- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 OF 2018: BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTA POLICE STAION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) AND: 1. CHATTANGADA B. KARIAPPA S/O LATE BELLIAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOORIKADU VILLAGE K. BADAGA, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571218. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.V.ANAND, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAG-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN S.C.NO.5007/2017 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2018: BETWEEN: 1. CHATTANGADA B. KARIAPPA S/O LATE BELLIAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOORIKADU VILLAGE K. BADAGA, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTA POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT-571201 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.03.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KODAGU-MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.5007/2017 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) 1. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader-State and also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused since there are two appeals, Crl.A.No.975/2018 is filed by the State/appellant against the acquittal order for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the other appeal Crl.A.No.574/2018 is filed by the accused/appellant against the conviction order. 2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the Trial Court is that C.B.Subbaiah, who is the brother of accused is injured and case has been registered. There was an inter se dispute between the accused and the witnesses and incident was taken place in connection with civil dispute between the parties. The case of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 prosecution that accused with an intention to kill the P.W.1, assaulted him with pickaxe targeting on his head, but, P.W.1 warded off the said blow, as a result, he has sustained injury to his shoulder and Police have registered the case based on the statement of the injured for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and dispatched the FIR to the Court and thereafter investigated the matter by drawing mahazar-Ex.P.2 and seized MO.1-pickaxe and recorded the statement of witnesses and Investigating Officer collected the wound certificate and after the completion of investigation invoked Section 307 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claims trial and hence, prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 and also Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and the material object MO.1. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.7, portion of statement is marked as Ex.P.1. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and denied all the incriminating evidence and did not choose to lead any evidence. During the course of argument, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 counsel appearing for the accused filed a memo and produced certified copy of the plaint, written statement objection and order sheet in O.S.No.95/2016, which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Virajpet and also certified copy of the ‘B’ report filed arising out of Crime No.36/2016 i.e., in the previous day, case was registered against P.W.1 and ‘B’ report was filed. 3. 3. The counsel appearing for the State brought to notice of this Court that the P.W.1 in his evidence specifically pleaded that accused with an intention to take away the life, tried to assault on the head with pickaxe, but due to the P.W.1 ward off the said blow, as a result, he has sustained injury to his shoulder and immediately C.W.2 and C.W.7 brought the Auto rickshaw and he was taken to the hospital. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that injuries are not occurred on account of the assault made by the accused and the said suggestion was denied and also he had reached the Kutta Hospital for treatment at 11.30 a.m., on the date of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 incident in an Auto rickshaw and C.W.3 to C.W.7 were not accompanied to Kutta Hospital. It is suggested that he assaulted the accused on 10.06.2016. 4. The P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 are the eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence also considered by the Trial Court and taken note of the evidence of P.W.5-Doctor who examined the injured. The Doctor says in his evidence, he has deposed that injury found in Ex.P.3 could be caused if MO.1 is used to assault. In the cross-examination P.W.5, he deposed that if any stem of the coffee plantation came in contact with the person, there is a likelihood of sustaining the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one year and hence, the counsel appearing for the State would submits that when there are injuries on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 the shoulder and also on the fingers, the Trial Court committed an error in not invoking Section 307 of IPC. 5. The counsel appearing for the accused would submits that according to the prosecution, an incident was taken place and tried to assault with pickaxe and having considered the nature of injury found in Ex.P.3-wound certificate and the same is not caused out of pickaxe- MO.1 though same was seized. The counsel would submits that only abrasion and laceration even as per the evidence of P.W.5-Doctor and there was no any intention though it is stated that with an intention to take away the life, assault was made and even if the P.W.1 tried to ward off that injury and if really he is having any intention to take away the life, he would have inflicted injuries, but only two minor injuries are found. The Trial Court fails to take note of the case was registered against P.W.1 in respect of the previous incident is concerned. However, though B-report is filed and the same is not disputed, but it is very clear that there was a prior ill-will with regard to this incident is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 concerned that too there is a civil dispute between the accused and eye witnesses who comes and deposes before the Court that incident was taken place, but original suit is also pending between the accused as well as eye witnesses and the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court and hence, counsel would contend that it is a case for acquittal. 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the State and also the learned counsel for the respondent and considering the grounds urged in both the appeals, the points that would arise for our considerations are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in not invoking Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and committed an error in invoking Section 324 of Indian Penal Code? 2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused in the absence of consistent evidence available on record and whether it requires interference by acquitting the accused? 3) What order? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 Point Nos.1 to 3: 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for both the appellants in respective appeals and also considering both oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and no doubt P.W.1 in his evidence, he has deposed that with an intention to take away the life, an attempt was made to inflict the injury with pickaxe and no doubt MO.1 is pickaxe and the same is also identified, but the fact is that P.W.1 had sustained injury to shoulder, but if really the pickaxe is used for assaulting, there would have been cut injuries and the same is not found and only sustained the injury which is simple in nature. No doubt P.W.1 also says that C.W.2 to C.W.7 brought the Auto rickshaw and taken him to the Kutta Hospital, but P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 are the eye witnesses and though suggestion was made that suit was pending between the accused and also the eye witnesses since they are the relatives of P.W.1 and they denied, but document is produced before the Court that there was a suit pending - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 before the Court and apart from that also document is produced that B-report was filed in respect of the previous incident is concerned, but Court has to take note of particularly the evidence of P.W.1 injured witness and his evidence is very clear that the accused assaulted him and medical evidence of P.W.5 is very clear that injured came to the hospital on the very same day and on examination, he found two injuries that is on left hand index finger and middle finger and also bruise injury on the left shoulder and wound certificate also issued in terms of Ex.P.3 and both injuries are simple in nature, but though P.W.5 says that the MO.1 could cause such injury, but in the cross- examination, categorically admitted that if any stem of coffee plantation came in contact, the nature of injuries found in Ex.P.3 could be caused. 8. 8. It is also important to note that there is a dispute with regard to the property issue and particularly suit was pending between the eye witnesses as well as the accused. However, taking into note of incident has taken - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 place, there was no any delay and immediately he was taken to the hospital after the incident. The counsel appearing for the appellant not disputes that in the previous day also incident was took place and case was registered against P.W.1 and ultimately B-report was filed and in connection with that previous incident, this incident was taken place. The medical evidence supports the case of P.W.1 and having considered the nature of injury and the injury sustained is simple in nature and there are two injuries and instead of imprisoning the appellant since he was aged about 70 years as on the date of alleged incident that was taken place in the year 2017 and now we are in 2026 almost 9 years has been elapsed and now he is aged about 79 years, taking into note of his age as on the date of incident and hence, we felt that instead of imprisoning him as ordered by the Trial Court, it will meet the ends of justice by awarding compensation by way of imposing the fine against the appellant/accused and hence, we do not find any ground to invoke Section 307 of IPC as contended - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 by the State and only simple injuries are found and if really he is having any intention to take away the life, he would have inflicted the injury with pickaxe on vital part and no other injuries are found and only evidence of P.W.1 is that he warded off the blow and as a result he has sustained injury which is simple in nature, but not found any intentional act to take away the life and hence, question of invoking 307 of IPC does not arise and considering the material available on record, we felt that the compensation would meet the justice to the injured P.W.1. Hence, we answer the points accordingly in both the appeals. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed by the appellant/State in Crl.A.No.975/2018 is dismissed. ii) The appeal filed by the appellant/accused in Crl.A.No.574/2018 is allowed in part. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4618-DB CRL.A No. 975 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 574 of 2018 iii) The judgment of the Trial Court in S.C.NO.5007/2017 imposing sentence of one year is set-aside, but modified uphelding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as he was not in the Hospital also and only he took the treatment as day care treatment. If appellant fails to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- within four weeks from today then he has to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. iv) The Registry is directed to send the records of the Trial Court forthwith to enable the appellant/accused to deposit the amount within a period of 4 weeks. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19