When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe : Supreme Court

When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the severity of injuries caused by individuals acting with common intention cannot justify reducing a harsher punishment to a lighter one.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the State of Karnataka's appeal challenging the High Court's decision to modify the conviction of Accused No. 2 from Section 326 IPC (voluntary causing grievous hurt by deadly weapons) to Section 324 IPC (voluntary causing hurt by deadly weapon), solely based on the fact that the injuries inflicted by him were less severe than those caused by the co-accused.

The State contended that the High Court erred in modifying the conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 of IPC. It argued that the degree of infliction of injury cannot form the basis for the reduction of sentence to a less severe offence.

Per contra, the accused contended that the High Court justified in converting the conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 because they didn't lack common intention to cause injury to the victim. He contended that his act of inflicting injury was less injurious to that of accused no.3, therefore, his conviction was rightly modified.

Finding force in the State's contention, the court observed that the High Court erred in converting the conviction of accused no.2 from Section 326 (punishment up to 10 years) to a lesser offence under Section 324 (punishment up to 3 years).

“Both Accused Nos.2 & 3 had together assaulted the PW1 & PW7 (father and son). They were armed with deadly weapons whereas Accused No.3 was armed with a knife and Accused No.2 had in his hand a chopper. Merely for the reason that the injuries inflicted by Accused no.2 (K.B. Vijayakumar) were less than what was inflicted by Accused no.3 (K.B. Jayakumar @ Suresh) and the injuries were not a grievous, Conviction under Section 326 cannot be converted to Section 324. Irrespective of the facts whether the injuries caused to the injured persons (PW1 & PW7) were only on the hand, the fact remained that the presence of Accused no.2 on the spot is as an accomplice of Accused no.3 and hence, Section 34 of the IPC is clearly made out.”, the court observed.

Pre-Meeting Of Minds Not Necessitated, Meeting Of Minds Can Take Place At Spur Of Moment

Also, the Court rejected Respondent's argument that when Accused Nos.2 & 3 had arrived at the spot, they had no intention to inflict the nature of injuries on the injured persons.

"The case of the defence is that when the Accused Nos.2 & 3 had arrived at the spot, they had no intention to inflict the nature of injuries on the injured persons. Even if it is assumed it is true, it cannot be denied that common intention and the pre-meeting of minds can take place at the spur of the moment itself during the course of the incident.”, the court added.

“Considering these facts stated above, we are of the opinion that Section 34 of the IPC is made out in this case for Accused no. 2 and Accused no. 3. Changing the finding from Section 326 to Section 324 of the IPC and the sentence of the Accused No.2 to the period already undergone is therefore wrong.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

“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 court held.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS BATTEGOWDA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 76