Acquitting three members of a family, ccused of murdering a woman in Umrer town in Nagpur district, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court said that merely shouting “mara mara” (beat her) at the crime scene does not establish a common intention to commit murder. However, the court maintained the conviction of the fourth family member in the case.
The Bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Abhay Mantri found that prosecution had failed to establish incrimination of the three accused under Section 34 IPC which deals with acts done with common intention.
The case started with the murder of Sunanda, widow of Vijay Dhabale, on May 1, 2015, at Pusad in Maharashtra. After her husband’s death, Sunanda was staying with her in-laws: Jayanand Dhabale, his wife Ashabai, and their two sons, Niranjan and Kiran. Allegations against the family apparently escalated after Dhabales accused Sunanda of casting black magic upon them, which they believed was the cause for their sicknesses and bad luck.
Jayanand attacked Sunanda with an axe on the morning of the incident and left her badly injured. Niranjan and Kiran, too, were present at the time, according to eyewitnesses. Ashabai has also been accused of provoking the attack while shouting “mara mara.”
ALSO READ
Prosecution referred to common intention to murder Sunanda on the part of all four family members. The accused had contended that there was no preconcerted conspiracy or joint plan to kill her as it might only be presumed from Ashabai’s words encouraging Jayanand to thrash up Sunanda rather than killing her.
In its judgment, the High Court agreed with the defense, pointing out evidence failed to establish a prearranged plan or concerted effort among the accused to commit murder.
“Mere presence at the spot or shouting ‘mara mara’ does not invoke the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC,” the court stated, emphasizing that there was no proof the accused were aware of Jayanand’s intent to kill.
The court reasoned that Ashabai’s words could be for beating and not for taking a life, and there are also insufficient materials against Niranjan and Kiran linking them to the crime.
“In the absence of common intention, Section 34 of the IPC would not be attracted,” the Bench ruled.
Incidentally, Ashabai, Niranjan, and Kiran were acquitted of the criminal charge under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment upheld the murder charge against Jayanand who wielded the axe.
This judgment also enlightens that solid evidence is required to demonstrate the consensus imminus in criminal law:.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.