Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: BNS & IPC

BHARTATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) / INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 Section 2(26). Person Sections 11, 120B, 420 IPC – Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 63, 65 - Victim - Appeal from convictions - Appeal in case of acquittal - Interpretation of 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) read with proviso to Section 372 CrPC - Whether Section 378 CrPC would prevail in cases where a company whose IPR were infringed, sought to appeal against acquittal - High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, stating that appellant was neither a complainant nor a victim before Trial Court – Held, 'victim' shall not necessarily be the 'complainant' or 'informant' in a given case - High Court erred in holding that appellant cannot be a victim as it is only complainant who can maintain such appeal - Only in cases instituted upon private complaint, leave to appeal under section 378(4) of CrPC is maintainable - Hence, leave to appeal against order of acquittal in appeal is not maintainable in the instant case. Company suffered loss due to offence can file an appeal as 'victim' against acquittal under section 372 CrPC. [Relied on: Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321, (Para 42, 44)] Asian Paints v. Ram Babu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 697 : 2025 INSC 828 Section 3(5). General explanations- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention Sections 34, 149 IPC - Difference between 'Common Intention' (S.34 IPC) & 'Common Object' (S.149 IPC) - Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): Requires active participation and proof of an overt act coupled with the intention to commit the crime. Mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient without evidence of participation. Conviction under S.34 necessitates a criminal act done in furtherance of a shared intention, with the accused actively contributing. Section 149 IPC (Common Object): Imposes joint liability on members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in pursuit of a common object, regardless of individual intent or awareness of the specific act. Liability is based on membership in the assembly and the common object, not individual actions or intentions. S.34 focuses on individual participation and intent, making it more restricted than S.149, which emphasizes the collective object of the assembly. S.34 also differs from conspiracy and abetment by requiring active involvement in the criminal act. (Para 42 - 54) Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218 : 2025 INSC 221 Sections 34, 149 IPC - Distinction from S.120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) - S.34 requires both agreement and participation in the criminal act, unlike S.120B, where a mere agreement to commit an offence may suffice, or an overt act by any conspirator is enough if the act is not an offence by itself. S.34 also differs from abetment, which does not require the abettor's participation in the act. (Para 51) Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218 : 2025 INSC 221 Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - The appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court, which reversed the trial court's acquittal of Constables in a case involving the death of a woman caused by a bullet fired by Head Constable (A1) during an attempt to intercept a car suspected of smuggling illegal liquor. The trial court had convicted A1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act but acquitted the other accused due to lack of evidence of shared common intention. The High Court, however, convicted the other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that their presence in the car with A1 was sufficient to infer common intention. The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that for conviction under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove prior meeting of minds and shared common intention among all accused to commit the crime. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants (accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4) had any prior common intention with A1 to shoot the deceased. The trial court's acquittal of the appellants was based on the lack of evidence of their mental involvement in the crime, and the High Court's reversal of this acquittal was deemed unwarranted. The Supreme Court emphasized that interference in an acquittal is only justified if the trial court's decision is perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable view other than guilt is possible. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. Mere presence in the same vehicle as the principal accused was insufficient to convict the appellants under Section 34 IPC without evidence of shared common intention. The trial court's acquittal was upheld, and the High Court's interference was found to...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: BNS & IPC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags