- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRAPPA D K S/O KYATHAPPA AGED 44 YEARS RA/T DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR 577201 PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOWDAREDDY T. M., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 POLICE STATION BANGALORE BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022 IN S.C.NO.622/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CCH-53, THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 227 OF CRPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. T. M. Chowda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The sole accused in S.C. No.622/2021 on the file of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53) is the revision petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Section 227 Cr.PC. 3. The facts in the nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the present petitioner as under: 3.1 Mr. Venkateshappa S/o. Late Chikka Shettappa lodged a complaint with Chikkaballapura Rural Police on 26.11.2018 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 the Indian Penal Code 1860, which was registered in Crime No.272/2018. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 3.2 The gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the petitioner and the complainant had previous enmity. The petitioner had visited Room No.512, Legislature's Home, Bengaluru on 26.11.2018 to meet the Member of Legislature, Chikkaballapur for inviting him to the Water Unit Inauguration. 3.3 The complainant met the accused, who was standing outside Room No.512 and on account of the previous enmity, accused got enraged and all of a sudden picked up the quarrel with the complainant and abused him in a filthy language, assaulted him with hands, whereby the complainant sustained injury resulting in bleeding from his left ear and he fell down. 3.4 The person, who accompanied the complainant though told him to get treated in the nearby hospital, they decided to get back to Chikkaballapur. Complainant got treated in the Government Hospital and thereafter in a Private Hospital. Later, the complainant lodged a complaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 with the Rural Police, which was subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional Police Station at Bengaluru as the incident has occurred in front of the Legislature's Home in Room No.512. 3.5 The police, after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 307 and 504 IPC. 3.6 The presence of the accused was secured before the Sessions Court and the accused filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking his discharge for the offence under Section 307 IPC, as totality of the charge sheet material would not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC. 3.7 The State opposed the application by filing detailed written objection. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and on a cumulative consideration of the material on record by a considerable order dated 19.09.2022, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the accused inter alia holding in Paragraph Nos. 9 to 12 as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 "9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.E.Shivalingamurthy v/s CBI, Bengaluru (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 811 relied upon by learned Public Prosecutor has observed about some important legal principles applicable in regard to an application seeking discharge by taking into consideration the various judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in several case. One of the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment is that "if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial". Another important principle held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is that "at the time of framing the charges, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, and the materials brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has laid own that court cannot make a raving inquiry into the pros and cons. The defence of the accused is not to be looked in to at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 10. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the law on the point of discharge is clear. Hence, at the stage of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 framing of charge only charge sheet along with accompanying materials needs to be looked into and not the documents produced by the accused. Now let us examine the allegations made in the charge sheet and the accompanying materials submitted along with charge sheet in order to ascertain whether those materials are sufficient to acquit the accused or not. If it is found from the said materials that the accused is entitled to be acquitted, then the application filed by the accused has to be allowed. 11. In the charge sheet specific allegation is made against accused that the accused by stating that if C.W.1 is alive then only C.W.1 will give trouble him regarding the road to the land and by stating that he will finish C.W.1 there itself assaulted C.W.1 and attempted to murder him. The investigating officer has recorded the statement of C.W.1 and statement of the eyewitness i.e., C.W.2. Further the investigation officer has also cited C.W.3 and 4 as eyewitnesses to the incident. Further in the first information given by C.W.1, allegation is made against the accused that the accused has attempted to murder him and the accused has assaulted him with intention of causing his murder. Further the eyewitnesses in their statement before the police have also deposed that the accused has assaulted C.W.1 with intention to murder him and also stated that the accused has abused C.W.1 with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 filthy language. If the charge sheet and other materials submitted along with the charge sheet are sufficient to prima-facie prove the commission of alleged offences by the accused. Further for commission of offence u/Sec.307 of IPC, the intention or knowledge of the accused to cause murder of the victim has to be looked into. Whether the accused has did any act with intention or knowledge to commit murder or not has to be considered. Causing of grievous injuries or using of deadly weapons is not the essential requirements of offence u/Sec.307 of IPC. As such, only on the ground that accused has assaulted C.W.1 as alleged in the charge sheet, it cannot be strait away come to the conclusion that no offence u/State Election Commission . 307 is attracted. One of the injury mentioned in the wound certificate is grievous in nature. 12. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that on the grounds urged by the accused in the application, the accused cannot be discharged for the alleged offences punishable u/Sec.323, 504 and 307 of IPC. There are sufficient prima-facie materials to show that the accused has abused C.W.1 with filthy language and voluntarily caused hurt to him and assaulted C.W.1 with intention of causing his murder. As such, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.323, 504 and 307 of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 IPC. Several grounds urged in the application by the accused are to be considered on merits of the case to give benefit of doubts to the accused if they are proved during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses. Further any lapses on the part of the IO as urged in the application is also not ground to discharge the accused for the alleged offences. The said aspect is also to be considered on merits to acquit the accused. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to discharge the accused for the alleged offences. Further I do not find any merits in the application filed by the accused. The application filed by the accused u/Sec.227 of Cr.P.C. is deserves dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the above point No.1 in Negative." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Mr. T. M. Chowda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that case of the prosecution suffers from several ambiguities and also patent factual errors and it is a concocted story of the complainant resulting in filing a false charge sheet against - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 the accused and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. He would further contend that even if the entire charge sheet material is taken into consideration as true for the sake of arguments, no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out inasmuch as the alleged injury on the left ear with profuse bleeding would not be sufficient enough to term that the action attributable to the accused is that of attempt to murder. 7. Therefore, the learned Session's Judge has committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 8. According to the learned counsel, at the most, assuming that there is a blood injury and the accused has assaulted by hand, the case that can be proceeded against the accused is one under Section 323 and 504 of IPC, which is a Magisterial trial and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 9. Per contra, Mr. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order and contends that in a matter of this kind, the nature of injury alone is not the decisive factor in appreciating the case of the prosecution and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. He would further contend that the testimony of the eye witnesses is available on record and a slap on the left ear in many cases would have resulted in the death and by chance, the complainant has survived and therefore, prima facie material is sufficient enough to proceed with the trial for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has given anxious consideration to the material on record meticulously. In the case on hand, the previous enmity is spoken to by the complainant himself in the complaint. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 12. No doubt, the time mentioned in the wound certificate issued by the Jeevan Hospital, Chikkaballapura, the Government Hospital, Chikkaballapura and the time mentioned in the registration of the complaint may have some effect as to the veracity of the case of the prosecution. 13. Further, according to the accused, Jeevan Hospital is being run in the building owned by the complainant and therefore the medical certificate is a concocted medical certificate which is based by the Investigating Officer to aggravate a minor incident into a case for attempt to murder only with an intention to harass the revision petitioner and therefore, he is entitled for an order of discharge for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 14. The grounds urged in the revision petition are more in the nature of the defence that is to be probabilized by the accused during the trial. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 15. Minor contradiction in the charge sheet materials cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial as the scope of revision when an application seeking discharge is dismissed. 16. What materials are required to be considered at the time of framing the charge or otherwise is no longer res integra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 has held as under: "25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code'. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof." 17. Keeping in the background the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi supra, when the material on record is analyzed, bleeding from the ear prima facie would be sufficient enough to frame the charge for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 18. It is for the accused to cross examine the doctor who has issued the wound certificate and thereafter argue that ingredients to attract offence under Section 307 is not made out by prosecution. 19. If no ingredients are made out for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, necessarily there will be scaling down of the offence alleged against the accused if the prosecution is unsuccessful in establishing the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 20. Thus, desisting from holding the mini trial having regard to the scope of the revision, when the material on record, framing the charge for the higher offence is always safe and the Court may in its discretion convict the accused for a lesser offence. Vice versa is impermissible as it will further complicate the process in as much as if the material evidence thereafter makes out a case for offence under Section 307 of IPC, necessarily case is to be committed to the Sessions Court and de novo trial has to be conducted. 21. Keeping in mind these aspects of the matter, order of the trial Judge rejecting the application in the considered opinion of this Court needs no interference. Accordingly, following order: ORDER [a] The petition is dismissed. [b] The observations made by this Court in this order and the trial Court while rejecting the application under Section - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19340 CRL.RP No. 1388 of 2022 227 Cr.P.C shall not affect the merits of the matter in any way. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RB