- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1813 OF 2019 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. ABHILASH S/O. SRI. ARUNKUMAR C.A AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. KANADAL ROAD, KOTE, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K S GANESHA., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. PIN-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN S.C.NO.39/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF IPC. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA JUDGMENT Heard Sri. K. S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The appellant has suffered an order of conviction in S.C.No.39/2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru. 3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 The P.S.I., Chikkamagaluru Town Police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The gist of the charge sheet materials reveal that the complainant by name Sri. Yogish Kumar is the Managing Partner of Vyshnavi - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 Honda Showroom. Earlier, he was working in Indus Ind Bank and he was incharge of vehicle loan section pertaining to Vyshnavi Honda Showroom. During the said period, the complainant came to know that the accused has cheated and the same was informed to the Manager of Indus Ind Bank. On receipt of the said information, accused was removed from the job and in that connection, accused nurtured enmity with the complainant. 3.2 When the matter stood thus, on 25.03.2024 at about 10:15 a.m., in the public road [mud road] situated in the vicinity of said Vyshnavi Honda Showroom, when the complainant was proceeding on his way to the service station, accused appeared on the scene and with an intention to commit the murder of the complainant, with the aid of a hammer, assaulted on the right forehead, near the eye - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 and other portions of the head and right shoulder. Because of the number of blows, the complainant sustained bleeding injury. General public, who gathered on the scene pacified the quarrel and accused ran away. After receipt of the complaint from the complainant, police registered the case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. 4. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, as many as 10 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as PWs.1 to 10 comprising of the complainant, spot mahazar witnesses, eye witness, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 Investigation Agency and the Doctor. On behalf of the prosecution, 24 documents in all were placed on record which were executed and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.24 comprising of the Complaint, Mahazars, opinion of the Doctor, Wound Certificate, FSL Report, FIR etc. Prosecution also placed on record 3 material objections in support of its case which were marked as (i) M.O.1 [a hammer, which was used in the incident], (ii) M.O.2 [a blue color shirt of the complainant] and (iii) M.O.3 [a pendrive containing the photographs at the scene of the incident]. 6. Detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 supported the case of the prosecution in detail. P.W.8 - the Doctor, who has examined the injured, issued the Wound Certificate and the opinion with regard to the weapon used in the incident, also supported the case of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 the prosecution. The mahazar witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. 7. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge recorded statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied all the incriminatory materials, but failed to offer any explanation whatsoever in the form of written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. or by examining himself. 8. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge called the parties and noticing that material on record was not sufficient to attract all the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and ordered imprisonment for a term of one year and payment of Rs.10,000/- as a fine. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo sentence of three months. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court on the following grounds: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 8.1 Sri. K. S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the Appeal Memorandum, contended that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, has resulted in miscarriage of justice, especially when the material on record was not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. There cannot be any partial appreciation of the prosecution evidence in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and the charges for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 8.2 Alternatively, Sri. K. S. Ganesha submitted that in the event, this Court upholds the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, custody period undergone by the accused from 28.03.2014 to 05.04.2014 can be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Channappa Erappa supports the impugned judgment. 10. He further contended that the injured has supported the case of the prosecution and there is no delay in lodging the police complaint. He further contended that M.O.3 - the pendrive contains the CCTV footage of the incident wherein, the accused is clearly visible assaulting the complainant and these aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge by passing the impugned judgment. 11. He also contended that the very fact of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC even though the charge under Section 307 of IPC was the subject matter of the trial, itself shows that there is sufficient application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge into the material evidence on record and proper appreciation of material - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 evidence and therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be confirmed. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader also pointed out that the weapon that has been seized in the incident is a hammer with which the accused has assaulted on the forehead of the complainant resulting in bleeding injury which shows that the intention was to hurt and take away the life of the complainant and therefore, no lenience can be shown to the accused and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points are arise for consideration : i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 324 of IPC even though the charge under Section 307 of IPC was the subject matter of the trial? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 ii) Whether the appellant makes out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? iv) What order? 14. Regarding Point Nos. (i) and (ii) In the case on hand, admittedly the complainant and accused were acquainted with each other. Earlier to working in Vyshnavi Honda Showroom, the complainant was working in Indus Ind Bank. Accused had cheated the company which was brought to the notice of the Manager. Based on such information given by the complainant, accused was removed from the service. In that regard, there was a previous enmity which is the motive for the incident. Same has been established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. 15. Further, pursuant to such enmity being nurtured by the accused, on the fateful day i.e., on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 25.03.2014 at about 10:15 a.m., when the complainant was about to reach the Vyshnavi Honda Showroom, accused all of a sudden attacked the complainant with a hammer and assaulted the complainant on his forehead. The same is established not only by the oral testimony of the complainant and the eye witness but also with the aid of the CCTV footage collected by the police which was marked as M.O.3 - a pendrive. 16. The fact that the complainant, after sustaining injury, had lodged the complaint without much loss of time getting the treatment through P.W.8, is properly established by the prosecution by placing oral and documentary evidence on record. 17. Detailed cross examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material except suggesting to the prosecution witnesses that a false evidence has been foisted against the accused and the injury caused to the complainant is a self inflicted injury. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 18. Under such circumstances, taking note of the fact that the accused is visible in the CCTV footage collected in the form of a pendrive marked as M.O.3, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there is a voluntary cause of hurt by the accused to the complainant resulting in attracting the ingredients to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 19. It is to be noted that the State or the injured did not challenge the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and therefore, it has become final. 20. It is also noticed that the fine amount that has been ordered is only Rs.10,000/- and no compensation has been ordered by the learned Sessions Judge to the injured. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 needs to be maintained. Therefore, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the 'affirmative'. 21. Regarding Point No.3. In the case on hand, admittedly accused is a first time offender. When the learned Sessions Judge has convicted him for the lesser offence than the offence for which he has been charged, it is duty of the learned Sessions Judge to consider the grant of probation to the accused. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment and enhancement of fine in a sum of Rs.75,000/- and suitable compensation in orders to injured would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered in the 'affirmative'. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 22. Regarding point No.4. In view of the findings of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following Order is passed: ORDER a. The appeal is allowed in part. b. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is modified as under: (i) Custody period already undergone by the accused between 28.03.2014 to 05.04.2014 is treated as period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/-, inclusive of Rs.10,000/- ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:289 CRL.A No. 1813 of 2019 (ii) The accused is granted time till 10.02.2025 to pay fine amount of Rs.75,000/- less fine amount, if any, already deposited. Failure to pay/deposit the said fine amount on or before 10.02.2025, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. c. After the fine amount is recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RB