In Brief
A woman suffered fatal burn injuries when kerosene was allegedly poured on her and set alight at her matrimonial home. The mother-in-law was accused of committing this act, and the husband was charged as an accomplice under Section 34 IPC (common intention). The trial court acquitted both; the High Court convicted both. The Supreme Court upheld the mother-in-law's conviction but acquitted the husband. The Court held that Section 34 IPC requires both actual participation in the criminal act and shared common intention. Mere presence at the crime scene—even when the husband attempted to extinguish the fire—cannot establish guilt without evidence of participation. The Court clarified that foundational facts indicating involvement must be established by the prosecution; sudden disappearance alone is insufficient to infer common intention.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.