The Supreme Court reiterated that common intention and pre-meeting of minds under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can arise spontaneously during an incident.

The Court made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by the State against a High Court decision in a property dispute case that had escalated into a violent altercation.

The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the High Court's findings, holding that the actions of accused no.2 and no.3 demonstrated a common intention.

The Court highlighted that both were armed with deadly weapons and committed the assault together. It observed that the nature of injuries caused by accused no.2 did not diminish his role as an accomplice under Section 34 IPC. “Even if the accused arrived at the scene without premeditation, the common intention can form spontaneously during the course of the incident,” the Court stated.

Facts of the Case

According to the prosecution, accused no.3 stabbed the complainant with a knife, while accused no.2 inflicted injuries with a chopper. The trial court had convicted the accused for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons. However, the High Court had acquitted accused no.1 and downgraded the conviction of accused no.2 to voluntarily causing hurt.

Court's Order

The Court criticized the High Court for failing to provide sufficient reasoning for excluding the application of Section 34 IPC. It subsequently convicted accused no.2 for grievous hurt and sentenced him to the same period of imprisonment as accused no.3. "Accordingly, we allow the State’s appeal to that extent that we convict the Accused No.2 under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC and sentence him for the same period as was given by the High Court to Accused No.3 i.e. two years RI along with the fine of ₹ 75,000/-. He shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today and undergo the period of remaining sentence in jail. The present appeal is partly allowed in the above terms," the Court said.

Cause Title: The State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 1694/2014]

Appearance:-

Appellant: AAG Prateek K. Chadha, Advocates V. N. Raghupathy (AOR), Sreekar Aechuri, Surbhi Soni, Aniket Chauhaan

Respondent: Senior Advocate Kiran Suri, Advocates S.J. Amith, Vidushi Garg, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta (AOR)

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice Prashant Kumar MishraSection 34 of IPC

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.