If Section 34 IPC Is Applied, Should Each Accused Be Convicted Under Same Provision? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court, in a criminal appeal, will examine whether each accused should be convicted under the same provision if Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is applied.

The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, noted that the issue pertained to the conviction of Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 under section 304 Part-II IPC, with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 5,000 fine each. The Appellant contended that the same conviction and sentence should apply to Accused No. 1 to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared for the Appellant.

On December 13, 2023, during the case hearing, the Court reserved orders and requested the appellant to submit a written brief by January 5, 2024. The Appellant complied with this request, and the brief was filed.

Initially, the Court was leaning towards dismissing the appeal. However, upon reviewing the submissions, the Court noted that the appeal raised a significant question that required deliberation and resolution by the Court. Given that the Court had thoroughly examined the matter and also considered the written brief, the Court decided to outline the essential facts of the case and the significant question raised in the appeal for reference during the final hearing.

Four individuals faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including sections 341, 302, and 506 read with section 34. Following a trial where evidence was presented, the Trial Court convicted all four accused on November 22, 2016, for offences under sections 302, 341, and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC, with sentencing occurring on November 28, 2016. Additionally, they received ancillary sentences along with life imprisonment.

Two appeals were subsequently filed in the High Court challenging the conviction. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal jointly, while accused Nos. 2 and 4 also filed appeals. The High Court, in a consolidated judgment dated March 3, 2021, acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the charges under section 302 IPC but convicted them under section 304 Part-II IPC, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. However, the conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 were upheld, and their appeal was dismissed.

Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 filed a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by the court on September 17, 2021. A Review Petition was subsequently filed against this dismissal, as per the Office Report dated December 13, 2023, but was later dismissed on January 11, 2024. Accused No. 1 is now the appellant in the present appeal.

The Appellant contended that if section 34 IPC was applied, then all accused should have been convicted under the same provision and given identical sentences. As Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were convicted under section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 5,000 fine each, the same conviction and sentence should have been applied to Accused No. 1 to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

As per the prosecution's case, accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were involved in holding the deceased, while the appellant (accused No. 1) assaulted the deceased with a sickle on his head and neck, causing fatal injuries.

The appellant contended that either all four accused, with the aid of section 34 IPC, should have been convicted under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part-II IPC.

Despite other arguments presented by the Appellant regarding self-defence and the appellant's innocence, the court declined to entertain them and focused solely on the issue related to section 34 IPC. In light of this limited question, the Court expedited the hearing process.

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for March 13, 2024.

Cause Title: Vithal v The State Of Karnataka (2024 INSC 79)

Click here to read/download Judgment