Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 322 (KAR)

Syed Sajju v. State By Mandya

2023-02-24

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The sole accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C ') challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.89/2008 dtd. 30/7/2013 and the judgment and order passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.116/2013 dtd. 10/6/2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. The petitioner was charged by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 326, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30/6/2007 at about 7.30 p.m, within the jurisdiction of Mandya West Police Station near 100 feet road, the petitioner wrongfully restrained CW1 - Mohammad Rafi and abused him in filthy language with an intention to provoke breach of public peace and threatened him with dire consequence to his life and also assaulted him with wooden repiece causing him grievous hurt on the left side of the cheek and further kicked him causing bodily pain. On the basis of complaint lodged by CW1, the jurisdictional police have registered a case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences. 4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dtd. 30/7/2013 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 326 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offences punishable under Sec. 341 of IPC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year for the offences punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00 and Simple Imprisonment for 2 years for the offences punishable under Sec. 326 of IPC and also directed to pay fine of Rs.8, 000.00 in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.116/2013. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dtd. 10/6/2014 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.116/2013. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dtd. 10/6/2014 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and injured complainant are neighbors and the incident had taken place in the background of petty issue. She submits that the parties have settled the dispute between themselves. She further submits that during pendency of this revision petition, the complainant -Mohammad Rafi has died in the year 2021. She also submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of their well-wishers and other neighbors and son of complainant namely Farzad Ali is present before this Court. 6. On enquiry, the son of the complainant has stated before this Court that family of PW.1 has settled the matter with the petitioner and his family and they being neighbors are now residing happily. He submits that the settlement was voluntary without there being any undue influence and coercion. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 326 of IPC. The offence punishable under Sec. 341 and 323 are compoundable offences and the offence under Sec. 326 of IPC is a non compoundable offence. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NAJEEB V. STATE OF KERALA - 2016 SCC ONLINE KER 29209, ISHWAR SINGH V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - (2008) 15 SCC 667 , ISHWARLAL V STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - (2008) 15 SCC 671, HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER - (2008) 1 SCC 184 and JASWANT TALKIES V COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BHILWARA - (2008) 1 SCC 188 has held that if, the parties to the case have settled the dispute between themselves in a case wherein the offence including non- compoundable, the Court taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties can consider to reduce the sentence imposed on the accused persons in respect of non-compoundable offence. In the present case, assault was made by the petitioner on the cheek of PW.1 with wooden repiece and the dispute between the parties was in respect of a petty issue. In the present case, assault was made by the petitioner on the cheek of PW.1 with wooden repiece and the dispute between the parties was in respect of a petty issue. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner and the complainant victim are neighbors and son of complainant who has appeared before the Court has stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled voluntarily without there being any undue influence and coercion and they being neighbors are now residing happily. Having regard to the aforesaid factual circumstance and in the background of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the nature of offence, I am of the considered view that it is fit case for reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Sec. 326 of IPC and for the offences punishable under Ss. 341 and 323 of IPC is concerned parties can be permitted to compound the same. Accordingly, the following:- ::ORDER:: Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offences punishable under Sec. 323 and 341 of IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted for the said offences. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below insofar as it relates to Sec. 326 of IPC is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and he is directed to pay fine as ordered by the Trial Court.