"Acquittal in Common Intention: Nagpur Bench Revisits Section 34 IPC in Murder Case" "Clarifying liability under Section 34 IPC while affirming individual accountability under Section 302 IPC."


CASE NOTE & SUMMARY

Case Background

The appellants, family members (Jayanand, Niranjan, Ashabai, and Kiran Dhabale), were convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 452 IPC for killing Sunanda, accused of practicing black magic. The primary accused, Jayanand, used an axe to assault the victim.

Incident Details (Para 2)

  • Time and Place: Incident occurred on May 1, 2015, around 9:00 AM at Sunanda's residence.
  • Key Act: Jayanand assaulted Sunanda with an axe, accusing her of practicing black magic.
  • Witness Testimony: Informant Kishor (PW1) observed the attack and reported it.

Prosecution’s Evidence (Para 6-12)

  • Eyewitnesses: PW1-Kishor, PW6-Ravindra, and PW11-Sarthak testified.
  • Medical Findings: PW8-Dr. Pratap confirmed multiple injuries consistent with an axe attack.
  • Recovery Evidence: Axe with blood stains was recovered from Jayanand; clothes were seized with human blood.

Defense Claims (Para 3)

  • Testimonies were inconsistent and omitted details.
  • Key witnesses like Sahebrao and Mahendra were not examined.

Court Observations

  1. Homicidal Death Proven (Para 8): Medical evidence confirmed the cause of death as chop injuries.
  2. Section 34 IPC Misapplied (Para 27-37): No sufficient evidence of prior meeting of minds or shared intent among appellants 2-4.

Acts and Sections Discussed

  1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
    • Section 302: Punishment for Murder.
    • Section 34: Acts done in furtherance of common intention.
    • Section 452: House-trespass with preparation for assault.
  2. Indian Evidence Act
    • Section 27: Admissibility of confessions leading to discoveries.

Legal Ratio:

  1. Individual Accountability vs. Common Intention: While Jayanand’s intent and actions were clearly established under Section 302 IPC, no evidence proved the involvement of other appellants in a shared plan or intention to murder.
  2. Burden of Proof for Section 34 IPC: Prosecution failed to establish a prearranged plan or active participation of accused Nos. 2-4, leading to their acquittal under this provision. Mere presence or utterances like “ekjk ekjk” (beat her) do not suffice to prove shared criminal intent.

Final Order:

  • Jayanand: Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.
  • Niranjan, Ashabai, and Kiran: Acquitted of charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC.
  • Section 452 IPC Conviction: Maintained for all appellants, already served.

Subjects:

  • Subject: Criminal Law – Murder, Common Intention.
  • Tags: IPC Section 34, Evidence, Black Magic, Homicidal Death, Nagpur High Court, Criminal Appeal.

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 133

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2021

Date of Decision: 2024-11-13

Case Title: Jayanand s/o Arjun Dhabale & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra

Before Judge: VINAY JOSHI & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

Advocate(s): Mr. S.G. Varshani, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. A.B. Badar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Appellant: Jayanand s/o Arjun Dhabale & Ors.

Respondent: The State of Maharashtra