Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 221 - S 34 IPC - Common Intention

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 34 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 3(5) -Although Section 34 IPC deals with a criminal act which is joint and an intention which is common, it cannot be said that it completely ignores or eliminates the element of personal contribution of the individual offender in both these respects- On the other hand, it is a condition precedent of Section 34 IPC that the individual offender must have participated in the offence in both these respects. He must have done something, however slight, or conduct himself in some manner, however nebulous whether by doing an act or by omitting to do an act so as to indicate that he was a participant in the offence and a guilty associate in it. He must also be individually a party to an intention which he must share in common with others- He must be a sharer both in the ‘criminal act’ as well as in the ‘common intention’ which are the twin aspects of Section 34, IPC. [Para 87-89]

Context: In this case, High Court held the husband-appellant guilty as it found that he never bothered to take his wife to the hospital as he wanted to ensure that she does not survive -Thus it held that the husband could be said to be guilty having shared common intention with his mother - Allowing appeal, SC observed: When the mother-in-law poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire, it is possible that the husband out of sheer fright might have run away from his house after trying to extinguish fire by pouring water on the burning body of his wife. For applicability of Section 106 so as to implicate the husband also in the alleged crime the prosecution has to lay the foundational facts first prima facie indicating his involvement or participation in the alleged crime. His sudden disappearance after the incident is not sufficient to infer common intention.