The Supreme Court of India has partially overturned the conviction of a husband in a dowry death case, ruling that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish common intention without evidence of active participation. The Court, however, upheld the life sentence of the mother-in-law, who was found guilty of setting her daughter-in-law on fire.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2022 (Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka), setting aside the conviction of Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale, while affirming the guilt of his mother, Jaitunabi Sanavale.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the tragic death of Geetha, who had been married to Vasant Sanavale for eight years. The prosecution alleged that Geetha was subjected to sustained cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her being set ablaze by her mother-in-law at her matrimonial home in Mudalagi, Karnataka.
Geetha, who suffered 90% burns, succumbed to her injuries a week later. Before her death, she provided a dying declaration to the Tehsildar, in which she explicitly accused her mother-in-law of pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. However, she did not implicate her husband in the act, instead stating that he had attempted to douse the flames by pouring water on her.
Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court
The case raised critical questions about criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly regarding common intention and the extent of a person’s involvement in a crime. The key legal issues included:
Reliability of the Dying Declaration – Could the conviction be based solely on the dying declaration?
Applicability of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention) – Was the husband equally guilty along with his mother, despite no direct act of participation?
Reversal of Trial Court’s Acquittal by the High Court – Did the Karnataka High Court err in overturning the trial court’s acquittal and sentencing both accused to life imprisonment?
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
After carefully examining the dying declaration, medical evidence, and witness testimonies, the Supreme Court partially overturned the High Court’s decision.
1. Mother-in-Law’s Conviction Upheld
The Court affirmed the conviction of the mother-in-law, holding that Geetha’s dying declaration was credible and corroborated by medical evidence. Since Geetha explicitly named her mother-in-law as the person who set her on fire, the Court found no reason to interfere with her life sentence.
2. Husband’s Conviction Overturned: No Common Intention Established
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the husband’s mere presence at the scene of the crime was not enough to convict him under Section 34 IPC (Common Intention). The Court noted:
“Nowhere does the deceased name her husband as an active participant in the crime. On the contrary, she stated that he poured water on her to douse the flames. The prosecution has failed to establish a shared common intention between the husband and his mother.”
The bench criticized the High Court’s reasoning that the husband was guilty merely because he did not take his wife to the hospital, stating:
“If the accused wanted to save his wife, he could have done it. But legal guilt cannot be assumed from omissions alone unless they indicate a shared criminal intention.”
3. Section 106 Evidence Act Argument Rejected
The prosecution argued that since the crime occurred inside the matrimonial home, the husband had a duty to explain what transpired, invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that:
“Mere presence does not establish common intention unless there is evidence of active participation or prior agreement in the crime.”
The Court observed that while the husband may have been present at the time of the incident, there was no proof that he conspired with his mother or shared her intent.
Final Judgment
Mother-in-law’s conviction upheld – Life imprisonment confirmed.
Husband acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.
High Court’s ruling modified – Section 34 IPC (Common Intention) not applicable in the absence of direct evidence.
The judgment reaffirms that convictions in criminal cases must be based on evidence of active participation and shared intent, not just presence at the crime scene. It sets a significant precedent in cases involving domestic violence and dowry-related deaths, ensuring that justice is not based on assumptions but on clear legal principles.
Appellants (Accused): Represented by Senior Advocate Faeek-ul-Farooq
State of Karnataka (Respondent): Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Singhvi
