Billavara S Lingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 26.08.2013 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN SPL.CASE (ATRO) No.25/2010 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 324 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF I.P.C.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri Somanna K.P., learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶26

Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the accused Nos.2 and 3. They have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Special Case (Atro) No.25/2010, by judgment dated 26.08.2013, by Special Judge, Kodagu – Madikeri.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:3662 CRL.A No. 915 of 2013

¶29

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶30

Sri H.M. Chandra being the victim of the offence belonging to Adi-Karnataka community which is classified as scheduled caste. Accused are ‘Billavas’. Second accused being the son of first accused, third accused being the wife of first accused, said to have abused the complainant in a filthy language, taking out his caste name and assaulted him on 17.06.2010 at about 11.45 a.m., when he was proceeding towards the coffee estate. The incident had occurred in Tavarageri village, Veerajpete Taluk.

¶31

Incident was complained to the police and after registering the case, Dy.S.P., Veerajpete sub division, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.

¶32

First accused died and therefore, the appeal is continued as against appellant Nos.2 and 3. After thorough trial, appellants came to be convicted.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3662 CRL.A No. 915 of 2013

¶34

In the Court below, Prosecution examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and placed on record thirteen documents and three material objects.

¶35

Sri Somanna K.P., learned counsel for the appellant Nos.2 and 3 not only questioned the validity of the impugned judgment, but also contended that complainant is now seriously ill and he is prepared to take additional compensation and jail sentence may be set aside, taking note of the fact that appellants are first time offenders and there is an order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge for the offences under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and State being the complainant has not preferred any appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant filed memo, signed by complainant and the appellant Nos.2 and 3. Contents of said memo reads as under:

¶37

“The undersigned counsel for appellants humbly submits as follows.

¶38

1. It is submitted that the complainant and appellants have comprised in the aforesaid case.

¶39

2. It is submitted that, the appellants have agreed to pay an enhanced sum of Rs.20,000/- each which amounts to Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:3662 CRL.A No. 915 of 2013

¶42

3. It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to respond the sentence in the interest of justice in Criminal appeal No.915/2013.”

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal grounds including the alternative submission.

¶44

Complainant is present before the Court and he is enquired not only by the Court, but also by the learned High Court Government Pleader. He unequivocally submitted that his health condition is very bad and if sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid as compensation by enhancing the fine amount, he is not interested in insisting for jail sentence.

¶45

Taking note of the fact that second appellant being the son of the first appellant and third appellant being the lady, this Court is of the considered opinion that while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC by enhancing the fine amount payable by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 in a sum of Rs.30,000/- each would meet the ends of justice. Already a sum of Rs.42,000/- is deposited before the Trial

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3662 CRL.A No. 915 of 2013

¶47

Court towards the fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Judge.

¶48

Out of the fine amount, sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid as compensation to the defacto complainant - P.W.1 – Sri H.M. Chandra, under due identification, ends of justice would be met.

¶49

Accordingly, without discussing much on the merits of the matter, following order is passed;

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.30,000/- each by appellant Nos.2 and 3, apart from the fine amount already deposited by the appellants on or before 28.02.2025, failing which the order of imprisonment passed by the learned Special Judge stands restored.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3662 CRL.A No. 915 of 2013

¶54

(iii) Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 - H.M. Chandra, under due identification.

¶55

(iv) In view of disposal of appeal, the pending applications stand disposed off and warrants, if any, stand recalled.

¶56

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶57

MR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Billavara S Lingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Billavara S Lingappa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Honnuraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mudda @ Muddanarasimhaiah Vs the State by

Ravinchandra S/O Manohara Vs State by Beechanahally Police Station

K Anand Rao Vs State CBI Police

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka