1. Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC for causing injuries — Appeal against alteration of conviction from Section 324/34 IPC to Section 307/34 IPC. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1290
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jayachandra Reddy : M.M.Punchhi
Babu Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Case No. : 111 of 1987
Date of Decision : 12/14/94
Common intention under Section 34 IPC for a severe offence (Section 307) cannot be attributed to all accused if the murderous injury is caused by only one person and others cause only simple injuries; in such cases, conviction may be altered to a lesser offence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 324 and 34 - Common intention - Conviction altered from attempt to murder to voluntarily causing hurt - Where the injury indicating murderous assault is attributed to only one of the accused and other injuries are simple in nature, it cannot be concluded that all accused shared a common intention for murderous assault - Common intention may be inferred for a lesser offence. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellants and another co-accused were tried for offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted them under Section 324/34. On appeal by the State, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 307/34 and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging this alteration.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the injury from which a murderous assault could be inferred was attributed to only one of the accused, while the injuries caused by the others were simple. Consequently, the common intention for murderous assault was not established for all accused.
Issues: Whether the appellants could be convicted under Section 307/34 IPC when the severe injury was caused by a co-accused and the injuries caused by the appellants were simple.
Ratio Decidendi: To sustain a conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34, there must be evidence of a common intention to commit a murderous assault. If the evidence shows that only one person committed the severe act and others caused simple injuries, the common intention can only be attributed to a lesser offence, such as Section 324.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction altered to Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether common intention under Section 34 IPC extended to murderous assault or was limited to a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC. (Para 1 )
3. Murderous assault attributed to one accused while others caused simple injuries — Absence of common intention for murderous assault, though common intention for lesser offence existed. (Para 2 )
4. Common intention under Section 34 IPC is not established for a more serious offence if evidence indicates common intention only for a lesser offence. (Para 2 )
5. Conviction altered to Section 324/34 IPC — Sentence reduced to period already undergone — Appeal allowed. (Para 3 )
6. How is common intention under Section 34 IPC determined when accused persons cause injuries of varying severity?
Common intention for a more serious offence is not inferred if the murderous assault is attributed to only one individual and other accused persons caused only simple injuries, indicating common intention only for a lesser offence. (Para 2 )
(1) THOUGH the appellants, three in number along with Lila Singh, stood trial under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and other ancillary offences, the trial court convicted them under S. 324/34 Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries to Kaur Singh, Jiwan Singh and Harbans Singh, PWs. On appeal by the Stale, however, the conviction was altered. All the four accused were convicted under Section 307/ 34 Indian Penal Code but Lila Singh substantially for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, and were imposed sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. On joint special leave petition to this court, Lila Singh was declined leave whereas the appellants were granted, in view of the judgment and order of the High court, applying Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel. The injury from which murderous assault could be spell out was attributed to Lila Singh. The other injuries on the injured persons were simple in nature. It is difficult, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to conclude that all the four accused had common intention of murderous assault on the PWs. It can otherwise be spelt out that they had a common intention but of a lesser offence, i.e. under Section 324 Indian Penal Code.
(3) THUS, we alter the conviction of the three appellants alone to one under S. 324/34 Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial court. But instead of requiring them to execute a bond as did the trial court we would reduce their sentence to the period already undergone under all counts. To this extent, the appeal stands allowed. Disposed of accordingly.
