mother of the appellant and P.W.9 who is the brother of the appellant.

Since it is a family affair and incident has occurred at the spur of the moment, taking note of the contents of the joint

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

memo placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that even though the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is per se not compoundable, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531 , in order to maintain the peace and tranquility and looking at the future of the appellant as well as P.Ws.2 and 9, treating the custody period undergone by the appellant/ accused as period of imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount in further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

Out of the fine amount recovered, if a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.2 and out of the balance sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, if Rs.2,00,000/is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.9 and balance Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State, the ends of justice would be met.

7. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part .

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is modified as under:

(a) The period of custody already undergone by the appellant/accused is treated as the period of imprisonment.

(b) Appellant is directed to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (plus Rs.2,00,000/- imposed by the Sessions Court, in all, Rs.4,00,000/-) on or before 28^th February 2025.

(c) Failure to make payment of the enhanced fine amount, appellant/accused shall undergo the imprisonment for a period of two years.

(d) Out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.1,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.2 and Rs.2,00,000/is ordered to be paid to P.W.9 as compensation under due identification. Balance sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State.

(iii) It is made clear that payment of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to P.W.9 ordered by the learned

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3285 CRL.A No. 1171 of 2012

Sessions Judge is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- by this Order.

(iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36