The Supreme Court recently delivered a crucial judgment regarding Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with common intention in criminal acts. The Court emphasized that mere presence at a crime scene does not establish common intention unless there is active participation. This ruling came in the case of Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka, where the husband was acquitted due to the absence of direct evidence linking him to the crime.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the tragic death of Geetha, who was allegedly set ablaze by her mother-in-law. The prosecution accused both the mother-in-law and the husband under Sections 498A, 302, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Karnataka High Court convicted both accused, overturning the acquittal granted by the Trial Court. However, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, re-evaluated the evidence and acquitted the husband, emphasizing the lack of his active participation in the crime.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Mention of Section 307 IPC in FIR Doesn't Prevent Quashing of Case if Allegations Are Unfounded
1. Mere Presence Is Not Sufficient for Conviction
The Supreme Court clarified:
"A person present on the scene might or might not be guilty under Section 34 IPC. If he is present to participate in the offence, he would certainly be guilty. However, if he is merely a spectator, he would not be guilty."
The Court stressed that an accused must have actively contributed to the crime in some manner, whether by an overt act or by omission.
2. Importance of Participation in the Crime
The Court ruled that:
"Every person charged with the aid of Section 34 must, in some form, participate in the offence to make him liable. A mere agreement to commit an act is insufficient without actual involvement."
Since the husband poured water on the victim in an attempt to save her, his actions contradicted the claim that he was involved in setting her on fire.
3. Evidence and Dying Declaration : The prosecution relied on the victim's dying declaration, recorded by the Tehsildar, which implicated the mother-in-law but did not accuse the husband. The Supreme Court noted that the husband's name was absent from the victim's statements, reinforcing his lack of participation.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Using Portion of S.161 CrPC Statement to Contradict Witness
4. Distinction Between Section 34 and Section 149 IPC : The judgment differentiated between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC:
"While Section 34 requires active participation in a common criminal act, Section 149 focuses on the collective objective of an unlawful assembly, even if some members were not directly involved."
Since the prosecution failed to establish that the husband shared a common intention with his mother, his conviction under Section 34 IPC was unwarranted.
5. No Presumption of Guilt Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act : The High Court had inferred the husband’s guilt due to his presence at the crime scene. However, the Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating:
"When a crime occurs within a household, family members are best placed to explain what transpired. However, absence of explanation alone does not prove guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act."
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence implicating the husband.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal:
- The mother-in-law’s conviction was upheld based on strong evidence, including the victim’s dying declaration.
- The husband was acquitted due to the lack of proof establishing his active participation in the crime.
"In the overall view of the matter, we have reached the conclusion that the High Court rightly held the mother-in-law guilty of the alleged crime. However, the High Court committed an error in holding the husband guilty of the offence with the aid of Section 34 IPC."
The Court directed the immediate release of the husband from custody.
