Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1195 (KAR)

PAVITHRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2020-06-23

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2010 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in S.C.No.98 of 2009 whereby the accused Pavithra was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. 2. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: It is stated in the theory of the prosecution that on 26.02.2009 at around 4.15 a.m., in a rented house bearing Door No.2174/1 belonging to one Sri Gopal near Madoor School of Kotekar Village of Mangaluru, the accused attempted to commit the murder of PW9, Dilip by assaulting him on his neck by means of katthi and also causing grievous injuries on his person. The accused assaulted the injured PW9 by means of Katthi by choosing his vital parts of the neck with an intention to commit his murder and caused grievous injuries, which inflicted in the Wound Certificate at Ex.P3. 3. The crime came to be registered by the police against the accused by recording an FIR in Crime No.43/2009 in Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru. Subsequent to the registration of the crime, based upon the complaint of PW3 as per Ex.P4, the criminal law was set into motion. Subsequently, the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and investigation has done by recording the statement of the witnesses and so also by securing the FSL report issued by PW1, Dr.Geethalaxmi, Scientific Officer in RFSL, Mangaluru. PW2 is the Medical Officer who treated the injured. However, the I.O. has secured all the relevant documents inclusive of Wound Certificate at Ex.P3 and the spot mahazar conducted by the I.O. as per Ex.P6 and so also recording the statements of P.W. Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 inclusive of other material documents during the course of the investigation. Subsequent to completion of investigation, the I.O. has laid the chargesheet against the accused in C.C.No.3006/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequent to laying of the chargesheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of trial as where the accused was facing trial in S.C.No.98/2009. 4. Charges have been framed against the accused by the Trial Court and the accused did not plead guilty for the aforesaid offences and claims to be tried. 5. Subsequent to laying of the chargesheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of trial as where the accused was facing trial in S.C.No.98/2009. 4. Charges have been framed against the accused by the Trial Court and the accused did not plead guilty for the aforesaid offences and claims to be tried. 5. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused got examined 12 witnesses as P.W.Nos.1 to 12 and so also got marked Exs.P1 to P14, apart from M.O.Nos.1 to 5. 6. Subsequent to the completion of the evidence put forth by the prosecution, the accused has been examined as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enabling the incriminating statement appearing against the accused, but the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution. Accordingly, the statement of the accused has been recorded. Thereafter, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. 7. Subsequently, the Trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned public prosecutor and so also the defence counsel and on analyzing the evidence of PW9 Dilip being an injured and so also the documents collected by the I.O., inclusive of the Wound Certificate at Ex.P3 and contents as at Ex.P6 and so also the statement of the witnesses and arrival of the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The same has been incorporated in the operative portion of the order of the Trial Court. 8. This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant whereas in this appeal PW9 who is the victim, namely, Dilip has also filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., that is, I.A.No.1 of 2019 wherein it is stated that the appellant, namely, Smt.Pavithra and the victim are wife and husband. Due to misunderstanding and so also provocation between them, the incident has occurred. It is stated in the application by PW9 that himself and the accused are ready to compromise the case and settle the dispute between them amicably at the intervention of the wellwishers of both the parties. Due to misunderstanding and so also provocation between them, the incident has occurred. It is stated in the application by PW9 that himself and the accused are ready to compromise the case and settle the dispute between them amicably at the intervention of the wellwishers of both the parties. However, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to bring harmony and good family relationship between the parties, it is just and proper to permit the appellant and victim to compound the offence alleged against the appellant and permit the parties to compound the offences and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2010 made in S.C.No.98/2009 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. The application filed by PW9 is also supported by the affidavits of the victim as well as the accused/appellant. 9. It is contended by Sri Narayan.L., learned counsel for PW9, victim that the accused who is said to be the wife of PW9 is now married to one Harish and the same has been indicated in the affidavit filed by the accused in support of her application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cj in detail. 10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court relies on the decision reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER), which reads as under: 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 11. 11. In view of the decision referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that I.A.No.1 of 2019 has to be considered by exercising inherent power and also in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and moreover, to maintain harmonious relationship between the parties. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been considered, but it does not require in any detail discussion in this appeal. Subsequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2010 passed in S.C.No.98 of 2009 by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed off.