SHANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 15.12.2015 and sentence dated 15.12.2015 passed in S.C.No.10005/2013 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 324, 504, 506, 307, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 01.06.2018. The said memo has been signed by all the appellants and the complainants. The learned counsel therefore submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court may consider permitting the complainant and PW2 to compound the offences. It is however submitted that the offence i.e. Section 307 is non-compoundable. The learned counsel would place reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 896 and the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of H.B.Sathisha and another v. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.247/2007 which was disposed on 22.08.2012.

(3.) The learned counsel, while taking this court through the case of Manjith Singh submitted that in that case too the appellants therein were convicted for the offence of 307 of I.P.C. which was non-compoundable. It was pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court took notice of the compromise entered into between the parties and sentence undergone by the appellants-accused and reduced the punishment from five years of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants-accused. The learned counsel however, pointed out from the case of H.B. Sathisha that it was also permissible for this Court to scale down the conviction from Section 307 of I.P.C. to Section 325 of I.P.C, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the compromise arrived at by the parties.