The Bombay High Court acquitted three family members accused of Sunanda’s murder, emphasizing that mere presence and the phrase “mara mara” do not prove common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court found insufficient evidence of premeditation among the accused. However, it upheld the conviction of Jayanand Dhabale, who perpetrated the attack, affirming the need for clear evidence in criminal liability.
Mumbai: In a landmark judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court clarified that mere presence at a murder scene and uttering the words “mara mara” (beat her, beat her) is insufficient to establish common intention to commit murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court acquitted three family members accused of participating in the murder of a woman, while upholding the conviction of a fourth family member.
The case pertained to the brutal killing of Sunanda, a widow, on May 1, 2015, in Pusad. Sunanda lived with her in-laws following her husband’s death. Tensions escalated when the family, led by Jayanand Dhabale, accused her of practicing black magic, blaming her for their illnesses and misfortunes.
The prosecution alleged that Jayanand, his wife Ashabai, and their two sons, Niranjan and Kiran, conspired to kill Sunanda. On the day of the incident, Jayanand attacked Sunanda with an axe while she lay gravely injured. Eyewitnesses reported that Niranjan and Kiran were present at the scene, and Ashabai allegedly encouraged the assault by shouting “mara mara.”
The Additional Sessions Judge in Pusad convicted all four family members for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding them jointly responsible for the crime.
On appeal, the High Court Bench comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Abhay Mantri disagreed with the trial court’s interpretation. The Court emphasized the lack of evidence proving a shared intention or prearranged plan among the accused to commit the murder.
“The mere presence of accused Nos. 2 to 4 on the spot or uttering the words to beat her as ‘mara mara’ does not invoke the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC to commit her murder,”
the Court observed.
The Court noted that:
- There was no evidence of prior conspiracy or planning involving Ashabai, Niranjan, or Kiran.
- The utterance of “mara mara” by Ashabai could be interpreted as encouragement to beat Sunanda, not to kill her.
- The actions of Niranjan and Kiran, being merely present at the scene, did not indicate active participation in the crime.
“The question is whether uttering the words ‘mara mara’ would constitute an offence punishable under Section 34 of the IPC. The said utterance of the words may have been made only to beat,”
the Bench stated.
Read Also: “Parading Elephants Without Adequate Shelter Amounts to Cruelty”: Kerala HC Enforces Captive Elephant Welfare Rules
Based on these findings, the Court acquitted Ashabai, Niranjan, and Kiran of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, citing insufficient evidence of a shared intention to kill Sunanda.
However, the conviction of Jayanand Dhabale, who wielded the axe, was upheld, and his life sentence was affirmed.
This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between individual and collective responsibility in criminal law. It reiterates that to attract Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of common intention—a prearranged plan where all accused act in furtherance of the shared goal.
The High Court’s nuanced approach ensures that accusations are weighed carefully, preventing undue punishment based on circumstantial evidence or speculative interpretations. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle that criminal liability must be based on clear and convincing proof.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE