Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court convicted an accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and imposing a fine of ₹75,000. The Court overturned the Karnataka High Court's judgment that had reduced the charge to Section 324 IPC and sentenced the accused to time served. The Court stated that the principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC must be applied in cases involving coordinated criminal acts to ensure accountability for collective assaults.

The case originated from a property dispute between family members on September 18, 1999. According to the prosecution, the complainant (PW1) was attacked near a construction site by his brother, Battegowda (Accused No.1), and his two sons, Vijayakumar (Accused No.2) and Jayakumar (Accused No.3). During the altercation, Jayakumar allegedly stabbed the complainant multiple times with a knife, causing grievous injuries, while Vijayakumar attacked the complainant’s son (PW7) with a chopper.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted all three accused under Sections 326 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to six years of rigorous imprisonment.

On appeal, the Karnataka High Court acquitted Battegowda (Accused No.1) and reduced Vijayakumar’s conviction from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC, sentencing him to the period of imprisonment already served (16 days). The High Court retained Jayakumar’s conviction under Section 326 IPC. The State of Karnataka subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reduction in Vijayakumar’s sentence.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to assess the applicability of Section 326 IPC to Vijayakumar’s actions.

The Court stated that the actions of the accused demonstrated the existence of a common intention under Section 34 IPC. It recorded: "The presence of Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 at the spot, armed with deadly weapons, demonstrates their common intention during the attack. The pre-meeting of minds can develop on the spur of the moment during the course of the incident."

The Court rejected the High Court’s finding that Section 34 IPC was inapplicable, observing that the assault was a coordinated act involving both Vijayakumar and Jayakumar.

The Supreme Court noted that Vijayakumar’s attack with a chopper, though less severe than Jayakumar’s knife assault, still involved the use of a deadly weapon and caused significant harm. It recorded: "The injuries caused by Accused No.2, although inflicted on the hand, were not minor. Conviction under Section 326 IPC is appropriate given the use of a deadly weapon."

The Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of Battegowda (Accused No.1), stating:
"The evidence does not establish the active involvement of Accused No.1 in the commission of the crime."

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s reduction of Vijayakumar’s conviction was not justified, given the evidence of his active participation in the assault. It stated: "In cases involving grievous hurt caused with deadly weapons, the application of Section 326 IPC is mandatory. The substitution of the charge to Section 324 IPC was neither warranted nor supported by the facts."

The Court further stated that leniency in sentencing should not undermine the gravity of the offence.

The Supreme Court restored Vijayakumar’s conviction under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. It ordered: "The accused shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today to undergo the remaining sentence."

A fine of ₹75,000 was imposed, with the amount directed to be paid as compensation to the victims. The Court upheld Jayakumar’s conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC and maintained the acquittal of Battegowda.

The Court stated the principle of common intention, recording: "Each participant in a collective assault shares responsibility for the actions undertaken in furtherance of the common objective."

It further recorded that sentencing in cases involving grievous hurt with deadly weapons must reflect the seriousness of the offence to ensure justice is served.

The State of Karnataka was represented by Additional Advocate General Prateek K. Chadha, with advocates Ravi Prakash and Priya Singh. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Kiran Suri, along with advocates Anant Mishra and Rahul Sharma.

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 2014
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishraa

[Read/Download order]