Allowed¶49

Channaiah v. the State of Karnatka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025CRL.A/989/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M G Uma, J.), 04.07.2025, CRL.A No. 989 of 2013 under S.374(2) Cr.P.C.: appeal allowed on joint memo/compromise; conviction and sentence dated 24.09.2013 in SC.No.177/2010 (Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan) under Sections 307 and 506 IPC set aside; accused acquitted; injured informant PW2 Manjappashetti died during appeal; his LRs (Sharada, Ramesh) received Rs.2,00,000/- compensation; village panchayath settlement; bail bond and sureties cancelled; fine refund directed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence dated 24.09.2013 in SC.No.177/2010 set aside; accused acquitted of offences under Sections 307 and 506 IPC; bail bond and sureties cancelled; fine, if any deposited, to be refunded to the accused after the appeal period. ¶49

Channaiah Vs the State of Karnatka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal should be allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside in view of the amicable settlement/compromise recorded in the joint memo between the appellant and the legal representatives of the deceased informant. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The Court accepted the terms of compromise arrived at between the appellant and the legal representatives of the deceased informant, finding the terms of compromise legal, the parties being neighbours and the injured having died.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2013 passed in SC.No.177/2010 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, is set aside.

¶50

Key takeaways

Consequent to setting aside the conviction, the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC.ratio¶51
The bail bond and that of the sureties shall stand cancelled.ratio¶52
Any fine amount deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after the appeal period is over.ratio¶56-57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (single Judge, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma), 04.07.2025: Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2013 filed under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. allowed. The appellant stood convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan in S.C.No.177/2010 (judgment dated 24.09.2013) for offences under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, sentenced to 5 years R.I. plus Rs.25,000/- fine and 1 year R.I. plus Rs.1,000/- fine, running concurrently. During the appeal, the injured informant Manjappashetti (PW2) died; his legal representatives (wife Smt. Sharada and son Sri. Ramesh) joined the appellant in a joint memo recording an amicable village-panchayath settlement between the neighbouring families, receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- compensation, absence of animosity, and praying for compounding of the offence and acquittal. On enquiry, the legal representatives confirmed the settlement and raised no objection to the appeal being allowed. Satisfied with the terms of settlement, the Court held the terms of compromise legal and accepted them, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitted the accused of both offences, cancelled the bail bond and sureties, and directed refund of any deposited fine after the appeal period.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24108 CRL.A No. 989 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2013 (C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANNAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER, R/O NEECHANAHALLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUKA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124 (ACCUSED BEFORE TRIAL COURT NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. P.G. YATNAL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, SAKALESHAPURA - 573 134.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23/24.09.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., HASSAN IN S.C.NO.177/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 AND 506 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24108 CRL.A No. 989 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 OF IPC. SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

¶20

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the joint memo signed by one Smt. Sharada W/o late Manjappashetti and Sri. Ramesh S/o late Manjappashetti, legal representatives of the informant which reads as under:

¶24

JOINT MEMO

¶25

"We, 1. Smt. Sharada W/o late Manjappashetti, Aged about 63 Years, and 2. Shri. Ramesh S/o late Manjappashetti, aged about 33 years, 3. Appellant R/o Neechanahalli Village, Sakaleshapur Taluku, Hasana Dist, now come to Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶26

1. We 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the victim in above said case and I, Smt. Sharada W/o late Manjappashetti, am the de-facto complainant in the above case. We are conversant with the facts and circumstances of the above case.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24108 CRL.A No. 989 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

2. We state that the appellant/accused filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24/09/2013 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge Hassan in S.C.No. 177/2010 convicting the appellant/accused to undergo 05 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs. 25,000/fine, for the offence punishable under section 307 and 01 year rigorous imprisonment under 506 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/-. We came to know that now the matter is posted for order before this Hon'ble court.

¶30

3. We state that the accused and we are neighbors and known to each other and residing in the same village. The victim, Sri. Manjappashetti is also died due to age related ailments. There was no quarrels qua misunderstanding between both families after alleged mishap. Both family members are living peaceful life without any intricacies between us.

¶31

4. We state that on 19/02/2010, there was exchange of words between the wife of accused and us for plucking the coffee fruits. On the next day i.e., 20/02/2010, there were some quarrel between us, in such circumstances, the said incident was happened and the victim was injured.

¶32

5. We state that the appellant/accused is also aged 60 years and suffering from old age ailments and he is only bread earning member in the family. we are also coolee workers. The said incident was happened in exchange of words between us. There is no previous animosity between our families and now the victim is no more. We 1 and 2 are the only legal representatives and we are in good terms with the appellant's family.

¶33

6. That therefore, we have decided that we shall forgot the past incident and will restore the relationship with appellant's family and we want to settle it amicably. As such, we have received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two Lakh) from the appellant as compensation.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:24108 CRL.A No. 989 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

7. Wherefore, we most humbly pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to permit us to compound the said offence and be pleased to dispose off the case as compounded and the said accused be acquitted in the interest of justice.

¶38

The contents of the above affidavit are explained to us in my vernacular language and I believe them to be true and correct."

¶39

It is stated that Manjappashetti - the injured informant-examined as PW2 before the Trial Court has died and Smt. Sharada and Sri. Ramesh referred to above being the wife and son are his legal representatives. They are present before the Court. The accused-Sri.Channaiah, is also present before the Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant has identified Smt.Sharada Sri. Ramesh, the LRs of PW2 and Sri.Channaiahappellant.

¶41

On enquiry, Smt. Sharada and Sri. Ramesh, submitted before the Court that there was a panchayath in the village and they settled the dispute amicably, since they were neighbours. They admit to the contents of the joint memo and submitted no objections for allowing the appeal and setting

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24108 CRL.A No. 989 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶45

Sri.Ramesh, submits that he has already received Rs.2,00,000/- as referred in the joint memo.

¶46

Satisfied with the terms of settlement. Even though the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC, it is stated that the injured is no more. The terms of compromise is legal and the same is accepted, since they are neighbours.

¶47

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2013 passed in SC.No.177/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, is hereby set aside.

¶51

(iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC.

¶52