The court clarified that mere presence at the crime scene does not imply guilt under Section 34 IPC without evidence of shared common intention or participation in the crime.

ORDER :

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 100168 of 2016 dated 6th October 2020 by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and thereby quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C. No. 151 of 2013 acquitting the appellants herein of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased named Geetha was married to the appellant no. 1 herein viz. Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale past 8 years from the date of the incident. In the wedlock three children were born. It is alleged that after a period of one year from the date of marriage the husband and his family members started harassing the deceased. The deceased was being harassed for dowry and in connection with the domestic house hold work.

3. On the date of the incident at around 8.00 p.m. while the deceased was at her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law i.e. the appellant no. 2 herein is alleged to have poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. The deceased suffered extensive burn injuries.

4. The neighbours residing in the vicinity rushed to the place of the incident and immediately shifted her to the hospital. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries after a period of one week. The cause of death as usual is septicemia.

5. The mother of the deceased Tippavva Chandru Patil, lodged an FIR dated 03-01-2013 which came to be registered as crime No. 2 of 2013 in Mudalagi Police Station, Mudalagi Circle, District Belagavi, Karnataka. The first information report reads thus:

“The accused persons mentioned herein are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of Geetha, daughter of the complainant and the said accused persons looked after Geetha cordially for 1 year after marriage but then they have not only ill-treated her physically and mentally by insisting her to wake up early in the morning and do the household chores and to go to the house of others to work but also pressurized her to bring an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from her maternal house and since she did not bring money from her maternal house, the accused person had the intention to kill her and poured kerosene on her and set fire and tried to kill her and thereby committed offence.”

6. On the FIR being registered the investigation started. The Tehsiladar of the area was requested to reach the hospital for the purpose of recording of the dying declaration of the deceased. The Tehsildar within four hours of the incident reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration Exhibit-46.

7. The statements of various witnesses, more particularly, the neighbours who had brought the deceased to the hospital were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”). After the deceased passed away her body was sent to post mortem examination. The other articles collected in the course of the inves