Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vidyadar Devadiga vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2014
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Shiva Kirti Singh
ITEM NO.63 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2961/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/06/2013
in CRLA No. 481/2009 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bangalore)
VIDYADAR DEVADIGA & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for bail and c/delay in filing SLP and exemption
from filing O.T. and impleadment as party respondent and
permission to compound the offence and office report)
Date : 07/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv.
Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv.
Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Sriram P., Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Kulkarni, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.11.12 17:10:42 IST Reason:
(Neeta) (Renuka Sadana) Sr. P.A. COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2371 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2961 of 2014 VIDYADAR DEVADIGA & ORS Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by appellants against judgment and order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by appellants/ accused.
The said criminal appeal was filed by appellants seeking to quash the conviction and sentence dated 21/23.05.2009 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Sessions Case No.128/2006, convicting the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants/accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341/34 IPC and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each accused in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence u/s 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
2By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench on appreciation of evidence while upholding the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months and the fine was enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.25,000/- by each accused. During the pendency of the appeal, a joint application has been filed on behalf of the appellants and the injured complainant PW-2 for permission to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Cr.PC and following grounds have been taken for compounding the offence:
“6. That the applicants are jointly presenting this application by seeking permission to compound the offences on the following reasons:-
(i) That the applicants are belonging to same village, neighbours. They are in cordial terms since, 2009. The unfortunate incident was occurred in the year 2006 for silly reason; at present applicants are realized for the unfortunate occurrence;
(ii) That the applicants Mr. Vidhyadhar and Appu @ Mahesh are married having children and Mr. Hogish Devadiga and Jagannath Devadiga are yet to marry.
Applicants Vidhyadhar Devadiga, Yogish Devadiga and Jagannath Devadiga are brothers. Their mother is aged, suffering from ill health. They are the earning male members of the family. Both the families are in good terms. That the applicants after looking to the future and to maintain good 3 relations with both the families they are entered in to compromise in the above said case while humbly seeking permission from this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) That the applicant submit that if the petitioners i.e. Vidhyadhar Devadiga, Yogish Devadiga and Jagannath Devadiga are sent to jail, the long relations between the members of the applicants may chances to spoil as they are belonging to same village and as of now all of them resolved their disputes/differences and they are leading and living happily and harmoniously as neighbours.
(iv) That applicant further submits that the injured Mr. Appu @ Mahesh is having good health and he is not having any permanent disability after receiving the injury from the unfortunate incident and it has not affected his livelihood or health.
(v) That the applicants further submit that, they are entered into compromise with the intervention of their family members, friends and well-wishers. As they strongly felt that they have to maintain good relations between the two families for the future. The said application is not filed under any influence, coercion, pressure or collusion.
7. That the applicants submit that, the applicants/petitioners are convicted for the offences punishable under section 341 and 326, r/w 34 of I.P.C. for 6 months and also imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- each on them. The offences are not compoundable one; the said offence is not compoundable within the scope of section 320 of 4 Cr.P.C. But on several occasions this Hon'ble Court was pleased allow the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is non-compoundable one to the facts and circumstances of the case. On several occasions this Hon'ble Court was pleased to convert the Non-compoundable offence to compoundable offence and allow the parties to settle their disputes to the facts and circumstances of the case. And also in some of the cases this Hon'ble Court was pleased to while imposing the fine amount and sentence is reduced to already undergone.” It is accepted that the offence punishable under Section 341 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC are not compoundable. In that view of the matter, prayer for compounding the offence as made on behalf of the parties is rejected. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, while we are satisfied that the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, we reduced the sentence of six months under Section 326 as ordered by the Division Bench to that of period undergone subject to payment of fine. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount has already been paid, if that be so, the appellants need not deposit the amount in the Trial Court for payment in favour of the injured PW-2.
5The impugned judgment and order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.481 of 2009 stands modified to the extent above.
As the matter has been decided on merit and PW-2 can not claim to be a necessary party, the petition for impleadment of PW-2 is rejected. The appeal stands disposed of.
…...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) …...........................J. (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 07, 2014