SRI. SOHAN PRASAD vs THE STATE-POLICE SUB INSPECTOR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU



TH

DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2015 (C)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SOHAN PRASAD
A/A 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE A. JAYAKAR,
R/A "JAYA NIVAS", JAYAKAR BUILDING,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU,

DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M. R. BALAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)







AND:

1. THE STATE-POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)





Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
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:17.1.2015 AND
SENTENCE DATED 20.1.2015, PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K. DIST., IN
S.C.NO.191/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I.FOR
THREE YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.30,000/- AND IN
DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR SIX
MONTHS THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


ORAL JUDGMENT


1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2015 and
the order on sentence dated 20.01.2015 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru in Sessions Case No.191/2012, convicting him
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. As this appeal was pending as
on 01.07.2024, it is governed by the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of Section
531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that
the Sub Inspector of Police, Mangaluru South Police
Station, laid a charge-sheet against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the prosecution
that on 07.04.2012 at about 10:15 p.m. in front of
Jayakar Apartments, Pandeshwara, Mangaluru, the
accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to first
informant Nikshal by assaulting on his left abdomen and
face with a knife with an intention to cause his death.
Thus, it is alleged that the accused committed the
offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. After filing the charge-sheet,
case was registered in CC No.2711/2012. Thereafter,
case was committed to the Court of Sessions and
registered case in Sessions Case No.191/2012. The
accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on
bail.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



4. On hearing the charges, the trial Court framed
charges against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
has examined, in all, 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12, 11
documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P11, 3 material
objects were marked as per MO.1 to 3. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was recorded. The accused has totally denied all
the incriminating materials placed by the prosecution,
however, he has not chosen to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf. The accused has submitted the
statement under Section 233(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and produced the same documents.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



6. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the learned trial Judge are contrary
to law and facts of the case and the same is liable to be
set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the impugned
judgment is manifestly bad as the same is based on mis-
appreciation of evidence, which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



9. It is further submitted that it is not the definite
case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused
committed the alleged offence of assault on the
injured/complainant. The learned Sessions Judge ought
not to have convicted the appellant merely from the
seriousness of the resultant injury.

10. It is further submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of PWs.5 to 8 who
are interested witnesses and convicted the appellant. The
prosecution failed to prove the spot mahazar and seizure
mahazar as they were created at the behest of PW.8.
The trial Court drastically failed to note that the weapon
was a small knife and the injuries were simple in nature,
not sufficient to cause death in natural course. The
learned Sessions Judge ought to have exculpated the
appellant from the charge under Section 307 IPC taking
into consideration the nature of injuries, the alleged
weapon and lack of vital ingredient of mens rea on the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


part of the appellant. The learned Judge, without
appreciating the materials and facts on record in its
proper perspective, has convicted the appellant.

11. It is further submitted that, in the instant case,
the learned Judge has wrongly applied the evidence and
virtually concluded that without mens rea , only an act
per se, is an attempt. At no stretch of imagination, there
is logical inference or the intention on the part of the
accused/appellant to commit such act, forthcoming in the
entire evidence put together by the prosecution. The
prosecution has drastically failed to prove the intention
on the part of the appellant to commit such alleged act to
attract the penal section.

12. It is further submitted that, in the instant case,
the trial Court failed to appreciate the finding of the Apex
court in a catena of judgements that, when two different
views against the accused in a trial can be contemplated,
the view favouring the accused should be extended.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



13. It is also pertinent to note that during the trial,
the appellant filed several documents to demonstrate the
strained relationship between PW8, one Shoukath Ali and
the appellant. The said documents are nothing but the
endorsement of the Police and receipt of complaint and
the civil suits filed, which is a proof of personal grudge
against the accused due to which the accused was falsely
implicated. The learned Sessions Judge has not
appreciated the evidence on record in a proper manner
and came to a wrong decision of convicting the appellant
merely on false allegation.

14. The Learned trial Judge ought to have held that
the prosecution has not brought out the ingredients of
the offence under section 307 of IPC against the
appellant on the materials placed before the Court. It is
further submitted that, in the instant case probability of
existence of nexus between the Sections 326 and 307
IPC has suffered set back and it is unsafe and unjust to

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


presume the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence
under Section 307 IPC.

15. It is further submitted that the learned trial
Judge only appreciated the evidence of PW.5 to PW.8
who are the interested witnesses and corroborated the
stereotype evidence only to harass the appellant. The
prosecution has thus failed to establish the offence
alleged to have been committed by the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The trial judge has not given proper
reasoning while awarding sentence against the appellant.
That the trial Court has not strictly followed the
procedure for recording the statement of the appellant
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and the charge framed is also defective.

16. Further, he would submit that absolutely there
are no materials to constitute the offence under Section
307 of IPC. The Investigating Officer has not produced
the X-ray or radiology report to prove the injuries caused

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


to the injured. To substantiate the arguments, he relied
on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda and Others
reported in 2011(4) KCCR 2759 (DB) and in the case
of M. Hariprakash v. State of Karnataka and Others
rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2052/2017 dated
20.01.2026.

17. Further, he would submit that even if this Court
comes to the conclusion that the injured has suffered
injuries as shown in the wound certificate due to act of
the accused, the offence would attract the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, which is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.

18. In the case on hand, the accused has already
suffered imprisonment for 27 days and he has already
paid fine amount and this case is pertaining to the year

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


2012. The age of the accused is 58 years. He has not
committed any offence except alleged offence and on all
these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal.

19. As against this, learned HCGP, Sri
K.Nageshwarappa, would submit that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there is no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial
Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

20. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of materials, the following points would arise
for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned

judgment of conviction?

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


2. Whether the trial Court is justified in
convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC?

3. What Order?
Regarding Points 1 and 2:

21. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.

22. It is the case of the prosecution that on
07.04.2012 at about 10:15 p.m. in front of Jayakar
Apartments, within the limits of Mangaluru South Police
Station, the accused-Sohan Prasad had voluntarily
caused grievous hurt to first informant Nikshal by
assaulting on his left abdomen and face with a knife with
an intention to cause his death and by such acts he had
caused grievous hurt to the Nikshal, thereby committed
the alleged offences.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



23. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12
and marked 11 documents as Exhibit P1 to 11, 3 material
objects as MO.1 to 3.

24. PW1-Dr.Mahabalesh Shetty, has deposed as to
the examination of the injured and also issuance of
Wound Certificate Exhibit P1. He has also deposed as to
the weapon used for the commission of offence and
issuance of his opinion as per Exhibit P2.

25. PW2-Sri Muneer Ahammad and PW3-Dheeraj
Shetty who are said to be the attesters to the mahazar
witnesses, have deposed as to the mahazar conducted by
the Police as per Ex.P3-spot mahazar and Ex.P4-seizure
mahazar.

26. PW4-Niranjan who is Police Constable, has
deposed that as per the direction of the Investigating
Officer, he has produced articles before RFSL Mangaluru

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


and again obtained back the articles and produced them
before the Investigating Officer. Further he has deposed
that on 31.07.2012 he has produced the weapon before
the Medical Officer at Unity Health Complex and along
with the report of the Medical Officer, he had produced
the weapon before the Investigating Officer on
14.08.2012.

27. PW5-Nikshal is son of Nikhil Puthran. He is the
injured in this case. Witness stated that CW3-Sharmila is
his mother and CW4-Nikhil Puthran is his father. CWs2, 5
to 7 are his classmates and friends. During 2012 he was
studying in II PUC in Canara College, Mangaluru. Witness
stated that on 07-04-2012 at about 10.15 p.m. he was
along with his friend CW2 Nawaz, were in the parking
area of Jayakar Apartment, where he was residing.
Witness stated that he knows the accused. When he was
talking with his friend Nawaz in the parking area of the
apartment, accused suddenly came there and questioned

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


the injured as to why he stares at him. The accused was
holding a knife in his hand. On seeing the knife, he
along with his friend, tried to run away from the spot,
but the accused stabbed him over his left chest. Still the
injured tried to run away from the place and in his
attempt he had fallen on the staircase. The accused
chased him on the staircase and was trying to stab. The
injured had sustained scratch and bleeding injury over
the face and also below the lip. The clothes which he was
wearing at that time were stained with blood.

28. Witness further stated that on seeing the
incident, CW2-Nawaz called the mother of injured and
immediately his mother came down. On seeing her, the
accused ran away from the scene of offence. Witness
stated that his mother had called his father over phone
and informed the incident. After some time, his father
came to the spot and took him to Unity Hospital where

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


he was admitted as an inpatient. Police came there and
recorded his statement as per Ex. P5.

29. Witness stated that the accused had ill-will
against him and he used to stare at him very often. He
had stabbed him with knife with an intention to cause his
death. He identified the knife MO1 which was used by the
accused in commission of offence. He also identified his
shirt and pant which the injured was wearing at the time
of incident as per MOs2 and 3. Witness stated that at
the scene of offence, there was sufficient light.

30. PW6-Nawaz Asif, has stated that during 2012
he was studying in II PUC in St. Aloysius College,
Mangaluru. PW5 was residing near his house. On 7-4-
2012 he had been to the house of PW5-Nikshal and his
other friends viz. Parjeen and Ananthesh were also there
and both of them returned to their houses at about 8.00
pm, but PW6 was in the house of PW5 up to 9.45 pm.
Nikshal told him that he has to switch on the motor

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


which was in the basement and both of them went to
basement of the apartment. After switching on the water
pump, they were talking in the parking area. In the
meantime, accused came towards injured and questioned
him as to why he has stared at him. The accused was
holding a knife in his hand and tried to stab Nikshal.
Nikshal tried to avoid the blow, but he sustained injury
over left side of his chest. The accused again tried to
stab Nikshal on his neck. Nikshal tried to run towards the
staircase. Witness stated that he called the mother of
Nikshal and on hearing the sound, she came down. In
the meantime, Nikshal fell on the staircase and the
accused again stabbed him. Thereafter, the accused ran
away from the scene of offence. Immediately, the
mother of injured Nikshal called her husband over phone
and informed the fact. Thereafter, the father of Nikshal
came to the spot and took the injured to hospital.
Witness stated that this incident had taken place at about

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


10.15 pm and the accused had stabbed the injured with
an intention to cause his death.

31. Witness stated that on the next day of the
incident, the police came to the spot. He showed the
scene of offence to the police, who drew the spot
mahazar as per Ex.P3. The knife which was used for
commission of the offence, was lying near the drainage
at the scene of offence and the Police seized the same.
Witness identified the said knife MO1 and stated that
there was sufficient light at the scene of offence and he
had identified the accused properly.

32. PW7-Smt. Sharmila, is the mother of injured
PW5. She has stated that on 7-4-2012 her son Nikshal
and his friend Nawaz were in the house. She asked her
son to switch on the water pump and therefore her son
and his friend went to the basement. When she saw from
the balcony she found Nikshal and Nawaz standing in the
basement. At about 10.15 p.m. she heard the cry of her

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


son and Nawaz. Immediately, she rushed down where
she found Nawaz was holding her son and the accused
was running away from the basement. Witness stated
that her son suffered bleeding injuries over his face and
his clothes were stained with blood. She learnt that
accused had stabbed her son with a knife. Immediately,
she informed this fact to her husband over phone and he
came to the spot within 5-10 minutes. Thereafter, the
injured was shifted to Unity Hospital. Witness stated that
the accused was residing in Jayavilas Apartments which
was in front of Jayakar Apartments. Witness further
stated that her husband was the President of Owners'
Association of Jayakar Apartments. Initially, the land
where Jayakar Apartment was built, belonged to the
sister of the accused. The accused was the General
Power of Attorney Holder of his sister. The relationship
between her husband and accused was strained.
Therefore, the accused used to stare at her son. Witness

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


stated that her son was not having any ill-will against the
accused.

33. PW8-Nikhil Puthran, is the father of the injured
and PW9-Sadaf the friend of the injured are hearsay
witness.

34. PW10-Venkatesh, ASI and PW12-Smt.
Bharathi, PSI, have deposed as to their respective
investigation conducted by them.

35. PW11-Dr. Geethalakshmi, the Scientific Officer,
RFSL, Mangaluru has deposed as to the report-Ex.P9,
sample seal-Ex.P10 and serology report-Ex.P11.

36. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The same
reads as under:
“307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and
if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for
life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.”

37. To prove the offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is the duty of the prosecution
to prove the following ingredients:
(a) Essential Ingredients .- An offence under this
section has following essential elements:
(i) That the accused did an act;
(ii) That the act was done with intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances to cause a
bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause
death or that such bodily injury was in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or that the accused
attempted to cause such death by doing an act known
to him be so imminently dangerous that it must in all

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death; and
(iii) That the accused had no excuse for incurring the
risk of causing such death or injury.

38. In Crl. Appeal No.1096/2014 decided on
05.03.2026, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying
on the judgment in the cases of SHEENAPPA GOWDA and
M HARIPRAKASH (supra) has held that in the absence of
x-ray, the conviction and order on sentence passed by
the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC, cannot be sustained.

39. In the case on hand, the evidence of injured
reveals that he has sustained injuries as per the wound
certificate-Ex.P1, which are as under:
1. LINEAR ABRASIONS (SCRATCH)
MEASURING 0.5cms X 0.5CMS OBLIQUELY

PLACED OVER THE RIGHT MAXILLA.
2. PERFORATING INJURY MEASURING 3cms
X 3cms PLACED OVER THE LOWER LIP.

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


3. STAB WOUND MEASURING 3cms X 2cms
X MUSCLE DEEP, OBLIQUELY PLACED
OVER THE LEFT POST AXILLARY LINE
RD

UPPER 1/3 .
4. LINEAR LACERATION OF LEFT UPPER
LOBE OF LUNG WITH MILD
HAEMOTHORAX ON LEFT SIDE &
HAEMATOMA OF LEFT LOWER LOBE OF
LEFT LUNG.

40. The Doctor has opined that injury No.4 is
grievous in nature and injuries No.2 and 3 are fresh in
nature. The doctor has not opined anything as to injuries
No.1 to 3.

41. PW1-Dr. Mahabalesha Shetty, who has treated
the injured, has not whispered in his evidence as to the
nature of injuries No.1 to 3. The injured admitted to the
hospital on 07.04.2012 and discharged on 25.04.2012,
the injured has taken treatment for 18 days. The
prosecution has not produced the X-ray or radiology
report to prove that injury No.4 is grievous in nature. A
hurt can be held to be grievous only if it falls within one
of the kinds of hurt designated as grievous in Section

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In Prabhu v. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2009 SC 745, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ Before a conviction for
the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the
injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved,
and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule
of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly. ”
Injury No.4 could fall only under thev clause “Eighthly” of
Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, viz. “ any
hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to
be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain,
or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. ” The injured
was in hospital for 18 days and No X-ray or radiology
report has been produced to prove the internal injury
described as injury No.4. Hence, the grievous nature of
injury No.4 is not strictly proved, and the offence
punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 is not made out.

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



42. On careful examination of the entire evidence
on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused for
the commission of offence punishable under Section 307
of IPC. The core ingredient of Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is the intention or knowledge to cause
death. Such intention has to be gathered from the nature
of the weapon used, the part of the body where the
injury was caused, the nature of the injury, the severity
of the blows and the surrounding circumstances. The
gravity of the injury by itself does not establish such
intention. In ROSHAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER, 2026 INSC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that “ the gravity of the injury by itself cannot be
determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC
unless the prosecution is able to establish the requisite
mens rea contemplated under the provision .” In the case
on hand, though PW5 and PW6 have stated that the
accused tried to stab the injured more than once, the
wound certificate-Ex.P1 discloses only one stab wound,

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


namely injury No.3, which is muscle deep. Injury No.1 is
a linear abrasion over the right maxilla and injury No.2 is
a perforating injury over the lower lip. The medical
evidence does not disclose repeated or severe stab
injuries. In these circumstances, the intention or
knowledge required under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
On perusal of materials placed before this Court, keeping
in mind the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove the
guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC. However, the prosecution has not
placed sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court was not justified in
convicting the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


was charged with the offences punishable under Sections
326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section
222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides
that “ When a person is charged with an offence and facts
are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be
convicted of the minor offence, although he is not
charged with it. ” The accused can, therefore, be
convicted of the minor offence punishable under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, I answer
Point No.1 partly in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the
negative.

43. The offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both. The appellant has not
committed any offence prior to this alleged incident and
now the age of the appellant is 58 years. The appellant
has already remitted the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- vide

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


Q receipt No.66370 dated 20.01.2015. He has already
undergone imprisonment for 27 days.

44. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature and gravity of the offence, age of the
accused, and prior antecedents of the accused, it is just
and proper to pass a sentence for the offence under
Section 324 IPC with fine of Rs.30,000/- and
imprisonment for 27 days.
Regarding Point No.3:

45. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2015
and the order on sentence dated 20.01.2015
passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in
Sessions Case No.191/2012 are modified as

under:

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015



(a) The conviction of the
appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the
sentence imposed therefore are set
aside. Instead, the
appellant/accused is convicted for
the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

(b) The appellant/accused is sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for
27 days and to pay a fine of
Rs.30,000/-.

(c) The accused has already paid the
fine amount and has already
undergone imprisonment for a
period of 27 days. Hence, same is
set off under Section 428 of CrPC.

(d) The trial Court is directed to pay an
amount of Rs.25,000/- to the
injured-PW5 Nikshal as

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58459
CRL.A No. 165 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010167162015


compensation as per the order of
the trial Court.
Registry is directed to send the copy of this
.
judgment along with TCR to the concerned Court
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE


KBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50