In a significant judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the parameters of criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The court acquitted three individuals charged in a murder case, highlighting that merely being present at the crime scene and shouting “mara mara” (beat her, beat her) does not prove a shared intent to kill.
The case involved the tragic death of Sunanda, a widow residing with her in-laws in Pusad, who was accused of practicing black magic leading to familial distress. During the incident on May 1, 2015, Sunanda was attacked with an axe by Jayanand Dhabale, the family patriarch. While Jayanand inflicted the fatal blows, his wife Ashabai and sons, Niranjan and Kiran, were present. Ashabai was reported to have incited the assault by shouting “mara mara.”
Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge in Pusad convicted all four family members under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, attributing murder with a common intention. However, upon appeal, Justices Vinay Joshi and Abhay Mantri of the High Court found critical shortcomings in the application of Section 34.
The High Court noted that the evidence did not substantiate a collective intent or premeditated plan involving Ashabai, Niranjan, and Kiran to murder Sunanda. The judges pointed out that Ashabai’s shouts could imply encouragement to assault, not necessarily to kill. Furthermore, the mere presence of Niranjan and Kiran at the scene was deemed insufficient to establish their active participation in the murder.
Justice Joshi stated, “The utterance of ‘mara mara’ might indicate encouragement for assault but does not necessarily reflect a shared intention to commit murder as required under Section 34 IPC.”
Consequently, Ashabai, Niranjan, and Kiran were acquitted of the murder charges, underscoring the necessity of clear, corroborative evidence of a unified lethal intent for convictions under the common intention clause. Meanwhile, Jayanand Dhabale’s conviction was upheld, with the court affirming his life sentence due to the direct role he played in the homicide.
