S.222 CrPC | Minor Offence Should Be Cognate Of Major Offence, Can't Be Entirely Different Constituted By Different Ingredients: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a minor offence within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishments. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it, Court said.

A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, “In other words the minor offence should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.”

The court distinguished that the term “minor offence” has to be interpreted in its ordinary sense and not technical sense. "The test is not the gravity of punishment. When a person is charged with an offence, consisting of several particulars and if all the particulars are proved then it will constitute the major offence, while if some of those particulars are proved and their combination constitutes a minor offence, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence though he was not charged with it.”

The bench made the observations while partly allowing the appeal filed by one Junaid B who was initially charged for attempt of murder under Section 307 IPC. After trial, the court convicted him for the offence under Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) IPC.

Appellant argued there is no charge for offence under Section 326 of IPC for which he has been convicted. The offence under Section 326 of IPC is not a minor offence under Section 307 of IPC. The punishment provided for offence under Section 307 and Section 326 of IPC is same and therefore, offence under Section 326 of IPC is not a minor offence to offence under Section 307 of IPC.

The bench on going through the evidence of witnesses noted that the trial Court, considering the evidence on record, held that ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not attracted as intention or knowledge that death will be caused cannot be inferred. The trial Court convicted appellant for causing grievous injury with deadly weapon for offence under Section 326 of IPC.

Referring to a Madras High Court judgment in Suramani and others vs. State (2011), the court held, “In the case on hand also punishment provided for offence under Sections 307 and 326 IPC is same and therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC is not a minor offence to offence under Section 307 of IPC so as to invoke Section 222(2) of Cr.P.C.”

It added “An accused cannot be convicted for a minor offence if it is distinct and different and having different ingredients.”

Court explained that the ingredient of an offence under Section 324 of IPC is voluntarily causing hurt by means of dangerous weapons. Ingredients of an offence under Section 325 of IPC is voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Therefore, offences under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC are not distinct and different than offences under Section 307 of IPC as the ingredient of hurt is common in the two offences. Offence under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC can be considered to be minor offences to offence under Section 307 of IPC.

"Therefore, appellant - accused No. 1 can be convicted for offence under Section 325 of IPC as it is cognate and minor offence to offence under Section 307 of IPC even in the absence of charge in view of Section 222(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court erred in convicting appellant - accused No. 1 for offence under Section 326 of IPC instead of convicting under Section 325 of IPC in the absence of charge for the said offence as it is a minor offence, under Section 307 of IPC,” it held.

Appearance: Advocate S Balakrishnan for Appellant.

HCGP N Anitha Girish for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 100

Case Title: Junaid B AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1328 of 2012.

Click Here To Read/Download Order