AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
This appeal is filed by appellant/accused praying to set aside the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.1210/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track-9, Bengaluru. Appellant/accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 03 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 01 month.
The prosecution case in brief is that
On 30.05.2011 at about 8.45 a.m. when P.W.4 – Kumar was taking rest in up stair room of Avinash Bar and Restaurant. Appellant -accused came with the knife and stabbed P.W.4 –Kumar on the right rib and attempted to commit the murder. When P.W.4 –Kumar afraid, the complainant- Gajendra came to the said room and accused ran away from the room. Ganjendra lodged complaint, chargesheet came to be registered against appellant - accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
The Trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.W.4 –Kumar and other co-workers namely P.W.5, 6, 8, 12 and evidence of doctors P.W.1 and 10, appellant – accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and has been sentenced as noted above. Appellant has challenged the same order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.
On perusal of the records the Trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.W.4 and other co-workers and evidence of doctors has rightly convicted the appellant – accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
An application is filed by the complainant supported by an affidavit of complainant and injured-Kumar makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered into an amicable settlement. The appellant has admitted his fault and taken responsibility and sought forgiveness from the victim. Inturn, the victim acknowledged apology.
Learned counsel for the complainant and victim has reiterated the same during the hearing.
Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Murali V/S State 2021 (1) SCC 726 submits that even though offence is punishable under Section 307 of IPC which is not compoundable, in view of the settlement between the parties and in view of appellant has undergone imprisonment for 08 months and 10 days, sentence passed on the appellant –accused can be reduced to imprisonment undergone by appellant –accused. The counsel for complainant and injured, Injured-Kumar and Ganjendra are present before the Court and they submits that they have settled the matter with appellant –accused. Appellant –accused is in judicial custody.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Murali(supra) has held as under:
“10. The aforecited view has been consistently followed by this Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P, laying down that:(SCC p.670, paras 13-15)
“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellantaccused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan such offence was ordered to be compounded.
In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.
In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he was not released on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused 1) is reduced to the period already undergone.” (emphasis supplied)
In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K, Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan,, Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala , Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has taken note of the compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non compoundable offences.
Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.”
Appellant –accused was aged 21 years as on the date of offence, now 12 years lapsed since the date of the incident. There are no other criminal antecedents. Appellant is now married and has a child. He is the sole bread earner of the family.
Considering all these aspects including compromise between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to reduce quantum of sentenced imposed on the appellant –accused.
Appeal is allowed partly and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by appellant – accused. Consequently, appellant –accused is ordered to be released if he is not required in any other case.
Issue intimation to the concern jail authority to release the appellant –accused.