LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: October 5 - October 11, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421NOMINAL INDEXJ SHIVAKUMAR VS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 404X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405T VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406Mohammed Tufail K. & Ors. v. State by Cubbon Park Police & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407L v. M, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
NOMINAL INDEX
J SHIVAKUMAR VS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
T VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
Mohammed Tufail K. & Ors. v. State by Cubbon Park Police & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
L v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
A v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
MANJUNATH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
L (Minor) Rep. By Her Natural Guardian Father Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
X VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
Anu Guest House and Restaurant v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (C/W connected matter), 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa B.N. & Ors. (and connected matters), 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
State of Karnataka through Terakanambi Police v. Sri Paramesha & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER VS GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R) & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
SRI NAGARAJA V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
ANJANEYALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case Title : J SHIVAKUMAR VS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL & ANOTHER
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16895 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
The Karnataka High Court has held that State Bar Council cannot reject a lawyer's enrolment solely on the ground of lacking a Bachelor's Degree before undertaking a 3-year LL.B. course, without first referring the matter to Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine whether any alternative qualification, such as a Master's Degree, meets the criteria for enrolment.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403]
Referring to Rule 4(a) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which defines a three-year law course as one undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of studies from a university or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said,
“The use of the expression 'or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India' is significant. The rule itself therefore contemplates that, in an appropriate case, a qualification other than a conventional Bachelor's Degree may be considered equivalent for the purpose of undertaking the three-year law course.”
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 24806 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on a husband challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs 1,10,000 per month granted to his wife, calling his petition a “luxurious litigation” aimed at wasting Court's time.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 404]
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that where a husband was already paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to the wife without any Court order, he cannot subsequently claim before the Court that she is capable of earning or that he is unable to pay maintenance.
“In this case, the conduct of the petitioner/husband assumes significance from the fact that according to him, he is paying Rs.1,03,382/- to the wife without any Court order, and according to the wife, as there was a threat that he would not pay, she wanted an order from the Court, and the Court granted Rs.1,10,000/-. That has been questioned by filing the writ petition before the Court,” the Court said.
Case Title : X v/s Y
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5358 OF 2026 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4253 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and minor son from Rs 50 thousand to Rs 1.2 lakh, while holding that the husband's earnings from the sale of shares form part of his income and should be considered while determining the maintenance, even if such financial gains are variable. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405]
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti heard two separate petitions filed by a husband and wife against a Family Court order. While the wife sought an enhancement of the interim maintenance granted, the husband challenged the quantum and sought a reduction.
The High Court rejected the husband's contention that the income from stocks amounting to around Rs 28 lakh per annum should not be considered as part of his income as the amount is not same every month.
Case Title : T VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere opposition of family members to a proposed matrimonial alliance cannot, by itself, disclose the ingredients of offences such as rape or abetment against them.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406]
Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed criminal proceedings against the mother and sister of the principal accused in a rape case, while refusing to quash the proceedings against the man accused of engaging in a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.
“Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of a familial relationship with the principal accused or on the basis of opposition to a matrimonial alliance,” Justice Govindaraj said.
Case Title : Mohammed Tufail K. & Ors. v. State by Cubbon Park Police & Anr
Case Number : CRL.P No.6754 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against 15 students who were booked for allegedly assembling without permission and obstructing traffic in Bengaluru during a 2016 a protest over the suicide of student Rohith Vemula, who had ended his life over alleged caste discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407]
The single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh, while allowing the quashing plea, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an 'unlawful' assembly as contemplated under the Indian Penal Code.
“...considering the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, if it is assembly of more than 250 persons, it requires permission. In the charge-sheet, nowhere it is stated that which provision they have violated, except invoking Sections 283 and 341 and other offences of unlawful assembly...
The permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The allegation made against these petitioners is that they obstructed the free movement of traffic and hence, they were arrested. The charge-sheet is filed only against these petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 15. It is stated in the charge sheet that brought more than 100 to 150 students, but they are not made as accused. In view of the aforesaid proviso, and having regard to the fact that this Court has already considered a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C" the court said.
Wife Spending On Child's Birthday From Her Own Earnings Not Cruelty By Husband: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : L v. M
Case Number : MFA No. 202201 of 2022 (FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere fact that a wife spent money from her own earnings to celebrate her child's birthday cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that her husband subjected her to cruelty.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408]
The court pointed out that the wife had not asserted that she requested such financial assistance from the husband on the said occasion.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice Brungesh M, sitting at Kalaburagi, made the observation, while dismissing the wife's appeal seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
For context, during cross-examination before the family court, PW-1 (the appellant-wife) had admitted that about one year after the marriage, she gave birth to a child. The said child's birthday was celebrated in a grand manner according to her.
Case Title : A v. M
Case Number : WP No. 26598/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court has recently directed all Family Courts and courts dealing with Guardianship and Wards matters in the State to substitute the term 'visitation' with 'parenting time' during judicial proceedings. The court reasoned that the former term carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is merely a 'guest' in the child's life.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409]
The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti underscored that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child.
“….Courts often use the word "visitation" to describe the time the child spends with a parent who is a non-custodial parent. The term is familiar, but it carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is part of the child's life while the other merely visits. A child should not be made to understand the relationship through the word 'visitation', which is used for someone who arrives and leaves as a guest….”, the court said.
Case Title : MANJUNATH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 11821 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked against a stranger who lacks any specific intent with regard to the offences under the Act.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410]
Justice V. Srishananda quashed the criminal proceedings against a cameraman working with a media agency, observing that filming a public COVID-19 vaccination drive where an individual or woman is accidentally captured does not per se amount to an obscene capturing of the image.
“Admittedly, petitioner had visited the place of incident for the purpose of covering the vaccination program and there was no premeditation. While so filming, per chance if the petitioner has filmed the alleged lady while taking the vaccination, it would not per se amount of obscene capturing of the image,” the Court said.
It added, “Moreover, as is rightly contended by the petitioner, petitioner being the stranger, invoking the provisions of SC/ST Act is totally uncalled for. There is no other material on record apart from the complaint averments to proceed against the petitioner herein. Thus, a case is made out that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.”
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the second respondent in 2022, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner, working as a cameraman with Bengaluru One News, abused the complainant and a woman using her caste name.
Case Title : Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava
Case Number : CCC 184/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Byju Raveendran and other suspended directors of Think & Learn, the parent company of ed-tech platform Byju's, have withdrawn their contempt petition against interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava before the Karnataka High Court.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411]
The petition alleged that Srivastava wilfully disobeyed the High Court's October 2024 orders by calling for a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting on February 12, 2025, despite the interim restraint on further CoC meetings.
During the hearing, the division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice N.V Bhavani noted that the petition did not state that the CoC [Committee of Creditors] meeting was actually held or specify the date on which it was held.
Case Title : ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 22820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has held that use of the term 'jihadi' in a Facebook post would not attract the offences of outraging religious sentiments or publishing statements intended to promote enmity between different religious communities.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412]
In doing so the court quashed an FIR against a Facebook user accused of hurting sentiments of Muslim community by posting a social media post, holding that the contents of the message did not attract the offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC.
Section 295A punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. Section 503(2) punishes making, publishing, or circulating statements, rumors, or alarming news intended to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, regional groups, castes, or communities.
Karnataka High Court Allows Minor To Change Name For Astrological Beliefs
Case Title : L (Minor) Rep. By Her Natural Guardian Father Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Regular First Appeal No. 703 of 2026 (DEC/INJ)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed an appeal filed by a minor girl seeking a declaration to change her name from 'Lakshmi N.'to 'Veena N.' in her school records due to numerological & astrological beliefs of her parents, holding that the right to be recognized by one's name is a civil right and that a civil suit for change of name is maintainable.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413]
The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar set aside the judgment and decree passed by a Bengaluru Civil Court which had dismissed the suit earlier.
“…Every person in society is necessarily to be recognized by his/her name. It is a civil right of every citizen in India to be recognized by his/her name. Therefore, for correction or change of name, filing a suit before the Civil Court is maintainable, as it relates to the adjudication of a civil right. Therefore, for change of the name of a candidate, the competent Civil Court has jurisdiction as per Section 9 of CPC…”, the court noted in the order.
The High Court specifically referred to a Circular issued on October 26, 2025 by the state government to the effect that if any person desires to change their name, the name of their parents, or date of birth, such candidate should obtain a decree from the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the parents had correctly filed the suit for declaration, the court opined.
“…It is a simple case of the plaintiff seeking declaratory relief for change of her name from “Lakshmi N.” to “Veena N..”… The Trial Court has simply dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that her name is “Veena N.”. This reasoning of the Trial Court is unwarranted, as it is not the case of the plaintiff that, at the initial stage, while admitting the plaintiff to the school, her name was wrongly mentioned as “Lakshmi N.”. The plaintiff simply desires to be called as “Veena N.” and not “Lakshmi N. Therefore, there could not have been any occasion to produce any document showing the name of “Veena N.””, the court said in clear terms\
Offence Of Sexual Intercourse On False Promise Of Marriage U/S 69 BNS Doesn't Apply To Women: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : X VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10660 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court has held that the offence under Section 69 BNS—which penalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or false promises of marriage which does not amount to rape—cannot be invoked against a woman.[2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 414]
Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is punishable with a term which can extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde partially quashed an FIR registered against a woman for the offences under Sections 69, 308 (2) (Extortion), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 3(5) (Criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the BNS and under Sections 66E (Violation of Privacy) and 67A (Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Case Title : Anu Guest House and Restaurant v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (C/W connected matter)
Case Number : W.P. No. 104270 of 2024 C/W W.P. No. 104274 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
The Karnataka High Court quashed notices issued by the Commissioner, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (HWHAMA), directing certain homestay operators in Koppal to demolish their structures within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415]
This, after the petitioners gave an undertaking that they will not carry out any commercial activity contrary to law and agreed to apply for necessary permissions.
The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal, sitting at Dharwad, disposed of the petitions, while noting that the petitioners should not carry out any commercial activity in the concerned lands, as specified in their own undertaking.
“…In the light of undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would not carry out any commercial activities, the impugned notices issued by the respondent No.3-the Commissioner, HWHAMA are hereby quashed…Petitioners shall make necessary applications before the concerned revenue authorities as well as the authorities under the HWHAMA Act, seeking necessary permission either for the purpose of construction or development of their respective lands or for carrying out any activity permissible under law thereon…”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title : Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 13027 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a 26-year-old man accused of sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS, observing that the complainant's own statement indicated that the alleged promise to marry was made 'after' the physical relationship and not before. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416]
Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is punishable with a term which can extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by the accused, who was arrested on July 15, 2026 by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
After noting the complainant's statement, the court said:
“…From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that victim girl knew that petitioner was in a relationship with another girl and subsequently, he had approached her and had sexual intercourse with her. The alleged promise to marry victim girl is after the act of sexual intercourse committed by him…. In the statement made by the victim girl….she has clearly stated that prior to the petitioner making the promise to marry her, he had sexual intercourse.”
Case Title : State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa B.N. & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : W.P. No. 126/2025 C/W W.P. Nos. 5483/2025 & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Censuring the irregularities in the recruitment process for Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the state, the Karnataka High Court has rapped the Public Service Commission and the Transport Department for acting unreasonably, and in a manner amounting to a 'travesty of justice'. [2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 417]
The Division bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao noted that the authorities erred by blindly accepting experience certificates issued by State owned transport corporations for inspector recruitments, which claimed experience in repairing Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPV) fitted with petrol engines, when no such vehicles have existed in India for decades.
“…the acceptance of certificates issued by KSRTC, BMTC and the other State owned Transport Corporations indicating that the candidate has experience in repairs of HGV and HPV petrol vehicles, at the hands of the KPSC/Commissioner of the Transport Department is clearly unreasonable, knowing fully well that for the past several decades there are no petrol vehicles in the category of HGV and HPV in India, the statement made in such certificates issued by the State owned Corporations are a blatant lie. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, has therefore, rightly deleted the said provision, having noticed the anomaly…”, the court noted.
Case Title: State of Karnataka through Terakanambi Police v. Sri Paramesha & Ors
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court dismissed State's appeal against the acquittal of 26 persons over an incident of pulling down of Dr BR Ambedkar's portrait in Chamarajanagar. [2026 Livelaw (Kar) 418]
Upholding trial court's order, the High Court said that the material contradictions in the eye witness statements, among many other factors had led the trial court to acquit the accused and there was no error in the same.
The single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja held that there was no legal or factual error in the trial court's decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, on account of material contradictions in the prosecution's case. The trial court had noted that it was unclear as to how the witnesses observed the alleged incident at the spot in the admitted darkness.
“…This Court has carefully examined all the materials placed before this Court. On re-appreciation/reconsideration and re-examination of the entire material on record, I do not find any legal or factual error committed by the trial Court….”, the court noted in the order.
CASE TITLE: KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER VS GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R) & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2026 (L-MW)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has held that once Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been invoked, the State cannot dispense with the publication of the proposal for wage revision in Official Gazette and statutory opportunity to file objections merely because the stakeholders had subsequently participated in the meetings.[2026 LiveLaw Kar) 419]
Consequently, the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the appeal filed by two industry associations against a Single Judge order.
That order had quashed the 2023 minimum wage notification for non-compliance with the statutory process under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act and had directed the State to undertake a fresh exercise for the garment industry.
For context, Section 5 of the Act outlines the procedure to fix and revise minimum wages. While Section 5(1)(a) allows the State to appoint committees to enquire and advise regarding these wages, Section 5(1)(b) allows the State to publish its proposal in the Official Gazette and consider suggestions or objections filed by the affected persons. Under the latter provision, the government must consult an advisory board as well.
Case Title : SRI NAGARAJA V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.15535 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court has held that filing a chargesheet based on omnibus allegations by complainant without any evidence affects the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420]
“Filing of charge sheet thus affects the individual right of a citizen of the country as is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the charge sheet is bald and without any material,” Justice V Srishananda said.
The court further held that a complainant cannot be said to have suffered wrongful loss— an essential requirement to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)— if the accused derived no financial gain, while allowing the petition filed by one Nagaraja V.
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and the chargesheet registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the IPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Case Title : ANJANEYALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
The Karnataka High Court has converted a husband's conviction for murder of his wife under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421]
It found that the prosecution could not establish by evidence that the injury suffered by the deceased wife— after being assaulted by her husband and falling down— was “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,” but the accused knew his act will likely cause death.
A Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused, seeking to set aside the trial court order convicting him for murder of his wife.
“The above material on record goes to show that the incident took place in a quarrel and in the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased, as a result of which she fell down. As per medical evidence, the deceased has sustained a swelling over the left temporo parietal region,” the Court said.
It added, “The evidence of PW.5 [the doctor who conducted postmortem examination] does not reveal that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, the accused had the knowledge that the said act committed by him was likely to cause the death. Hence in our considered view, the act committed by the accused would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.”