Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident of burning (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the fir (Para 5) |
| 3. investigation and evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial court proceedings (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. counsel for the appellants (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. counsel for the state (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. dying declaration analysis (Para 26) |
| 8. evidence of tehsildar (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 9. common intention under section 34 (Para 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 10. judgment and order (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97) |
ORDER :
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 wa
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.
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
(1) Common intention – To attract applicability of Section 34, IPC, prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted ....
(1) Every individual member of entire group charged with aid of Section 34, IPC must be a participant in joint act which is result of their combined activity.(2) If no overt act is done by a person, ....
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
In custodial death cases, all involved in the torture share liability under Section 34 IPC regardless of direct participation, as joint culpability is established by shared common intention.
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
