Sri Venkataravanappa v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2015 (C) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT JAKHIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA, SRINIVASAPUR TOWN, KOLAR TALUK AND DIST. PIN-563 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE, PIN-563 135.

¶2SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.8, HANUMANAPALYA, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR-563135. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. R. V. ANAND, ADV. FOR R2.) [VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:29.09.2026 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED.]

CRL.A. FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:1.6.2015, PASSED

Location: High Court of Karnataka

BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, IN S.C.NO.124/2013-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 307 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶1The application is filed under section 359(2) read with Section 528 of BNSS.

¶2The application is supported with joint affidavit of accused-Venkataravanappa and complainant-Narayanaswamy. Their Adhar cards are also produced.

¶3In the joint affidavit it is stated that the incident arose out of a minor property dispute relating to the boundary of the respective properties situated in same village. There was no prior or continuing enmity between the appellant and respondent No.2. During the pendency of the appeal, with the intervention of the family members, elders and respectable persons of the village, the parties have amicably resolved their differences and are presently maintaining good and cordial relations

without any animosity, against each other. Further, it is submitted that both are senior citizens. They have entered into settlement voluntarily out of their own free will and without any coercion or undue influence. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this application.

¶4The trial Court has convicted, the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.15,000/-.

¶5The wound certificate reveals that the injured has sustained cut lacerated wound of 12 x 2 x 3 cm over the left side of neck 3 cm below the left ear exposing underlying neck structures with fresh bleeding. The doctor has opined that injuries are simple in nature.

¶6Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decision:

i. Naushey Ali and Others v. State of U.P and Another rendered in Criminal Appeal No.660/2025 dated

01.11.2025.

ii. Ramgopal v. State of MP reported in (2022) SCC 531.

¶7On enquiry with both parties, they have appeared and submitted that for compounding the offence. The alleged offences can be categorized as purely personal and private in nature. The parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute. The alleged offence took place in the year 2012. There is nothing on record to reveal that either before or after purported compromise, no untoward incident transpired between the parties.

¶8In order to advance peace, harmony and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget

and forgive ill-will and to have no vengeance against each other, if offence is compounded cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and would result in acquittal of the appellants, more so, looking at their present age.

¶9Considering the special features of the case, taking the settlement on record and applying the law, this Court finds that this is a fit case to compound the offence. According, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Application filed under Section 359(2) read with Section 528 of BNSS is allowed. ii. Compromise recorded. iii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order a sentence passed by the Prl. Sessions

Judge, Kolar in Sessions Case No.124/2013 dated 01.06.2025 is set aside. iv. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. v. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any, deposited.

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

KBM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51