Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shivanand vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056
CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016
CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100238 OF 2016 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100217 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100230 OF 2016
IN CRL.A. NO.100238 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHANKARAGOUDA
MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SHRI. BASANAGOUDA
DANDIGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHRI. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA
DUNDIGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
Digitally signed by B
K TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK Location: HIGH
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
4. DUNDIGOUDA BAPUGOUDA PATIL,
Date: 2025.01.25
11:20:32 +0530 AGE: 35 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
5. SHRI. SRIKANTAGOUDA
BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR A2 TO A5)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056
CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016
CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
SHIGGAON POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL.GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
30.06.2016 AND 23.07.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.62/2013
OFFENCE U/S.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 447, 109, 504, 506 R/W
149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A. NO.100230 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANAND S/O BASAVANNEPPA GUNJIGATTI,
AGE: 63 YEARS.
2. BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVANAND GUNJIGATTI,
AGE: 33 YEARS.
3. MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVANAND GUNJIGATTI,
AGE: 31 YEARS.
4. KALLAPPA A/FATHER MUKAPPA GUNJIGATTI,
AGE: 53 YEARS.
5. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. VEERAPA TONDUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS.
6. RUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPA TONDUR,
AGE: 47 YEARS.
7. GURANAGOUDRA
S/O. NAGANGOUDRA YEGANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 35 YEARS.
8. CHANNAPPAGOUDA
S/O. DUNDIGOUDA YEGANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 33 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056
CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016
CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016
9. KALLAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA SAUNSHI,
AGE: 28 YEARS.
10. HOLALAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA SAUNSHI,
AGE: 30 YEARS.
11. BASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA SAUNSHI,
AGE: 31 YEARS.
12. BASANAGOUDA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA GUDAGERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS.
13. SHANKRAPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA BAGUR,
AGE: 71 YEARS.
14. RUDRAPPA S/O. FHAKKIRASWAMY GANJIGATTI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PATIL M H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SHIGGAOIN POLICE, DIST: HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN SC NO.3/2013 DATED 30-06-2016 /
23-07-2016, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 323, 324,
326, 307, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND TO ACQUIT THE
APPELLANTS HEREIN FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
THEM AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST
THEM.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056
CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016
CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016
IN CRL.A. NO.100217 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVANAND S/O. SOMAPPA BAGUR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: CHIKKAMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. DEEPA P.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, SHIGGON,
DIST: HAVERI, REP. BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DAHRWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED IS U/SEC. 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI PASSED IN
SESSIONS CASE NO. 62 OF 2013 DATED 30.06.2016, CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT FOR THE O/P/U/SECS. 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324,
447, 109, 504, 506 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT FOR THE O/P/U/SECS. 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 447,
109, 504, 506 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056
CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016
C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016
CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since all these appeals arise out of related cases and counter-cases, they are taken up together, heard, and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In Crl.A.No.100238/2016 and Crl.A.No.100217/2016, the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 447, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution's case is that on 03.02.2011, while the complainant was returning from his field, accused No.1, Shankaragouda Mallikarjunagouda Patil, approached him from behind on a motorcycle, stopped, got down, and abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1 also assaulted the complainant with his chappals and threatened his life. Later, while the complainant and CW4 to CW8 were sitting in the backyard of their house, all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons. They abused the complainant in filthy language, with accused No.1 assaulting him and also attacking CW4, CW5, CW6, CW7, and CW8, who tried to intervene and pacify the situation.
4. In Crl.A.No.100230/2016, the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
5. The prosecution alleged that there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused over land bearing RS No.35/4. On one occasion, when the complainant was traveling to his native place Chikkamallur from Shiggaon on a motorcycle, accused No.1, who was -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056 CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016 CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016 ahead of him, became enraged when the complainant honked to pass. Accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language, dragged him by his shirt, and attempted to assault him with a stone. The complainant escaped and returned to Shiggaon. Later that evening, the accused persons attacked him near his house, pushing him to the ground. Accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with a club on his left shoulder and back. When the complainant raised an alarm, his uncle, Basanagouda D. Patil, who is disabled, intervened. Accused No.1 then instructed his sons (accused Nos.2 and 3) to attack Basanagouda. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted Basanagouda with a sickle and broke his leg with a club. Other accused, including accused No.6, assaulted other individuals who tried to intervene.
6. The complainants, the accused in both cases, and the injured witnesses appeared before the Court and filed an application for compounding the offences, stating that they had amicably resolved their disputes concerning the agricultural land. They explained that the incidents occurred in the heat of the moment and requested the Court to allow the offences to be compounded. The said application was taken on record.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the punishment for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC includes imprisonment for up to life, and thus, crimes involving heinous offences against society cannot be compounded.
9. A coordinate bench of this Court, in Crl.P.No.7649/2022, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Ramgopal & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1056 CRL.A No. 100238 of 2016 C/W CRL.A No. 100217 of 2016 CRL.A No. 100230 of 2016 Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Manoj Sharma v. State & Others, held that a compromise between parties can be entertained post-conviction when the offences alleged are not heinous or crimes against society. In the instant case, except for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, the other offences are neither heinous nor crimes against society and are predominantly civil in nature. The incident arose spontaneously and was not premeditated. Therefore, this is a fit case for setting aside the conviction and sentence, as the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. Confirming the conviction would likely lead to continued animosity between the families of the complainants and the accused.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments of conviction dated 30.06.2016 and the orders of sentence dated 23.07.2016, passed by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in SC No.62/2013 and SC No.3/2013, are hereby set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds, if any, are canceled.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57