In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that the severity of injuries inflicted in crimes involving common intention cannot be a ground for leniency in sentencing. The court reinstated the conviction of K.B. Vijayakumar (Accused No. 2) under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt caused with a dangerous weapon, sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment (RI) in the case of State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1694/2014.
The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, held: “Common intention can arise in the heat of the moment, and its presence warrants proportional punishment regardless of the degree of injury caused by each participant.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from a familial dispute over land ownership in Mysore on September 18, 1999. The complainant (PW1) and the accused, who are close relatives, argued over the sale of a piece of land. The altercation escalated, leading to violent attacks.
– Accused No. 3 (K.B. Jayakumar @ Suresh) stabbed the complainant multiple times with a knife, causing grievous injuries, including exposing intestines.
– Accused No. 2 (K.B. Vijayakumar) attacked the complainant’s son (PW7) with a chopper, inflicting injuries on his hands.
– Accused No. 1 (Battegowda), the father of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, was alleged to have assisted in the attack by restraining the victims.
The trial court convicted all three accused under Sections 326 and 341 IPC, sentencing them to six years RI. However, the Karnataka High Court, in 2012, partially allowed the appeal:
– Accused No. 1 was acquitted for lack of evidence.
– Accused No. 2’s conviction was reduced to Section 324 IPC, and his sentence was reduced to time already served (16 days).
– Accused No. 3’s sentence was reduced to two years RI, while his conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld.
Key Legal Issues
1. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention):
– Whether the coordinated actions of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 demonstrated a shared intent to commit grievous harm, even without prior planning.
2. Appropriateness of Sentence Reduction:
– Whether the High Court was justified in altering Accused No. 2’s conviction from Section 326 (grievous hurt) to Section 324 (simple hurt) based on the relative severity of injuries inflicted.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court partially overturned the Karnataka High Court’s decision, reinstating the harsher conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 326 IPC. The court held:
– On Common Intention: Citing Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. & Ors., the bench reaffirmed that “common intention can arise instantaneously during an incident” and does not require premeditation. The actions of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, armed with dangerous weapons, showed coordinated intent to cause harm.
– On Sentencing: The court emphasized that the relative severity of injuries inflicted by each accused does not dilute the culpability of their collective actions under Section 34 IPC. Both accused were equally responsible for the grievous injuries caused.
The court sentenced Accused No. 2 to two years RI, matching the punishment given to Accused No. 3, along with a fine of ₹75,000.
Key Observations
– Common Intention and Accountability:
“Even if assailants arrive without prior planning, their coordinated actions during the incident establish a meeting of minds.”
– Seriousness of Offences:
“The degree of injury inflicted does not negate the culpability of an accused acting with common intention.”
– Equity in Punishment:
“Changing the conviction of Accused No. 2 to a lesser offense undermines the principle of proportional justice.”
Representation
– For the State of Karnataka: Additional Advocate General Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, along with Mr. V.N. Raghupathy and others.
– For the Respondents: Senior Advocate Ms. Kiran Suri, supported by Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta and a team.
