Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T modified a woman’s conviction for assaulting her female neighbour, holding that the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel over drying clothes, described as a trivial issue. The Bench converted the finding of guilt from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means, after noting that the medical record did not establish a fracture through supporting material. While dismissing the State’s challenge, the Court partly allowed the accused’s appeal, acquitted her of the graver charge, and convicted her under Section 324 IPC, which carries a maximum of three years’ imprisonment, unlike Section 325 IPC which permits up to seven years. It imposed only a ₹50,000 fine, payable to the victim.

The case arose out of an incident between neighbouring women in Mangaluru. The injured was admitted to M.V. Shetty Hospital, where her statement was recorded by a Head Constable of Mangaluru South Police Station. A case was initially registered for offences under Sections 324, 355 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The matter was subsequently transferred to Kankanady Town Police Station, and investigation culminated in filing of a charge sheet invoking Sections 504, 355 and 326 IPC along with the provisions of the special enactment.

Also Read: Telecom Spectrum Is a “Material Resource of the Community”; Supreme Court Holds IBC Cannot Restructure Its Ownership or Control

The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the victim with a wooden reaper piece and an umbrella and abused her by referring to her caste. The Trial Court noted that though a wound certificate mentioned fracture, no X-ray was produced and therefore invoked Section 325 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC, convicting the accused under Section 325 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act. The State challenged the acquittal on certain charges and sought enhancement of sentence, while the accused challenged her conviction and sentence.

The Bench recorded that “the incident took place between neighbours.” It noted that the case was registered after recording the victim’s statement at the hospital and that the police invoked provisions of the special enactment alleging caste-based abuse.

While examining the evidence, the Court observed that “although the doctor issued Wound Certificate stating that there was a fracture, no X-ray was produced to substantiate the same.” It further stated that “though the Wound Certificate mentions fracture, no X-ray or supporting medical record has been produced to substantiate the same.” In the absence of such material, it recorded that “the contention regarding inadequate sentence and acquittal for the graver offence under Section 326 of the IPC is not supported by evidence.”

On the applicability of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the Bench observed, “she has nowhere stated that the accused uttered her specific caste name or abused her with the intention to humiliate her in public view.” It further stated that “the evidence of PW-2… does not disclose that the accused referred to the specific caste name of PW-1 or insulted her with the intention to humiliate her in the presence of the general public.” The Court therefore recorded that “the Trial Court committed an error in invoking the provisions of the Special Enactment.”

Considering the nature of the dispute, the Court stated that “the quarrel arose suddenly between two women with respect to the drying of clothes, which was trivial issue.” It added that “this is not a case for imposing the sentence as there is not motive and premeditation.” The Bench also recorded that “Courts generally lean towards imposing fine and awarding compensation rather than sentencing the accused to imprisonment, particularly in cases involving minor offences and first-time offenders.” It further noted that “the fine imposed in such cases can be directed to be paid to the victim as compensation for the loss or injury suffered.”

In conclusion on merits, the Court stated, “this is a fit case for modification of the conviction for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and not under Section 325 of the IPC.” It also observed that “the essential ingredients of the offence have not been established in evidence.”

The Court ordered that “Crl.A.No.414/2025 and Crl.A.No.2337/2024 filed by the appellant/State are dismissed. Crl.A.No.1666/2023 filed by the accused is allowed-in-part. The judgment of conviction dated 10.08.2023 and sentence dated 11.08.2023 passed in Spl.Case No.190/2019 against the accused by learned II Addl. District & Sessions (Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is modified. The accused “is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 325 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.”

Also Read: Security Interest No Defence To Withhold Allegedly Stolen Gold Pledged For Loan, True Owner’s Title Prevails: Karnataka High Court

“The sentence imposed under Section 325 IPC is modified to section 324 IPC and accused is imposed only with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. On deposit of Rs.50,000/- by accused before the trial Court, the same shall be payable to PW.1/victim on proper identification.”

“Bail bonds, if any, executed by accused stand cancelled. If the appellant-accused has already deposited Rs.20,000/- as ordered by the trial Court, she shall deposit the balance amount within three weeks.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP; Sri Ajay Prabhu M., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri Ajay Prabhu M., Advocate; Sri Poojappa J., Advocate; Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Prema & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC:5735-DB

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2025 C/W Criminal Appeal No.1666 of 2023 & Criminal Appeal No.2337 of 2024

Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T