[S.34 IPC] Common Intention And Pre-Meeting Of Minds Can Take Place At The Spur Of Moment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on January 09) observed that common intention and pre-meeting of minds can occur at the spur of the moment during an incident, thus attracting Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the present case, a property dispute led to a fight between the complainant and the accused persons. As per the prosecution's case, when the complainant was trying to settle the matter with the accused no.1, his son (accused no.3) took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons, inter-alia, for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons. However, the High Court acquitted the accused no.1 because there was not enough evidence for his catching hold of the complainant from behind. Pertinently, with regard to accused no. 2 (elder son of accused no. 1), the Court concluded that he was carrying a chopper in his hand, which he only brought later. Further, he inflicted injuries only in the hand. Thus, his conviction was converted to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons. Against this judgment, the State had filed the present appeal.The Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra refused to accept the above finding. The Apex Court said that both the sons had committed assault together.“They were armed with deadly weapon whereas the 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.,” the Court elaborated.It went on to observe that though the injuries caused were only on the hand, accused no. 2 was on the spot and acted as an accomplice of accused no. 3. Thus, the Court held that Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out. It also opined that the High Court has not assigned any reasons for concluding that Section 34 is not made out.“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.”In view of this, the Court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the accused no. 2 for grievous hurt. Resultantly, he was also convicted for the same period as accused no.3.Appearances:For Appellant: 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: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AORCase name: The State of Karnataka V. Battegowda & Ors., Criminal Appeal No(S). 1694/2014Click here to read/ download the order

[S.34 IPC] Common Intention And Pre-Meeting Of Minds Can Take Place At The Spur Of Moment: Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[S.34 IPC] Common Intention And Pre-Meeting Of Minds Can Take Place At The Spur Of Moment: Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers