Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: IPC & BNS

SUPREME COURT HALF YEARLY DIGEST 2025BHARTATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) / INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC)Section 3(5). General explanations- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intentionSections 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 221Sections 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 221Section 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 be unjustified. Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 134 : 2025 INSC 114 : (2025) 5 SCC 433Section 22. Act of a person of unsound mindSections 84 & 302 IPC - Murder - Plea of Insanity - Absence of Motive - The Supreme Court reduced the conviction of a mother, who killed her daughters (aged 3 and 5), from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, imposing a maximum sentence of 10 years. The appellant's claim of acting under an "invisible influence," coupled with her behavior—shouting during the act, crying afterward, and not fleeing— suggested an impaired mental state, possibly temporary insanity. Although the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC was not fully accepted due to insufficient medical evidence, the absence of motive in such a grave offense supported the plea, raising doubts about mens rea. Noting the appellant had served 9 years and 10 months, the Court ordered her release. Trial courts were directed to proactively seek truth under Section 165 of the Evidence Act in cases involving bizarre, inexplicable acts or claims of mental instability, especially when temporary unsoundness of mind is suggested. Courts must consider that rural, less-educated individuals...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: IPC & BNS

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags