LexVASANT @ GIRISH AKBARASAB SANAVALE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 158 : 2025 INSC 221 Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2022) 11 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellants-husband and mother-in-law of the deceased-wife and held them both guilty of offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for causing the death of the deceased by setting her on fire. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 302 and 504 rw s.34 – Common intention – Individual liability – Appellants-husband and mother-in-law of the deceased-wife charged for causing her death by setting her on fire – Dying declaration made – Acquittal by the trial court of the offence punishable u/ss. 498A, 302 and 504 rw s.34 and ss.3 and 4 of the 1961 Act – However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and held both of them guilty of the offences – Correctness: Held: Although s.34 deals with a criminal act which is joint and an intention which is common, it cannot be said that it completely ignores or eliminates the element of personal contribution of the individual offender in both these respects – Condition precedent of s.34 that the individual offender must have participated in the offence in both these respects – He must have done something, however slight, or conduct himself in some manner, however nebulous whether by doing an act or by omitting to do an act so as to indicate that he was a participant in the offence and a guilty associate in it – He must also be individually a party to an intention which he must share in common with others – He must be a sharer both in the ‘criminal act’ as well as in the ‘common intention’ which are the twin aspects of s.34 – No cogent and reliable evidence to hold the husband-appellant guilty of the alleged offence even [2025] 3 S.C.R. 159 Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka with the aid of s.34 – It is difficult for the accused to urge that owing to the mention of s.34, in the charge, he was misled or prejudiced in his defence by being persuaded to presume that all consideration of his individual liability was completely shut out as a result thereof – To implicate the husband also in the alleged crime, u/s.106 Evidence Act, the prosecution has to as a condition precedent lay the foundational facts prima facie indicating his involvement or participation in the alleged crime – His sudden disappearance after the incident not sufficient to infer common intention – Furthermore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to give a dying declaration – Nothing to disbelieve the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before the doctor – Also pertinent to note that only the mother- in-law, figures in the dying declaration as well as oral evidence of the doctor and the tehsildar – Thus, the High Court rightly held the mother-in-law-appellant no.2 guilty of the alleged crime but erred in holding the husband-appellant no.1 guilty of the offence of murder with the aid of s.34 – Conviction of appellant no.2 affirmed – Appellant no.1 acquitted of all charges – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4. [Paras 37, 39, 41, 58, 63, 87-89, 91-93 ] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34 and 149 – Common intention vis-a-vis Common object – Difference between ss.34 and 149 – Explained. [Paras 41-50 ] Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Common intention – Criminal act – Meaning – Explained. [52-76] Case Law Cited Om Prakash v. State, 1956 CrLJ 452; Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1; Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghosh, AIR 1924 Cal 257 (FB); Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay (S) [1955] 1 SCR : 1177 AIR 1955 SC 287; Bashir v. State, AIR 1953 All 668; Faiyaz Khan v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 180; Aydrooss v. Emperor, AIR 1923 Mad 187; Abdul Kader v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Cal 452; Suresh Sakharam Nangare v. The State of Maharashtra [2012] 7 SCR 1186 : 2012 (9) Judgements Today 116 – referred to. 160 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act 1872. List of Keywords Dowry; Setting wife on fire; Acquittal; Dying declaration; Common intention; Principal in the first degree; Principal in the second degree; Accessories at t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.