Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 R/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. 1973, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013, dated 18.07.2016 by allowing this criminal Revision Petition and to confirm the judgment and order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur in C.C.No. 20 of 2011.

2. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the convenience of this Court.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to 5, and also got marked one material object as M.O.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons totally denied the evidence appearing against them, but they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the respondent/accused preferred Crl.A.No.57/2013 on the file of the Prl. District and Session Judge, Haveri. During the pendency of the appeal, complainant, CWs.4 to 6 and accused have filed an application under Section 320 and 320(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence on the ground that, both the parties have advised by the elders in the village for compromise the case and accordingly, accused have decided to compound in good and mutual relationship between the parties in the village. The appellate Court, without considering the objections raised by the prosecution, allowed the application filed by the complainant and CWs.4 to 6 and permitted them to compound the offence by altering the charges from 326 of IPC to 325 or 324 of IPC. After altering of charges only, the learned District and Sessions Judge has allowed the compromise petition filed by CW.1 and CWs.4 to 6, and permitted to compound the case with the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC, accepted the compromise petition and acquitted the accused under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. from the said charges.

5. I have carefully examined the material placed before this Court on perusal of the same, it is crystal and clear that, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haveri has passed an order dated 18/7/2016, wherein, at para 8 of the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has observed that, during the pendency of the appeal, the accused filed application 216 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of charges in respect of the offence alleged under Section 326 of IPC to one under Section 325 or 324 of IPC, and by the reasoned order, the learned District and Sessions Court has allowed the said application on hearing both parties and charges for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was modified, and in its place, charge under Section 325 of IPC was inserted by alteration. The State has not challenged the order passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge as to the alteration of the charges, which is altered as 325 of IPC. After alteration of the charges, the Prl. District and Sessions Judge has allowed the compromise petition filed by CWs.1, CWs.4 to 6 as major offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 of IPC are compoundable in nature. At the relevant point of time, the learned Sessions Judge has passed this impugned order in accordance with law. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: