Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA, J
GURURAJU S/O KEMPEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amicable settlement acknowledged reducing severity of charge. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court found section 326 ipc inapplicable due to lack of evidence. (Para 4) |
| 3. conviction modified with a revised jail term and fines imposed. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. As per the directions of this Court, appellant/accused and defacto complainant/injured are present. Injured submits that appellant is his cousin and on the fateful day, the unfortunate incident has occurred and he sustained a fracture injury. He submits that the matter is now amicably settled and suitable orders may be passed taking note of the same.
3. Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader together submit that in view of the true settlement between the parties, suitable orders be passed in this appeal.
4. Taking note of the principles of law enunciated in the case ofRamgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in(2022) 14 SCC 531, this Court is of the considered opinion that offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code does
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
