Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-02-15 allowed

EJAZHUSEN SABADARHUSEN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Bench: 2 — A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi

In Brief

The appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly holding the victim to facilitate stabbing by other accused persons. The Supreme Court set aside their conviction, holding that Section 34 IPC requires proof of a pre-arranged plan and common intention through prior concert of minds. The Court found that mere presence and alleged holding of the victim, without independent witnesses, incriminating materials, or recovered evidence, cannot establish common intention. The case rested entirely on interested family witnesses with a history of civil disputes, raising suspicion of false implication. Since no pre-arrangement or necessary inference of common intention emerged from the evidence, the appellants were acquitted.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Joint Liability Common Intention Murder Evidence

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login