H U Chandrashekara @ Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

24.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.68/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 354, 324 AND 307 OF IPC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:36034 CRL.A No. 784 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard Sri.A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpalatha B, learned Additional SPP for the respondent.

¶35

This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 in S.C No.68/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikere, wherein the appellant / accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 354 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶36

Brief facts of the case:

¶37

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 13.04.2017 around 10.30 a.m., at Kanthuru village, Madikeri, when the complainant was alone in her house, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant, picked up quarrel in respect of payment of wages and bit the cheek of the complainant and also assaulted the complainant with club on her back, both hands, head and all over the

¶38

body and caused grievous hurt and attempted to commit murder. On complaint being filed, the respondent - Police

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:36034 CRL.A No. 784 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

registered a case and filed a charge sheet. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, convicted the accused for the above mentioned offences. Hence, this appeal.

¶43

Today, appellant, and the learned counsel for the appellant and the complainant appeared before the Court. The appellant and complainant have filed an application – I.A No.1/2025 under Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) / Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) r/w Section 582 of BNSS and Section 482 of Cr.P.C., along with an affidavit of the complainant, seeking to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise. The same are taken on record.

¶44

The appellant and the complainant are present and they have been identified by the learned counsel for the appellant. The application for compromise is duly signed by the appellant, complainant and their respective counsels. The application and its Paragraph Nos.3 to 6 which read thus:

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:36034 CRL.A No. 784 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

“3.The Appellant and the injured / P.W.-1 / Smt. K.R.Padmavathy submit that, at the instance of elders, common friends and wellwishers of both sides, and both of them have settled/compromised the case/ and decided to compound the offence, by forgetting their differences etc., and to lead cardial life. Both parties submit that, there were differences between them touching the salary of the Appellant, where he was working as driver with P.W.1. In that consequences, it was so happened, not with any intention.

¶49

4. The incident has taken place on 13/04/2007. The Appellant is married has got one son and wife.

¶50

5. The Appellant and the Complainant submit that, the Complainant/P.W.-1 on her own without any undue influence or force from anybody has agreed to compromise the case. 6. In view of both parties agreed for composition, the Appellant humbly submit that, he may be acquitted or consequently in view of settlement; composition of offences, the fact of PW-1 compounding the offences may be taken into consideration and lenient view may be taken in sentencing the Appellant in the interest of justice.”

¶51

(sic)

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36034 CRL.A No. 784 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Though, the offence under section 307 of IPC is noncompoundable and it is more severe in nature, in the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that, the accused was working as a lorry driver, which belongs to the complainant / victim. The victim had been admitted to the hospital for 15 days as she was not feeling well. The appellant was managing the affairs of the coffee estate. When she insisted him to give the accounts, he refused to give the same and stated that, he had sustained a huge loss.

¶55

On 12.04.2007, at around 08.30 a.m., he demanded for two months’ wages. When she refused to give the amount, he is stated to have gone to her house along with another person and assaulted her, with an intention to commit murder. However, it appears that the intention to commit murder is absent on perusing the weapon used for commission of the offence. Moreover, the nature of wound would indicate the seriousness of the offence.

¶56

Be that as it may, having considered the averments of the said application, it is appropriate to accept the same, having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:36034 CRL.A No. 784 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Court in the case of NARINDER SINGH & OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER¹ .

¶61

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶64

(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 in S.C No.68/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikere, is set aside.

¶65

(iii) The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 324 and 307 of IPC.

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶68

1 2014(6) SCC 466

H U Chandrashekara @ Chandra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H U Chandrashekara @ Chandra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamukhappa @ Shanmukha Vs the State by Gandhinagar Ps Davanagere

S Gopal Shettigar Vs Shambhavi Nayak

Mr. Sajith Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Bhagyamma N P Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State by Aldur Police