Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. BHEEMAIAH S/O PENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. BAGARIAH S/O BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3. CHANDRASHEKHARA
S/O BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, AGRICULTURIST R/O BOMMALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR A1 AND A3) Digitally AND: signed by MALATESH KC STATE BY CPI, MOLAKALMURU CIRCLE, Location: CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, HIGH COURT OF REP. BY S.P.P., KARNATAKA HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR STATE; SRI. B. K. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR APPLICANTS IN I.A.NO.2/2014) -2- THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & S.J., CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.108/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304 PART-II, 143,147,148,323,324,504 AND 506 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. N. Srinivas, learned counsel for appellants No.1 and 3, Sri. B. K. Manjunath; learned counsel for the applicants in I.A.No.2/2014; and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Memo is filed singed by the learned counsel for the appellants, appellant No.3, learned counsel for the widow and daughter of the deceased and the complainant. The said memo reads as under:
"The undersigned counsel for appellants produced herewith the Original Receipt for having deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as directed by this Hon'ble Court before the Section Officer, -3- Accounts I (JD), High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, dated 27.02.2025, which is directed to be deposited in the names of (i) Vasanthamma W/o Late S. Siddaiah (II) Kum. Amrutha, D/o S. Siddaiah, in fixed deposit".
3. The present appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to
3 challenging the validity of the judgment passed in S.C.No.108/2009 on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereby accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC and for the major offence, accused No.1 is ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years.
4. After addressing the arguments for a
considerable length of time, Sri. N. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No.2 - Bagarayya is no more and appellant No.1 - Bheemaiah has expressed remorse. -4-
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends
that the custody period already undergone by appellant No.1 may be treated as period of imprisonment and he is prepared to compensate the family of the deceased Siddanna @ Siddesh, in a reasonable sum.
6. In view of the said submission, this Court felt
the necessity of securing the presence of the wife and daughter of the deceased along with the complainant. The mother of the deceased was also present before the Court on earlier date of hearing.
7. Learned Trial Judge has ordered compensation
in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- payable by the appellants for compensating the widow and daughter of the deceased. The offer now made in terms of money by the appellants is Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), inclusive of Rs.2,00,000/- ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment which could be divided among the mother, widow and daughter of the deceased in a sum of -5- Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-, respectively.
8. Today, the appellants are prepared to deposit a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court, of which, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- can be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased and balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid as compensation to the daughter of the deceased.
9. The appellants have undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which was ordered in the impugned
judgment before the trial court, on or before 30.03.2025.
10. Sri. B. K. Manjunath and learned High Court
Government Pleader jointly submit that in view of the appellants coming forward to make the payment of suitable compensation to the mother, widow and daughter of the deceased, suitable orders can be passed with regard to the sentence of appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. -6-
11. Taking note of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, since the appellants have come forward to compensate the dependents of deceased Siddanna @ Siddesh, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already undergone by the appellants, if treated as period of imprisonment, ends of justice would be met.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction for appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC for the remaining appellants, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge, is modified as under: The custody period already undergone by the appellants is treated as period of imprisonment; -7- The appellants are directed to pay a total sum of Rs.12,00,000/- [Rupees Twelve Lakhs only] (inclusive of Rs.2,00,000/- ordered in the impugned judgment) as compensation to the dependents of deceased Siddanna @ Siddesh as under: A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Vasanthamma, the widow of the deceased (in form of Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years); A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Kum. Amrutha, the daughter of the deceased (in form of Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years); A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited by the appellants on or before 30.03.2025, to be paid as compensation to Smt. Lakshmakka, the mother of the deceased, on proper identification. iii) Failure to make the payment would automatically result in restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. -8- Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment, for passing the modified conviction warrant, forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RD