Krishtappa S/O Balappa Begar vs The State Through Anr on 28 September, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Krishtappa S/O Balappa Begar vs The State Through Anr on 28 September, 2012

Equivalent citations: 2013 (1) AKR 267

Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
          CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
          Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012

                           BEFORE:

   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
           Criminal Revision Petition No.2567 of 2012


BETWEEN:

KRISHTAPPA
S/O. BALAPPA BEGAR
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. NASALWAI
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR
                                                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. AYYANAGOUDA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE THROUGH
   SAIDAPUR P.S., GULBARGA

2. BALAPPA @ BALAYYA
   RAMAYYA BEGAR
   AGE: 65 YEARS
   OCC: AGRICULTURE
   R/O. NASALWAI
   TQ: & DIST: YADGIR
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPP FOR R1;
    SRI. M. S. ASTAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                            2

      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED C.J.M. YADGIR
IN C.C.NO.410/2010 AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED BY SESSIONS
JUDGE YADGIR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO..6/2011 BY ORDER
DATED 18.05.2012.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 R/w. Sec.401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the affirming judgment of the learned Sessions Judge at Yadgiri in Crl. Appeal.No.6/2011 affirming the judgment and conviction dated 31.05.2011 passed in C.C.No.410/2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yadgir, convicting the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 325 of IPC and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and default sentence of six months and for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, imposing sentence of simple imprisonment of one year and also a 3 fine of Rs.2,000/- and default sentence being three months.

2. The revision petitioner was on suspension of sentence and enlargement of bail during the pendency of the appeal and the sentence was again suspended by this Court in this revision petition as per order dated 06.08.2012 subject to the fine amount being deposited.

3. This revision petition has come up for orders before the Court on I.A.1/2012 seeking for permission to compound the case filed under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

4. While the offences for the commission of which the revision petitioner is convicted namely, under Section 504 and 325 of IPC are both compoundable at the instance of the person affected as provided for under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C., the application under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. by the person affected namely the complainant seeking for passing orders under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. 4

5. The revision petitioner-the convicted accused and the second respondent-complainant are the father and son and the complainant as well as the convicted person have appeared before the Court today. I have also enquired them and I am satisfied about the bonafides and the application under Section 320(6) is filed with a genuine intention of compounding the offences, particularly having regard to the relationship.

6. Accordingly, application under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the accused-convicted revision petitioner is acquitted of the offences under which he is convicted.

7. Revision petition is ordered in these terms.

Sd/-

JUDGE LG

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court