Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that common intention and a pre-meeting of minds under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can develop spontaneously during the course of an incident, thereby attracting the provision. The Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors. while deciding an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a property dispute that escalated into violence on September 18, 1999. The complainant (PW1) had sold a piece of land to a relative, which led to disagreements with the accused, who were also blood relatives. The accused allegedly demolished a wall on the disputed property without permission, prompting a confrontation. During the altercation, accused no. 3, K.B. Jayakumar @ Suresh, stabbed the complainant with a knife, causing grievous injuries, while accused no. 2, K.B. Vijayakumar, attacked with a chopper.

The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Sections 326 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the Karnataka High Court partly allowed the appeals, acquitting accused no. 1 (Battegowda) and reducing the charges and sentences of accused nos. 2 and 3. The High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove a common intention between the accused, thereby excluding Section 34.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning and restored the conviction under Section 34 IPC for accused no. 2. The Court emphasized that common intention and pre-meeting of minds could emerge at the spur of the moment during an incident.

The judgment highlighted:

• Both accused nos. 2 and 3 were present on the spot and armed with deadly weapons, with accused no. 2 carrying a chopper and accused no. 3 wielding a knife.

• The fact that the injuries caused by accused no. 2 were less severe than those inflicted by accused no. 3 did not negate his liability under Section 34 IPC.

• The Court reiterated that the defense's argument—that the accused arrived without an intention to cause grievous harm—was irrelevant, as common intention can develop instantaneously.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2010 (7) SCC 759, which affirmed that common intention does not necessarily require prolonged deliberation and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused during the incident.

Key Observations

1. The High Court had erroneously reduced accused no. 2's conviction to Section 324 IPC, citing the nature of injuries inflicted. The Supreme Court overturned this finding, observing that his actions demonstrated an active role in the assault.

2. The High Court failed to provide valid reasons for excluding Section 34 IPC, despite evidence pointing to the coordinated actions of the accused.

Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal to the extent of convicting accused no. 2 under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. His sentence was enhanced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, equivalent to the term imposed on accused no. 3. The judgment emphasizes that Section 34 IPC can apply even when common intention emerges spontaneously during an incident, provided the accused act in furtherance of a shared objective.

Cause Title: The State of Karnataka V. Battegowda & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(S). 1694/2014

Date: January-09-2025

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]