Free Download

Section 34 IPC: SC Acquits husband In Wife’s Murder Case
17-04-2025 07:08:04 | APS Judicial Academy

Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2025) SC
Timeline of Key Events

  • 2013- The incident occurred at Geetha’s (victim’s) matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, causing extensive burn injuries.
  • FIR was filed by Geetha’s mother and a dying declaration was recorded, implicating the mother-in-law.
  • The police filed a charge-sheet against the husband (appellant no. 1) and mother-in-law (appellant no. 2) for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 114, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  • The trial court acquitted both accused, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
  • 2020-The High Court of Karnataka quashed the trial court’s acquittal, convicted both appellants of the offences, and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine.
  • Challenging the conviction, the appellants filed an appeal before the hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Key Issue! 
Whether mere presence at the scene of the crime is sufficient to establish guilt under Section 34 of the IPC in the absence of clear evidence proving common intention?

Supreme Court’s Ruling
The hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the mother-in-law’s conviction based on clear and direct evidence, however, it acquitted the husband, emphasizing that a conviction under Section 34 IPC requires proof of shared intent.

Key Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in several legal principles and factual findings:
  • Section 34 IPC requires active participation in furtherance of a common intention. Mere presence or failure to act is not enough.
  • Dying declaration was consistent and supported by medical evidence, proving mother-in-law’s guilt.
  • No direct allegations against the husband. The dying declaration and medical testimony showed he tried to extinguish the fire.
  • Section 106 Indian Evidence Act (burden on the accused to explain facts within his knowledge) cannot be applied unless prosecution establishes foundational facts.
  Precedents Relied Upon
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to support its reasoning:
  1. Om Prakash v. State, 1956 CrLJ 452 (Allahabad HC) Emphasising the scope of Section 34 IPC, the High Court observed that “In order that an intention should be common, it should be attributable to every member of the group. Section 34, IPC, therefore, does not ignore the intention of the individual offender. The common intention required under Section 34 Penal Code need not, however, be identical with the guilty intention or ‘mens rea’ which is the ingredient of the offence and is to be distinguished from it. The latter might be coincident with or collateral to the former.
    • Whereas, charge framed under Section 149, IPC, disregards the intention of the individual members of the assembly altogether, and concentrates merely on the common object of the assembly as a whole.
  2. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 The court brought out the distinction between Section 34, IPC, and Section 149, IPC by observing that “There is a difference between object and intention, for, though their object is common, the intentions of the several members, may differ and indeed may be similar only in respect that they are all unlawful, while the element of participation in action which is the leading feature of Section 34, is replaced in Section 149 by membership of the assembly at the time of the committing of the offence”.
    • The word ‘criminal act’ is used in Section 34, IPC in the broadest possible sense. It would cover any word, gesture, deed or conduct of any kind on the part of a person whether active or passive, which tends to support the common design.
  3. Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287 It held that “It is the essence of the section that the person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in the actual room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape, but he must be physically present at the scene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the commission of the offence in some way or other at the time the crime is actually being committed.”
  4. Suresh Sakharam Nangare v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) The court observed that if common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 of the code will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent Section 34 cannot be invoked. In other words, it requires a pre-arranged plan and pre supposes prior concert therefore there must be meeting of mind.
Video Link: Watch our video breakdown here-https://youtube.com/live/HNdVJUycre0

  • Download: