- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1859/2024 (A) BETWEEN: M K KUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O M M KUSHALAPPA R/A NO.776, 16TH MAIN ROAD BEHIND VISHNU MEDICALS MICO LAYOUT, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 560 076 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.KARTHIK.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE REP. BY SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. M K BOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE KUSHALAPPA R/AT BILIGERI VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.N.JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL AND Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 PASSED IN S.C.NO.58/2020 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, CONVICTING RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Appellant, respondent No.2, their respective counsel and learned HCGP are present. Appellant and respondent No.2 are duly identified by their respective counsel. Appellant and respondent No.2 file joint memo which reads as follows: “1. It is submitted that due to the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, well wishers, family friends; both appellant and respondent No.2 being the biological brothers have decided to put an end to the long standing dispute between them. 2. The respondent No.2 regret to the incidents in the above case and tenders an unconditional apology to the appellant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 3. Both appellant and respondent No.2 in future will lead a peaceful life without interfering in their affairs with each other.” 2. Heard both parties on the joint memo. They admit contents of the joint memo and due execution of the same. 3. Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in SC No.58/2020 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri the complainant/victim has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 was prosecuted in SC No.58/2020 for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Madikeri Rural Police in Crime No.302/2018. Crime No.302/2018 was registered by respondent No.1/Police on the basis of the complaint filed by present appellant as per Ex.P1. 4. It was alleged that on 18.11.2018 at 7.00 p.m. at Biligeri School ground in Biligeri village respondent No.2 was quarrelling with his wife. It was further alleged that on her request the appellant intervened to pacify the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 quarrel. Being enraged by that respondent No.2 with an intention to commit murder of appellant assaulted him with sickle and caused injury on the cheek of the appellant. 5. The Trial Court framed the charge against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and tried him for the said charge and ultimately by the impugned judgment and order acquitted him. Challenging that judgment and order the appellant/ PW.1/complainant has preferred the above appeal. 6. Admittedly, the appellant is the younger brother of respondent No.2. The unfortunate incident took place due to family dispute and in the fit of anger of respondent No.2. Now both the parties have decided to bury the past and live in harmony. Respondent No.2 has tendered his unconditional apology and the parties have undertaken that in future they will lead peaceful life without interfering in the affairs of each other. It is true that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable. Still the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 judgment in Syed Azhar Syed Kalandar vs. State of Maharashtra and another1 relying on its earlier larger bench judgment in Murali vs. State [(2021)1 SCC 726] in para 10 of the judgment held as follows: “10. In almost the same circumstances which have been noticed by us, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in Murali v. State, where the parties decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court in Murali, has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P., (1973) 2 SCC 456 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 870] which was further followed by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] and the later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. The relevant paragraphs are as follows : (Murali case paras 11-12) “11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2 SCC 213 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 123] ; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 316] ; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 11 SCC 1 (2022)14 SCC 527 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 226 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 370] ; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala , (2015) 11 SCC 137 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 322] ; Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 166 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 469] , this Court has taken note of the compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. 12. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because : first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In fact the said case arose out of the judgment of conviction. Ultimately in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the families have settled their disputes and the complainant/victim has come forward to forgive and the accused tendered apology, the same can be considered. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8671-DB CRL.A No.1859/2024 8. In the present case also, the parties decided to forget their past and live amicably. Moreover the appeal is against the order of acquittal. Parties are full brothers. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a fit case to dispose of the appeal considering the joint memo. Hence recording the joint memo the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Akc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26