- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O VARDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS COFFEE PLANTER R/O MEGALA HANDI VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST 5772230 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY ALDUR POLICE CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 2. PREMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O MEGALA HANDI VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.PARAMESWARAIAH D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. S.J.AND SPECIAL JUDGE. CHIKMAGALUR IN SPL.C. NO.23/2011 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) & 3(2)(v) OF SC & ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Sri.Parameshwaraiah D.C, learned counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 in Spl.Case No.23/2011 on the file of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikmagalur, wherein the appellant /accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’). 3. Heard Sri.Mahantesh S.Hosmath, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Parameswaraiah D.C., learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 4. The appellant and respondent No.2 have filed application – I.A No.2/2025 under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) along with affidavits seeking to dispose of the appeal in terms of compromise. The same are taken on record. 5. The appellant and respondent No.2 are present and are identified by their respective counsels. The application for compromise is duly signed by the appellant, respondent No.2 and their respective counsels. Paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the application, which read thus: “3. It is submitted that the appellant and the Victim both are resident of Megalahandi Village, Haldur Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk and residing in neighbourhood knowing each other from decades. And both were working as coolies. 4. It is submitted that the above alleged offences were not committed as premeditated or planned with intention. It is submitted that the victim P.W.-4 had borrowed sum of Rs.15,000/- and not returning to the appellant due to the financial transaction scuffle has took place and fit of rage the appellant has assaulted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 5. It is submitted that since from 2016 the appellant and victim and her family members resumed talking to each other and sorted out their differences and living peacefully, wherein neither the victim P.W.-4, her husband P.W.-9 has no issues and consented and request this Hon’ble Court to mould the sentence and give set of the punishment which the appellant has already undergone and release the appellant for the better future of both the families.” 6. It is submitted that the provisions of SC & ST Act does not attract as the said offences not motivated to target their cast and section 307 also not attracted as none of the injuries has caused on vital part of the body, hence this Hon’ble Court for the best interest of the parties may allowed to compound the above case. 7. It is submitted that neither the appellant nor the victim or her husband has any animosity with each other and are living very peacefully in a neighbourhood. 8. It is submitted that both the appellant and P.W.4 and P.W.9, victim and her husband most humbly prays this Hon’ble Court to allow - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 them compound the above offences for their better and harmonious future.” 6. Considering the averments of the said application, it appropriate to accept the same in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARINDER SINGH & OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER1. 7. In the present case, though it appears that the accused had caused injury to P.W.4 – Smt.Prema, the nature of injury which she had allegedly sustained would indicate that she is perfectly alright and she intends to live peacefully in the village. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, they compromised the matter. Hence, the same has to considered in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise. 1 2014(6) SCC 466 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36064 CRL.A No. 1105 of 2013 (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2013 passed in Spl.Case No.23/2011 by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikmagalur, is set aside. (iii) The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. (iv) Bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30