1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 233 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2008 [State of Mah. Vs. Kishor Himmatrao Karale] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. K. Joshi, APP for applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 20th January, 2009. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Judge Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2008 [State of Mah. Vs. Kishor Himmatrao Karale] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. K. Joshi, APP for appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 20th January, 2009. 1. Heard learned APP Mrs. Joshi for the appellant. 2. The accused was charged for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned APP relies on the background of intention, namely that the accused was prepared and ready with the weapon, i.e., knife. It has also come on record, according to learned APP, that he had chased the victim. 4. Having regard to the injury caused by the accused, which was on the thigh, and considering totality of circumstances, learned Sessions Judge held that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine. 3 5. It is seen from the judgment that discussion that knowledge or intention behind the assault to be causing death is totally absent. This is a finding of fact and it is not shown to be perverse. 6. All that is argued by the learned APP is that the preparation of the accused, namely being ready with the weapon and chasing the victim, should be construed to be the factors attributing intention and knowledge, both. 7. These submissions cannot be accepted, as these factors do not, in any manner, suffice to attribute knowledge, much less intention to commit murder. 8. Considering the nature of injury, the offence, nothing more than one held to be proved, can be said to be proved. Sessions Judge has reached the correct conclusion that the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, was not proved. 9. In these premises, no interference is called for in the order of acquittal. Appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4