STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K GANPATHI BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the State being aggrieved of the order passed in S. C. No. 34/2003 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, d. K. , Mangalore recording a finding that there are no sufficient grounds to frame charges for the offence under Section 307, IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the accused Sri K. Ganapathi Bhat was charge sheeted for the offence under sections 448, 326 and 307, IPC in Crime No. 167/02 of Bantwal Town Police Station alleging that the accused Sri K. Ganapathi bhat jumped inside the compound wall of the house of Dr. Prabhakar Bhat. It was seen by Mahabala Poojary as well as Nonayya poojary. Suspecting the accused, they followed towards the house of Dr. Prabhakar bhat. When the door was opened by Dr. Prabhakar Bhat's mother, the accused forcefully entered the house. At the same time, when Mahabala Poojary entered the house, the accused stabbed with kinife causing as many as 12 incised wounds whereas, the mother of Dr. Prabhakar Bhat also suffered with fracture over her left femur. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 448, 326 and 307, IPC. The learned CJM committed the case to the Court of Session. On committal of the case, it was registered in s. C. No. 34/2003. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the learned Sessions judge recorded a finding that the offence does not fall under Section 307, IPC. Accordingly, remitted the matter to the learned jmfc, Bantwal to frame charges for the offence under Sections 448, and 326, IPC and proceed in accordance with law. It is this order which is questioned in the present revision.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that it is clear from the wound certificate that Mahabala Poojary has suffered with as many as 12 incised wounds. This shows that the accused assaulted him only with an intention to commit an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. When these are sufficient materials, there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to come to a conlusion that there are no ingredients for the offence under Section 307, ipc that too, at the preliminary stage. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and to direct the Sessions Court to frame charges for the offence under Section 307, IPC.