SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as also for enhancement of the punishment awarded to original accused No. 3. This Court has dismissed the State appeal as against A-1 and 2 and consequently we are only concerned with the question of enhancement of sentence awarded to A-3. ( 2 ) THE incident in question took place at about 9. 30 p. m. at a place called Kadapatti cross and the prosecution alleges that the complainant who is PW 1 was proceeding on his motor cycle when the accused stopped him and picked up a fight with him. The allegation against the accused are that A-1 and 2 were angry with PW 1 because he had filed some complaint in which they were involved and as far as A-3 is concerned, there appear to have been some background because PW 1 in his capacity as Chairman of the Education Society is alleged to have taken some action against the uncle of A-3. According to PW 1, the accused gave expression to these aspects of the case and A-1 and 2 assaulted him with their hands, but as far A-3 is concerned, he is supposed to have stabbed PW 1 twice, once on his back and once on his thigh. PW 1 further alleges that PW 2 Ningappa Navi came to intervene and that PW 2 also sustained an injury at the hands of A-3. PW 1 lodged a written complaint with the police in respect of this incident and the police arrested the accused and charged them for having committed the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Sec. 34, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur acquitted A-1 and A-2 but held that A-3 had committed an offence punishable under Section 325, IPC and directed that he should pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default to undergo two months R. I. A-3 has not appealed against this sentence but the State has come up to the High Court for enhancement and it is only this aspect of the matter with which we are concerned. 4,000/- in default to undergo two months R. I. A-3 has not appealed against this sentence but the State has come up to the High Court for enhancement and it is only this aspect of the matter with which we are concerned. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional SPP has prefixed his submissions by pointing out that there is an aspect of immense seriousness involved in this case in so far as PW 1 is an Advocate and he states that the Court must take an extremely rigorous view of any situation in which violence is directed against a member of the Bar either by a litigant or even any member of the public. He had demonstrated that in this case there is a direct nexus between the attack on PW 1 and his professional duties in so far as PW 1 had lodged a complaint involving A-1 and 2 and he had also taken certain action against the uncle of A-3. The learned Addl. SPP also points out that apart from a few minor blemishes, that the evidence of PW 1 fully establishes the assault, that this is supported by the evidence of PW 2, and that the medical evidence corroborates this testimony. Heavy reliance is placed on the opinion of the Doctor who eventhough has stated that the actual injuries were not of a serious nature as pointed out that had the knife penetrated straight, that it would have killed PW 1. The learned Addl. SPP therefore submits that A-3 must be convicted under Section 307, IPC and having regard to the fact that it was an attack on an Advocate that a deterrent sentence must be awarded. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Mr. Patil, learned counsel who represents the respondent pointed out to us that there are some inconsistencies in the evidence of PW 1 and he submitted that eventhough his client has not filed an appeal that where the State is asking for enhancement the entire matter is open and that he is entitled to point out everything that could otherwise have been argued in a normal criminal appeal. Mr. Patil is right with regard to the position in law and we therefore heard him on merits with regard to the different aspects of the case. Mr. Patil is right with regard to the position in law and we therefore heard him on merits with regard to the different aspects of the case. It is true that he has been able to point out to us a few infirmities in the evidence but in our considered view, none of these either individually or collectively would be good enough to get away from the conviction. ( 5 ) THE short question is as to whether or not, the punishment awarded to A-3 should be enhanced. We have already indicated that the learned Addl. SPP was very vehement and very strong about the fact that this Court must make an example of anybody who dares to use violence against a member of the Bar. Mr. Patil on the other hand pointed out to us that even if the evidence were to be taken at face value that unfortunately certain material aspects of the case, namely, the question as to what exactly was the nature of the complaint that has been lodged and whether in fact such a complaint was in existence and secondly, as to whether at all some action had been taken against the uncle of A-3 and if so, what was the result and therefore whether at all these incidents had taken place are all grey areas and his principal submission is that one does not know as to whether in fact this was the motive for the incident. Again, he relies on the fact that there seems to have been some counter dispute with regard to the elections. In this background, the learned Advocate tried to point out to us that if at all such incidents had taken place, that they were more in the nature of personal hostility between the parties and that the aspect of lawyer and client or lawyer and adversary had no relevance at all. ( 6 ) WE need to record here that there is some reference in the evidence of PW 1 that the acused were more than aware of the fact that he is an Advocate and that they addressed him by the designation of "vakil". ( 6 ) WE need to record here that there is some reference in the evidence of PW 1 that the acused were more than aware of the fact that he is an Advocate and that they addressed him by the designation of "vakil". However, the real fact of the matter is that this being a relatively small place obviously the accused knew that PW 1 was a lawyer and under these circumstances, we cannot, whatever be the reason, condone the use of any form of force or violence against a member of the Bar. This Court needs to record very strongly that members of the legal profession, lawyers on the one side and Judges on the other, are required to perform various professional duties, many of them undoubtedly unpleasant ones, as a result of which there is no doubt about the fact that there would have always be a loser and an aggrieved party who might feel upset or who might feel strongly resentful in relation to a particular situation. There is a strict code of conduct which must be observed at all times by litigants and the public at large in so far as the members of the Bar and the members of the judiciary are entitled to special protection. In any instance where there are attacks either verbal or physical, the law will come down ruthlessly on the offender because if Lawyers or Judges are to function independently and freely, there must be a guarantee that their safety is ensured. In this background, the submissions canvassed by the learned SPP must, as of necessity be accepted. Mr. Patil on the other hand stated that whereas as a counsel and as an Officer of the Court he fully subscribes to this view as expressed by the Court; but he contended that the Court should make one small allowance in so far as the accused in this case is a coolie, he has no educational background and while it would be difficult to condone whatever he had done, the submission is that the Court will draw a distinction between the reaction of such a person and one that emanates from better quarters. Secondly, what Mr. Secondly, what Mr. Patil pointed out was that the trial Court has not taken a lenient view of the matter and that a very heavy punishment has been inflicted on him in so far as for a person of his status, a fine of Rs. 4,000/- would virtually be equivalent to what he would be able to save in two to three years and he submits that in order to stay out of jail that he would have had to pay the fine and in order to repay it, it is as good as a sentence spread over this period of time. ( 7 ) WE have taken these factors into account and we also take cognizance of one other aspect namely that the incident is six years old. On a combination of all these factors, we find that if the sentence were to be enhanced at this point of time, which can only be done through the award of a jail sentence, that it would mean that the accused would have to be re-arrested and consigned to prison as it would be pointless imposing any further fine on him. Before doing this, we have re-examined the record of the case and we find that the injuries suffered by PW 1 and 2 were very trivial ones. Even if A-3 used a knife, it is clear from the manner in which he used it that there was no intention to cause either death or grievous injury and consequently, it would be impossible to convict him under Section 307, IPC. Even the conviction under Section 325, IPC would not be justified and the same would have to be lowered to one under Section 324, IPC. Also, there is considerable substance in the submission canvassed by Mr. Patil, who has pointed out that the fine of Rs. 4,000/- is virtually equivalent to a sentence of atleast 2 years R. I. for a man of his status and that consequently, at this late point of time, this is not a case which qualifies for enhancement. Also, there is considerable substance in the submission canvassed by Mr. Patil, who has pointed out that the fine of Rs. 4,000/- is virtually equivalent to a sentence of atleast 2 years R. I. for a man of his status and that consequently, at this late point of time, this is not a case which qualifies for enhancement. ( 8 ) WHILE we record in unequivocal terms our serious disapproval with regard to the conduct of A-3 and the fact that the Courts will not at any time spare persons who use force or violence against the members of the profession, we also consider that the punishment awarded to A-3 is in keeping with the gravity of the offence committed by him. It is for these reasons that we decline to enhance the punishment. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The bail bond of A-3, if he has been re-arrested and released on bail, to stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .