[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Umesh S/O Lakshmana Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                                -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB
                                                      CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                       PRESENT

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                          AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100012 OF 2025 (C-)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SHRI UMESH S/O. LAKSHMANA NAIK,
                   AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORKER,
                   R/O. TALAMAKKI, MANKI, HONNAVAR, TQ. HONNAVAR,
                   DIST. UTTARA KANNADA (KARWAR)-581348.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SMT. NIRMALA DODAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   BY HONNAVAR, POLICE STATION,
VINAYAKA           UTTAR KANNADA.
BV                 R/BY. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V                                                    ...RESPONDENT
Date: 2026.03.12   (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
10:28:22 +0530

                         THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
                   CR.P.C., (UNDER SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR
                   RECORDS IN S.C. NO.01/2019 DISPOSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND
                   SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR ON 14.03.2023, AND
                   SET-SIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 14.03.2023 AND
                   SENTENCE DATED 21.03.2023, IN S.C. NO.1/2019 PASSED BY THE
                   PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR
                   FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 302, 307, 504
                   AND 506 OF IPC AND      APPELLANT MAY BE ACQUITTED IN THE
                   INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                                   -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB
                                        CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025


HC-KAR



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

CORAM:           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused and the learned Addl. SPP for the

respondent/State.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction

dated 14.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2023

passed in SC No.1/2019 by the learned Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar against the appellant/accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302, 307, 504 and

506 of IPC and prays this Court to acquit the accused for the

aforesaid offences.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.08.2018

at about 15.30 hours, in the afternoon, the accused called the

deceased to drink the tender coconut and when he went near the

house, he gave tender coconut to the deceased and immediately,

the accused inflicted injuries on the face, head and backside of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

the deceased with Machete. When the wife of the deceased tried

to save her husband, the accused inflicted injury on the wife of

the deceased also, as a result, the injured husband of PW2 and

PW2-wife, who sustained injuries, both of them were shifted to

the hospital and injured PW2 took treatment in the hospital and

the husband of PW2-injured succumbed to the injuries and this

incident was also witnessed by PW1, son of the deceased. Based

on the complaint in terms of Ex.P1, a case was registered against

the accused and collected all the materials including recorded the

statement of the witnesses and after conclusion of the

investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 and

302 of IPC. The accused is in the custody from the date of his

arrest and he was secured before the trial Court. The charges

are framed and the accused did not plead guilty and claims trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against

the accused, examined PW1 to PW17 and also got marked

Exs.P1 to P40A and also relied upon MO1 to MO11. On closure

of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to

313 statement and he denied the incriminating materials of the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

prosecution, however, he did not choose to lead any defence

evidence. The trial Judge having considered both oral and

documentary evidence of PW1-eye witness, PW2-injured eye

witness, PW3, who rushed to the spot having heard the

screaming sound and who found the accused at the spot and he

left the spot showing weapon causing a threat to the persons,

who were present at the spot that he is going to teach a lesson

to them. The trial Judge also considered the evidence of IO, who

recovered the machete and also the clothes of the accused,

which were blood stained and also believed the evidence of PW5-

panch witness for recovery and also considered the FSL report,

which is marked before the trial Court and having considering all

these materials, comes to a conclusion that the accused only

committed the murder of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed by the

appellant/accused.

5. The counsel for the accused/appellant during the

course of argument, would vehemently contend that the

judgment of the trial Court is manifestly perverse and which is

entirely opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. The

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

learned counsel further contends that the prosecution mainly

relied upon the interested witnesses, namely the wife of the

deceased, son of the deceased and another son of the deceased,

those who have been examined as PW-1 to PW-3. It is further

contended that the trial Judge committed an error in accepting

the evidence of the family members and none of the independent

witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with

regard to the incident is concerned.

6. The learned counsel for the accused further

vehemently contends that if there was any prior enmity between

the accused and deceased, the deceased would not have gone to

the spot when the accused was called to drink tender coconut. It

is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove prior

enmity between the accused and deceased, therefore, the

question of inflicting the injury by the accused when he was

called to the spot to have the tender coconut is not properly

considered by the trial Court.

7. The counsel vehemently contends that the accused

and his wife fell down near their house on the sharp-edged stone

and sustained injuries and further contended that at the time of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

the incident, the accused was not in the house and he had gone

to coolie work and the trial Judge failed to consider the same.

8. The counsel also vehemently contends that the trial

Judge committed an error in not considering the lot of

discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and particularly in

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 says that he himself and

parents were sitting in front of their house, whereas, PW-2 says

that both husband and wife were sitting in front of their house

and not said anything about the very presence of PW-1 in the

house and this discrepancy was not taken into consideration. The

counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW-5, who is the

independent witness for recovery of machete and the clothes of

the accused, is also not consistent but he gives an admission in

the cross-examination that he had signed the mahazar as

prepared by the Police; therefore, his evidence cannot be

believed. The counsel also submitted that the FSL report shows

that 'AB' positive blood group is the blood group of PW-2 and

case of the prosecution is that machete was stained with blood,

but here the blood of PW-2 is found and not that of the blood of

'B' group of deceased. Hence, it is clear that in the absence of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

blood group of the deceased on the machete, the trial Judge

committed an error in believing the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, particularly, the investigating officer and also the

evidence of PW-5 and ought to have given the benefit of doubt in

favour of the accused. Hence, it is a case for interference of this

Court. The counsel would submit that the trial Judge committed

an error in invoking Section 324 of IPC as well as Section 302 of

IPC for the injuries sustained by the deceased and also

committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 506 of IPC and contend that the

ingredients of those offences are also not proved by the

prosecution. Hence, it is a case for acquittal.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional S.P.P appearing for

the respondent/State would submit that the incident had taken

place near the house of the accused and not near the house of

the injured or PW-1 to PW-3 and no dispute with regard to the

place of incident. The counsel submits that the injuries sustained

by the deceased as well as PW-2 is not disputed and only

defence was taken that both of them have sustained the injuries

when accidentally fell on the sharp edged stone. Learned

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

Additional S.P.P would also submit that the evidence of PW-1 and

PW-2, who are the eye witness as well as injured eye-witness

and PW-3, who is a circumstantial witness, who rushed to the

spot, having heard the screaming sound and found the accused

at the spot.

10. Further, the counsel submits that the accused left the

place on arrival of PW-2 and PW-3 to the spot and also causing

threat to them. Hence, rightly invoked Section 506 of IPC and so

also, counsel would submit that the accused inflicted the injury

with the machete on the vital part of PW-2 i.e., on her head and

hence, invoked Section 307 of IPC. This Court cannot find fault

with the same.

11. The counsel appearing for the respondent/State

would also submit that there is a recovery at the instance of the

accused and accused only led the investigation officer as well as

PW-5 to the place, where he had hidden the machete and his

cloth stained with blood and recovery was made. When such

disclosure statement is made by the accused, pointing out the

place where he hidden the same and PW-5 also supports the

case of prosecution and apart from that, FSL report which is

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

marked before the Court as Ex.P25 also considered by the trial

Court and rightly convicted the accused and it does not require

any interference of this Court.

12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant

and also the learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent/State

and considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well

as the oral submissions of the respective counsel and on re-

appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the points

that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

i. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court?

ii. What order?

13. We have given our anxious consideration to the

grounds urged in the appeal memo and also the submission

smade during the course of arguments of respective counsel.

14. Having considered the material available on record,

firstly, this Court has to decide whether it is a case of homicidal.

Having considered the evidence of PW-14-Doctor, it is very clear

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

that on 20.08.2018, he commenced the post mortem at 09.45

p.m. and concluded at 11.45 p.m. on the very same day of the

incident and found six injuries which are as follows:

i. Cut lacerated wound measuring 12 cm x 1.5 cm

x 1.5 cm. Deep, sharp edges with clotted blood

extending from right side angle of mouth to 5

cm below tempero mandibular joint.

ii. Sharp cut wound started 3 cm below right pinna

to oblique direction extending till 3 cms., above

stemo clavicular joint 15 cm x 0.2 cms x 0.2

cms.

iii. No marks of ligature was found.

iv. Cut lacerated wound with sharp edges stated

from 3 cm. Lateral to left angle of mount

extending horizontal and bisected left ear at

middle part with clotted blood. Measuring 15

cm. x 0.3 cm. x 0.0 cm. Deep. No dislocations

of muscles, bones and joints were found.

v. Cut lacerated wound over right upper back

vertically located measuring 7 cm. x 0.7 cm.

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

deep x 5 cm. width. Sharp slightly oval sharpe

clotted blood present.

vi. Elliptical shape cut lacerated wound over left

upper back 1.5 inch lateral to thoracic spine

oblique direction sharp edges extending to 2.5

cm below inferior border of scapula measuring

10 cm. x 5cm. x piercing to rupture the spleen.

15. In the evidence, the Doctor also says that on

dissection of the body, found 9th, 10th and 11th ribs fractured in

the left side. Plural tear present and also given the opinion that

injuries are anti-mortem and kept the opinion pending avoiding

RFSL report and he did blood grouping and it was 'B' positive.

After the post mortem, he handed over the body to the Police

and also handed over viscera in sealed bottles. Having received

the RFSL report on 05.12.2018, gave the final opinion that cause

of death is due to severe shock and haemorrhage due to intra-

abdominal injury i.e., spleen bleed rupture. The age of the

injuries was less than 12 hours and death is homicidal. This

witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-

examination, with regard to the nature of injuries are concerned,

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

a suggestion was made that the deceased has sustained the said

injuries by falling on sharp edged stones, due to imbalance in his

movement and the same was denied. Further, suggestion was

made that if a person falls on hard surface, there is chance of

sustaining rupture of spleen and the same was also denied. The

injuries are mentioned in the post mortem report as per Ex.P28

and blood grouping is as per Ex.P29 and FSL report is at Ex.31

and also the opinion as per Ex.P32.

16. Having taken note of the evidence of PW-14/Doctor,

it is very clear that the injuries are cut lacerated wound and six

in number and also the injuries are very deep in nature. The

opinion is very clear that it is a case of homicidal and though

suggestion was made to this witness that these type of injuries

could be caused if a person accidentally falls on sharp edged

stones, due to imbalance and those suggestions are denied and

even with regard to a person falls on the hard surface, there is

chance of sustaining rupture of spleen and no doubt, the doctor

has also pointed out the rupture of spleen and also sustained

injuries to the ribs. In further cross-examination, witness

deposed that he has done blood grouping of CW-8 at the request

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

of CW-28. As per his opinion, the blood group of CW-8 is 'AB'

positive and Ex.P39 is the blood grouping report issued by him

and it bears his signature and identifies the signature as

Ex.P39(A). In the cross-examination, admitted the date on which

CW-8 had come to his hospital, when he tested her for blood

group and the same is not mentioned but received the written

requisition from the Police to do the blood group of CW-8 and

based on that requisition, conducted the blood grouping.

17. Having taken note of all these materials available on

record, it is a clear case of homicidal and not the case of

accidental fall as suggested by the defence and also considering

the nature of injuries i.e. cut-lacerated wound. The evidence of

the Doctor is also positive that it is a case of homicidal and

hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in

appreciating the nature of injuries and also reconsidering the

post mortem report and the final opinion of the Doctor that it is a

case of homicidal.

18. Now coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses

is concerned, this case rests upon the direct evidence as well as

circumstantial evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that the

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

accused called the deceased near his house and asked him to

have the tender coconut and when he gave the same to the

deceased, at that time, the accused inflicted the injury with the

machete on the face and also on the other parts of the body of

the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and

when PW-2 also accompanied the deceased and she has

witnessed the incident. When she tried to save her husband from

the clutches of the accused, the accused also inflicted the injury

with the same machete on her head and she also sustained the

injuries and both PW-1 and PW-2 speaks about the overtact of

the accused. The prosecution mainly relies upon the Wound

Certificate of PW-2, who had sustained two injuries i.e., cut

lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm. over the left occipital region and also

the abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left little finger.

Having considered this second injury is concerned, it is very clear

that she made an attempt to save the life of her husband. At

that time, she had sustained the injury and also the deceased

inflicted the injury with the same machete on the head. As a

result, she has sustained the injury to left occipital region and

these injuries are also very clear that alleged history of assault

and the injured and the deceased were taken to the same

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

hospital and in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2, who

are the eyewitnesses to the incident, nothing is elicited from the

mouth of both of them to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

19. In the cross-examination, suggestion was made that

the accused was not in the house at the time of the incident and

he went to coolie work. In order to substantiate the defence of

alibi, nothing is placed on record even in 313 statement of the

accused, he has not whispered anything that he was not in the

house, at the time of the incident and the same is total denial

and there is no any explanation on the part of the accused. It is

also the suggestion to PW-2 that she had also sustained the

injury to her head, when she accidentally fallen on the sharp

edged stone and the same defence was taken while cross

examining PW-1 and PW-2 that the deceased fell down on the

sharp edged stone and sustained the injuries. The evidence of

the Doctor-PW14 is very clear that those injuries are not out of

any accidental injuries and apart from that, PW-1 and PW-2 who

are the son and wife of the deceased, though they are the

interested witnesses, their evidence is consistent and reliable

and there was no any intention to implicate the accused in the

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

case and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these two

witnesses that both of them were having an animosity to

implicate the accused in a false case.

20. No doubt, it is elicited that earlier there was a

dispute between both of them and case was decided long back in

2003. This incident was taken place in 2018. No doubt, counsel

appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this court that if

enmity was in existence, the deceased ought not to have gone to

the place when the accused was called him. But the fact is that,

when the direct evidence is available before the Court, the

motive is also insignificant while considering the case of murder

and the same is significant in case if the case is only rest upon

the circumstantial evidence. Hence, we do not find any force in

the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that

there was no enmity. But when the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2

is very clear that they have witnessed the incident and

witnessing the said incident is also withstood during the course

of cross-examination, except the suggestion of denial of the very

incident. No dispute with regard to the place of incident and also

the nature of injuries, but only suggestion was made to the

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

witnesses PW-2 and also to the Doctor-PW14 that those two

injuries are accidental injuries. Having considered the medical

evidence also, we do not find any such force. The other witness

is PW-3, who is also none other than the son of the deceased.

PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, all of them deposed before the Court that

at the time of the incident, PW-1, PW-2 and deceased were

sitting outside the house in front of their house. But other family

members were inside the house. PW-3 having heard the

screaming sound of PW-1, rushed to the spot and at that time,

PW-1 and PW-2 witnessed the incident. But PW-3 admittedly

came to the spot and by that time, already injuries are inflicted.

But the accused was at the spot and he also categorically

deposes that accused left the place causing threat that he would

repeat the same to them also. The other witness prosecution

relies upon the evidence of Investigating Officer as well as

recovery witness PW-5. The investigating officer and PW-5, both

categorically deposes that the accused led him and panch

witnesses to the spot where he had hidden the weapon as well as

the cloth and the same was recovered. PW-5 also in his evidence

reiterates with regard to the recovery and accused only led him

to the particular spot and the same is a disclosure statement by

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also he

categorically says that he had signed the mahazar-Ex.P16 and

identifies his signature. Apart from that, he also says that photos

were taken and the same are marked as Exs.P17 and P19 and he

identifies his photo in Ex.P17 to 19 and also identifies

M.O.6-machete, which was recovered at the instance of the

accused and so also, the T-shirt and lungi of the accused, both

are marked as M.O.9 and M.O.10. He also identifies the

signature, which is marked as M.O.9(A) and M.O.10(A). No doubt

in the cross-examination, he admits that police have taken the

signature as they required on the panchanama and also he

admits that similar type of M.O.6 would be available in every

house. But when the suggestion was made that he had signed

the mahazar at the Police station and he categorically denies the

same and he deposes that his signature was taken where the

panchanama was conducted and suggestion was made that in his

presence, the accused did not produce even machete as well as

blood stained cloth, the same was denied and also suggestion

was made that in his presence that panchanama was not done

and the same was denied and merely because, the admission

given that Police have taken the signature as required by them,

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

that itself will not take away the case of the prosecution. But he

categorically deposes with regard to the recovery at the instance

of the accused and the investigation officer who has been

examined as PW5. The evidence of PW15 is also very clear that

he had drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P16 and he also

speaks about the same. The trial Court cannot discard the

evidence of the investigating officer, who recovered the

incriminating materials of machete as well as clothes from the

accused. When his evidence is also consistent, the Court can rely

upon the evidence of the Police witness also and only if there

was no any positive evidence before the Court, then Court can

doubt the same. But the evidence of PW-15 and PW-5 is

consistent with regard to the recovery is concerned. Hence, we

do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in considering

the evidence of these material witnesses particularly PW-1, PW-

2, PW-3, PW-5 and the evidence of PW-14 and also the evidence

of PW-16, who treated the injured PW-2 in the hospital and

issued the Wound Certificate in terms of Ex.P35, wherein also

pointed out the nature of injuries and treated doctor was not

alive. Hence, PW-16 is examined before the trial court to

substantiate with regard to the wound certificate. When all these

- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

materials available before the Court, the same points out the

very role of the accused in committing the crime and hence, we

do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in appreciating

the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

21. The counsel appearing for the appellant during the

course of argument would submit that there was no any

intention to take away the life and this Court can bring the case

within the purview of Section 300, exceptions and the said

submission cannot be accepted and having taken note of the

defence is very clear that accused was not present at the spot at

the time of the incident and other limb of argument of the

counsel appearing for the appellant is that it is a case of

accidental fall and sustained the injuries when both of them

fallen down on the sharp edged stone. But when there is no any

ingredient of offence under Section 300, question of bringing the

case within the purview of Section 300 also doesn't arise. Hence,

we do not find any force in the contention of the counsel that

there is a sudden provocation and the very presence is disputed

and inflicting of the injury is disputed and even not set forth any

such defence during the course of cross examination of the

- 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

witnesses. The defence is total denial of the incident and hence,

we do not find any force in the said submission.

22. Having reassessed the material available on record,

the evidence of PW-2 is very clear that when she tried to save

the life of her husband, the accused inflicted the injury with the

very same machete on the head i.e., vital part of the body. The

wound certificate is also very clear that an injury on the occipital

region and though injuries are not grievous but Court has to take

note of an intention of an assailant in inflicting the injury, that

too with a machete he inflicted the injury on the vital part and

also Court has to take note of Section 307 of IPC that whoever

does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such

circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be

guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

prescription for it or which may extend to 10 years and shall also

be liable to fine. In the case on hand, hurt is caused with a

deadly weapon like machete, that too on the vital part and

hence, it is a clear case of 307 and not 324 and trial Court

committed an error in even convicting the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 324 and charge is also framed

- 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

in respect of 324 on the injuries caused to the deceased and

when he succumbed to the injuries, question of framing the

charge for 324 doesn't arise. Hence, the trial Court committed an

error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC. The trial Judge having taken note of an

attempt to murder as well as taking of the life, imposed the life

imprisonment and other sentence. Hence, question of modifying

the sentence for the offence under Section 307 also does not

arise and the same also shall run concurrently for the offence

under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.

23. The other offence invoked is, Section 506 of IPC and

the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is very clear that accused

while leaving the place, caused threat to all of them, showed and

splashed the machete while leaving the place that he is going to

teach a lesson to them. When such intimidation is caused to PW-

1 to PW-3, the trial Judge has not committed an error in invoking

Section 506 of IPC and considering the evidence available on

record, invoking Section 506 of IPC and we do not find any

ground to interfere with regard to the conviction and sentence

- 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB

HC-KAR

for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. In view of

the discussions made above, the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The Judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court is set aside for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

and also the sentence and remaining conviction

and sentence for the offence punishable under

Sections 302, 307 and 506 of IPC is confirmed.

iii. The accused is entitled for the benefit under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C.