- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2021 BETWEEN: RIYAZ PASHA, S/O SAYAD BASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PRESENTLY CENTRAL PRISON BANGALORE OTHERWISE, R/AT EDGA MOHALLA, DINNEHAOSAHALLI VILLAGE AND CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.01.2020 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.53/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Lathief B., learned counsel submits that he is ready to address the arguments on main appeal itself though the matter is listed for orders. As such, by consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Appellant who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC in SC No.53/2017 by judgment dated 30.01.2020 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura has preferred present appeal. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Chikkaballapura town police which was registered in Crime No.41/2007. Contents of the complaint would reveal that about ten years earlier, accused had assaulted one Venugopal in front of Balaji Talkies without any reason. At that juncture, Arjun – complainant intervened and rescued Venugopal. Pursuant to the said enmity on 27.03.2017 at about 8.30 p.m., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 when complainant and Raghavendra were standing near the transformer located in front of Mehaboob Tiles Shop, behind Siddeshwara Samudaya Bhavana Road, Prashanthnagar, Chikkaballapur leading towards Durga Mohallah, accused came there and picked up the quarrel with the complainant and with the help of surgical blade, committed an injury on the neck region of the complainant resulting in bleeding injury. When Raghavendra tried to rescue him, accused said to abused the complainant that he should die. 3.2. Based on the complaint, after registering the case, jurisdictional police conducted detailed investigation and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable section 307 of IPC inter alia arrested the accused. 4. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Judge took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. 5. Learned Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapura made over the case to III Additional District Judge. Offence alleged against the accused was taken cognizance of by the learned District Judge and secured the presence of the accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 and framed the charges for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC which was denied by the accused as such, trial was held. 6. After due trial, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of three months. Rs.5,000/- was also ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 – complainant. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court, in this appeal. 8. Sri.B.Lethief, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC inasmuch as wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 would reveal only simple injury which was issued by the Doctor, who is examined as P.W.6 and sought for allowing the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 9. He would further contend that a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion only with an intention to aggravate the incident and offence under Section 307 of IPC has been invoked by the police which has been blindly followed by the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order and sought for allowing the appeal. 10. He would also further contend that, in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, the custody period already undergone by the appellant may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Per contra, Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. 12. He would further contend that the material evidence placed on record clearly indicates that the surgical blade has been used in the incident which has been seized and marked before the Court as M.O.2. 13. He would also contend that part of the body that has been chosen for causing the injury is the neck and injury that has been caused is measuring 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. which shows the gravity of the injury that has been caused and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 therefore, no mercy can be shown for the appellant and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? 2. Whether the appellant makes out a case of legal infirmity or perversity in the finding of the guilt recorded by the learned Trial Judge insofar as the aforesaid offence is concerned? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? REG.POINT Nos.1 and 2: 16. In the case on hand, acquaintance of the accused with the complainant is well established as there was a previous quarrel between the accused and Venugopal wherein the complainant had rescued the Venugopal from the clutches - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 of accused. Pursuant to the said enmity, the incident has occurred is the case of the prosecution. Weapon used in the incident is seized and same is marked before the Trial Court as M.O.2 which is a surgical blade. Blood sustained T-shirt worn by the injured is also seized and marked as M.O.1 before the Trial Court. 17. Eye witness to the incident is Raghavendra who was standing along with the injured. He has supported the case of the prosecution in toto with graphic details. 18. Cross-examination of P.W.1 and Raghavendra did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution nor to further probabilise the case of the defence that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case by taking advantage of self-inflected injuries. 19. Admittedly, injury that has been caused by use of M.O.2 has been examined by P.W.6 and wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 came to be issued. Nobody can have a self- inflicted injury as is found in Ex.P.5. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 20. Further, what is the purpose of falsely implicating the accused in the incident is not even spoken to at the time of recording the accused statement by the appellant. 21. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, the incident is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. No doubt, there is some force in the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant that there is no proper reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge for maintaining the order of conviction. However, in every case, intention cannot be proved by the prosecution by placing positive evidence on record. However, the semblance of motive is spoken to by P.W.1 inasmuch as he has rescued Venugopal from the clutches of appellant about 10 years earlier and on account of the same, appellant had nurtured enmity as against the complainant. Use of M.O.2 – surgical blade and causing the injury on the neck of P.W.1 would be sufficient enough to infer both intention and knowledge. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC needs to be maintained by supplying additional reasons. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 22. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in a case where offence under Section 307 of IPC is alleged against a particular accused, the prosecution has to establish not only the nature of the injury but also the way in which it has been caused. Admittedly, voluntary causing of the injury on the neck which is measuring 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. with the aid of M.O.2 – surgical blade is sufficient enough to infer the intention and knowledge in the case on hand. 23. Therefore, from the above discussions, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered affirmative and negative respectively. REG.POINT No.3: 24. In the case on hand, there is no previous complaint either by Venugopal or by the complainant about the incident that is said to have occurred about 10 years earlier in front of Balaji Talkies, Chikkaballapura. 25. Thus, in the absence of any criminal antecedents insofar as appellant is concerned, custody period of 2 years 1 month 19 days undergone by the appellant if treated as period of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC as against 4 years granted by the learned Trial Judge by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and part of which could be paid as compensation to P.W.1, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.4: 26. In view of the foregoing discussions on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, custody period of 2 years 1 month 19 days already undergone by the appellant, is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 30.03.2025 failing which the appellant shall undergo remaining period of sentence. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8576 CRL.A No. 1429 of 2021 iii. After receipt of the fine amount, sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 in addition to the compensation already awarded by the learned Trial Judge. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK