Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29NOMINAL INDEXM/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) 2026 LiveLaw...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Parisons Foods Private Limited v/sThe Commissioner of Customs 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Judgments/Orders
1. No GST On Liquidated Damages For Breach Of Contract: Karnataka High Court Quashes SCN
Case Title: M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s Additional Director, DGGI, BZU
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16471 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court held that liquidated damages recovered for breach or delay in contractual obligations are compensatory in nature and do not constitute consideration for any supply under GST.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined whether the amount paid as compensation by the Lending Service Provider (LSP) to the assessee constituted 'liquidated damages' and whether such amount was taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v/s The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 21566 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court held that flavoured milk qualifies as a dairy product under Tariff Heading 0402 and not as a 'beverage' under Tariff Heading 2202. Consequently, GST at 5% will be applicable on flavoured milk instead of 12%.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined the classification of the flavoured milk under the GST, considering whether it falls under Tariff Heading 2202 (beverages containing milk) or under Tariff Heading 0402 (milk and cream, containing added sugar or sweetening matter).
Case Title: Sri Akram Pasha v/s Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.15066/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court held that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in GST offences punishable with imprisonment up to five years, even though such offences are economic in nature. The bench further stated that the prescribed punishment under the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act must be considered while determining the gravity of the offence.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated that one of the most prominent criminal sanctions imposed with regard to economic offences is that of arrest. It is widely acknowledged that arrests result in deprivation of liberty of a person. Thus, while it is imperative to maintain law and order in society, the power to arrest must also always be subject to necessary safeguards.
Case Title: M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.25598 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court held that marketing and technical support services provided by the assessee to its foreign parent qualify as export of services under the IGST Act (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) and do not constitute intermediary services.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the place of supply of these services is outside India, satisfying all conditions for export of services, and the assessee is eligible for a refund of IGST paid.
Case Title: Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27013 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Union of India to examine and consider, at the appropriate administrative level, the feasibility and phased implementation of a cashless medical treatment mechanism under the Central Government Health Scheme, particularly for emergency and critical care.
A single judge, Suraj Govindaraj said, “A cashless treatment mechanism, particularly for emergency and life-saving procedures, would significantly mitigate these hardships and align the administration of the CGHS with constitutional values. Such a system would give meaningful effect to the right to health under Article 21, ensure non arbitrary access to medical care under Article 14, and reinforce the State's obligation as a welfare employer.”
Case Title: Parisons Foods Private Limited v/s The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Writ Petition No13082 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mandatory pre-deposit required to pursue a customs appeal cannot be waived for a financially sound appellant/importer.
In a recently uploaded order pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act does not deny access to justice.
“It is a statutory discipline that applies uniformly to all appellants. The statute's mandate endures, subsists and is unyielding, until constitutional courts deem fit to restrain its march,” the court observed.
Case Title: M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31939 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31808 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has suggested some measures for the Union Ministry of Finance to take into consideration while evolving a comprehensive and standardised system for verification of bank guarantees furnished during the tendering process or otherwise, so as to prevent frauds.
The court was informed by the Government that it has taken cognisance of the issue of wider systemic vulnerability in the existing processes governing the submission, acceptance, and verification of bank guarantees, particularly in the context of public procurement and large-scale contractual engagements.
8. Neighbour Can't Be Booked For Matrimonial Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2023
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a stranger/neighbour cannot be drawn into cruelty proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC amid matrimonial dispute between the husband, wife or other family members.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Asha G, neighbour of the complainant's husband, who was booked under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7053 OF 2024
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
While quashing a 498-A IPC case registered by a woman against her husband and in-laws the Karnataka High Court said “The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills.”
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. This is the purport of the provision - 498A.”
Case Title: Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to grant bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national accused by the NIA in a Human trafficking case, noting that he had travelled to Bangladesh five times using a passport obtained using a fake Aadhaar card.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the appeal filed by Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib who is charged under Sections 370(3) and 120B of IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.
Case Title: Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17839 OF 2010
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to re-look implementation of Bangalore Mysore Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor project and directed it to take appropriate steps in this regard observing that the project aimed at decongesting the city has remained only on papers.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T referred to a Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority & Anr. Vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited & Ors. (2021) wherein the apex court had upheld the planning and construction of the project.
Case Title: Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court quashed a cheque dishonour complaint lodged against a man who was the Director of an infrastructure company, after referring to records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noting that when the cheques were issued to the complainant the petitioner was not a director.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sujith Sudhakaran, Director of M/S Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd, and quashed the complaint registered against him by Lalu Jacob Mammen, registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2013
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a conviction order passed by a Sessions Court, which had held the accused guilty of causing death by negligence. The High Court found that the State Government had wrongly filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, even though the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.
The appellant, K. Keshava, had challenged the Sessions Court's order that allowed the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Title: M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 23583 of 2024 (GM-MM-S)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mining lease granted in violation of the minimum area requirement under Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is void under Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).
Consequently, the Court ruled that such a void lease cannot be the subject of a 'deemed extension' under Section 8A(3) of the Act.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2023 rejecting the petitioner's application for deemed extension under Section 8A(3) of the MMDR Act.
Case title: XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2025 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2826 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a FIR lodged against an advocate for raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, noting that the complaint appeared to be a manipulation, questioning how the woman could make allegations when she appeared to be in a "subsisting marital relationship or the very least in a continuing domestic association".
Justice M Nagaprasanna perused the complaint and noted that the petitioner and complainant came to know each other in connection with a case concerning Negotiable Instruments Act as she needed legal assistance. It was alleged that in 2022 the advocate sent her a request on Instagram and also made phone calls requesting her to accept his request; thereafter they became friends.
Case title: Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 108512 OF 2025
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has held that amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permitted even after commencement of trial despite non fulfilment of due diligence test, adding that the test does not have universal application and in appropriate cases such amendment is permitted.
Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing a plea challenging the petitioners (plaintiffs) application seeking amendment of the plaint, filed 10 years after the presentation of the plaint and also after commencement of trial.
Case title: Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Refusing to quash an FIR against Congress leader Rajeev Gowda BV accused of abusing a woman municipal commissioner over removal of "unauthorized" banners, observing that lawmakers while making speeches are expected to be circumspect specially while addressing a woman, that too a public servant.
For context, a film promotion programme for 'Cult' movie was to be conducted on 13-01-2026 at Nehru Stadium, Shidlaghatta Town which is stated to be under the leadership of the petitioner. Banners with petitioner's portrait were installed all over the city Fort area, wherein certain banners fell down and had hit certain vehicles. Against this a complaint was made to Municipal Commissioner who had cleared the banners as it was disturbing the public.
Case Title: Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case relating to the death of a person, a daily wager from Kerala, who was allegedly assaulted by a group after he raised the slogan “Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad” during a local cricket match in Mangaluru.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar granted bail to Natesh Kumar, who was one of the accused, and directed his release in an FIR registered last year.
Case title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch
WRIT APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2025 and connected appeals
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) upheld taxi aggregators' right to business of plying bike taxis observing that it is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, adding that a blanket-ban by the State is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).
In doing so the court set aside a single judge's order which held that bike taxis cannot operate in the State unless the government issues relevant guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Against this taxi aggregators like Uber, OLA, Rapido, motorcycle owners and welfare associations had moved the division bench in appeal.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi in its 111 page order held:
"...it cannot be disputed that the business of plying taxis is a legitimate business, and the right to engage in such activity is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said business is not inherently dangerous, illegal or immoral...However, engaging in such business maybe subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides that Article 19(1)(g) does not prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public...In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons".
Case title: Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others
WP 1450/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) directed the concerned police inspector and administration of Chithradurga district to convene a meeting with the organizers of a traditional fair in the area so as to ensure that it is conducted peacefully.
In doing so the court observed that the administration cannot give into the conduct of a few persons who may try to create a law and order situation but at the same time said that the organizers must also assist the administration.
The court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the tahsildar and the police officer to forthwith consider the petitioner's representation of 27-11-2025 and grant permission to conduct the Veeramarannaswamy Jatra/Fair between 28.01.2026 to 03.02.2026.
Case title: Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court recently modified a sessions court order convicting a man for murder of a child and sentencing him to life imprisonment until his natural death, holding that sessions court have not been conferred with the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission.
The appellant had challenged a trial court order convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment "until his natural death".
Case title: Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1475 OF 2025 [21(NIA)]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of being a member of banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) of allegedly conspiring to radicalise Muslim youth to carry out terrorist acts, as well as raising funds for the commission of terrorist activities.
The court was hearing an appeal by Shahid Khan, one of nineteen accused, challenging dismissal of his bail plea by NIA court. The nineteen accused have been booked for offences under Sections 153A and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC. They have been further booked under Sections 13(Punishment for unlawful activities), 17(Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18(Punishment for conspiracy, etc.), 18A(Punishment for organising of terrorist camps), 18B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) and 22B (Offences by societies or trusts) UAPA.
Case title: Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1548 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail plea of a man accused of being an ISIS member who was allegedly radicalized and recruited by his college mate, was involved in reconnaissance and arson activities with an intention to wage war against the government and engaging in transfer of terror funds through cryptocurrency.
Case title: Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRL.P 865/2026 IA 1/26 FOR STAY
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (January 27) refused to entertain a plea for quashing an FIR lodged against a man accused of clicking photographs of a woman while she was in the trial room of a clothing shop in Bengaluru.
The petitioner had moved a plea seeking quashing of a 2024 FIR registered by the police for offence of voyeurism under Section 77 BNS. In the interim the petition sought a stay on the investigation.
Case title: Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others
WRIT PETITION NO.100504 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has suggested empowering the Civil Court to pass interim measures staying mutation orders passed by revenue authorities under the State Land Revenue Act concerning properties involving possession or title disputes.
This the court said would help avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings and aide litigants, since a title dispute can only be adjudicated by civil courts.
The court was hearing a petition challenging a 2020 of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cancelling mutation of land based on a disputed Will, and directed that entry be made in the record in the names of the natural heirs.
Case title: Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 103885 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has held that married sisters' claim for maintenance from their brother is not maintainable in a partition suit.
However, it said, if a prima facie case is made out that a co-owner (plaintiff) is being exclusively deprived of income from joint family property by another co-owner (brother) even though former is in constructive possession, the court may direct interim sharing of such income pending final adjudication of the suit.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said:
"If a prima facie case is made out to take a view that the plaintiff has share in the property, and the defendant is deriving the income from the suit property to the deprivation of the plaintiff, then in such cases, the Court as an interim measure, can direct the defendant in the suit, either to share or deposit the profits derived from the suit property, subject to the result of the suit. Such an application seeking interim mesne profits or profits gets more credence in appeals against the decree for partition or in final decree proceedings where the plaintiff established that the property is joint family property and defendant is exclusively deriving the income from the suit property though the plaintiff is in constructive joint possession of the same"
Case title: The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.812 OF 2025 (A)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court rejected the State's appeal challenging a man's acquittal accused of rape on false promise of marriage, after noting that the complainant–who met the accused on a matrimonial site–had herself stated that she was unwilling to marry to him.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing the State's appeal challenging sessions court order which had acquitted accused for offences under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 376(rape), 420(cheating), 504 and 506(criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC.
Taking note of the trial court order which had considered the complainant's (PW1) statement the bench said:
"Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".
Case title: Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another
CRL.P 16751/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
he Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 30) upheld a sessions court order cancelling a man's bail, who is accused of raping a minor in 2024, after he allegedly threatened the survivor and her family while out on bail.
In doing so, the high court said that the offence was "heinous and horrendous" and the trial court order warranted no interference. The petitioner had moved the high court against cancellation of bail on the ground that he had threatened the survivor and her family.
After hearing the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:
"Copious evidence is placed before the concerned court for filing application seeking cancellation of bail. The concerned court by a detailed order rendering cogent reasons cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The offence is horrendous, heinous. Therefore the cancellation of the bail, on the score that the petitioner has threatened the witness would not warrant any interference".
Case title: The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court overturned a trial court order which had acquitted a husband for offence of attempt to murder his wife by attacking her with a razor blade and a chopper/machete, holding that the court had failed to note the nature of injuries on vital parts of the wife's neck.
It further said that the trial court had instead invoked Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc) while loosing sight of the "intention and knowledge" of the accused, specially when the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature.