- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2013 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2013 IN CRL.A No. 410/2013 BETWEEN: 1. A.S. AJIT S/O A.C. SHANKAR @ SHANKARAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF TUPPUR, HIREGADDE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUKA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 126 2. A.S. ARCHAN S/O A.C. SHANKAR @ SHANKARAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF TUPPUR, HIREGADDE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUKA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 126 3. A.C. SHANKAR @ SHANKARAPPAGOWDA S/O CHINNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 RESIDENT OF TUPPUR, HIREGADDE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUKA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 126. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION 577 112 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT-STATE; SRI. C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT) *** THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 04.04.2013 AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 08.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.70/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 323, 354, 366, 506, 342, 114 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC. IN CRL.A NO. 404/2013 BETWEEN: 1. N.K. ADARSHA S/O KALASAPPA GOWDA AGED 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O NARAGAL, NEAR HEMMAKKI, KALASA HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 126. 2. K.V. PRADEEP S/O VIJAY AGED 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, KICHCHABBI MEGARAMAKKI VILLAGE, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 134 3. K.K. GAUTHAM S/O K.K. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KADLEMAKKI, BALEHONNUR, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 134 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALEHONNUR POLICE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT-STATE; SRI. C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT) *** THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 04.04.2013 AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 08.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR, IN S.C.NO.70/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 143,147,341,323 (ON TWO COUNTS) 354,366,506,342,114 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the accused/appellants and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State, in both the appeals. 2. The appellants in these appeals are the accused persons 1 to 6, who suffered an order of conviction in Sessions Case No.70/2012, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Sessions Judge"), by judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 and order on sentence dated 08.04.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 354, 366, 506, 342, 114 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, for a period of five years as a major sentence and to pay the fine and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. At the outset, Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the accused/appellants in both the appeals would submit that the complainant/victim in the instant case is none other than the close relative of the accused No.1. 3.1. He would further contend that, since the victim has now been married to some other person and is living separately, she has no objection to compound the offences. As such, the offences alleged against the appellants needs to be compounded by allowing these appeals. 4. The complainant/victim and her mother are present and they are represented by the learned counsel Sri.C.N. Raju. He did not dispute the fact that the complainant/victim is now married to some other person - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 and is leading a happy married life in the same village where the incident had occurred. He also submitted that dispute may be amicably resolved. 5. Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State would contend that, just because there is a settlement between the complainant/victim and the accused persons, the offence under Section 366 of IPC cannot be compounded, even with the permission of the Court, as it is against the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, suitable orders be passed. 6. Taking note of the fact that there is an element of settlement between the complainant/victim and the accused parties, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 531, if the conviction is maintained for the aforesaid offences and custody period already undergone by them, if treated as period of imprisonment, by enhancing the fine amount - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 in a sum of `25,000/-, payable by each accused (except the accused No.3 -N.K. Adarsha, who is no more), ends of justice would be met, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the matter, only with regard to the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, the appeals need to be allowed in part. 8. In view of the discussion made above, following: ORDER i) Both the criminal appeals are allowed in part; ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 354, 366, 506, 342, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the appellants is treated the period of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8200 CRL.A No. 410 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 404 of 2013 imprisonment, by directing the appellants to pay the enhanced fine amount of `25,000/- each (except accused No.3 - N.K. Adarsha, who is no more), before the learned Sessions Judge, which shall be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State, on or before 25.03.2025, failing which, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment forthwith, for issuing a modified conviction order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT:SNN