Holding

The charge under Section 34 IPC was not established; the parents were acquitted and their convictions set aside.

Summary

The deceased, Kalpana, was married to Rajendra Dhundale, who demanded money and ornaments from her for house construction. After a dispute over the payment, Kalpana died, allegedly after falling into a well. Post‑mortem evidence indicated homicide, not suicide. Rajendra and his parents were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 498A/34 IPC, but the Supreme Court examined whether the parents could be held liable under Section 34, which requires proof of a common intention and participation. The Court found no credible direct or circumstantial evidence linking the parents to the murder or establishing a pre‑arranged plan with their son, and therefore held that the charge under Section 34 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the parents, their convictions were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the parents of the accused husband can be held liable under Section 34 IPC for the murder of the wife.
Whether the prosecution established a common intention and participation of the parents in the commission of the offences.
Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the parents beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 498A

Subjects

murderdowry deathSection 34 IPCcommon intentioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtconviction overturned

Judgment

A LAXMAN ANJALI DHUNDALE AND.ANR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APRIL 4, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
--'<,

'ff
Penal Code, 1860:·

ss. 302134 and 498-A/34-Death ofa married woman owing to injuries-
c Husband of deceased earlier demanding money from her par,ents for
construction of house-Medical evidence indicating homicide-Husband of
deceased and his parents convicted by trial couri and sentenced-High
Court affirming the order-Appeal by parents of husband-Held, there is no
credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was meeting of minds
D of all accused persons to commit the offences-Charge u!s 34 has not been
established-Appellants given benefit of doubt-Ingredients of s. 34- ~
~
Explained.

Accused no. I, husband of the deceased, and his parents, accused nos. 2
and 3, were prosecuted under sections 302/34 and 498-A/34 IPC. The
E prosecution case was that accused no. 1 demanded ornaments of his wife for
purpose of construction of a new house. The wife told her parents and they
paid Rs. 5,000/- to him and told that Rs. 5,000/- they would within 15 days.
After a few days the victim told her parents that her husband was harassing
her to get the balance amount. The following day the parents of the victim
were informed that she had fallen into a well. When they reached the village
F they were told that the victim had gone to the well to draw water and ·'II'
)

accidentally slipped into the well and -died. The trial court convicted all the
three accused of the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment
for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. The parents
of accused no. 1, namely, accused nos. 2 and 3, filed the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. From the medical evidence on record as well as the other
~
evidence, it appears that the deceased was murdered. From a persual of the
post-mortem report it cannot be said that it was a case of suicide, rather it
H 768
I

r-
... LAXMAN ANJALI DHUNDALE v. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 769

-- was a case of homicide. This is further corroborated by the fact that the s~t A
'f'anchnama (Ex.25) shows that the well in question was not in use as it did
not have bucket, rope or chain to fetch the water and there was not even
sufficient water. [Para 8) [771-B-D)

1.2. However, this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of
I

links connecting accused nos. 2 and 3 to the offences is not established beyond B
A
reasonable doubt There is no credible evidence showing that accused nos. ~
,.. and 3 caused death of the deceased or they had any common intention along
with their son to cause death of the deceased. There is no doubt evidence that
accused no.1 demanded ornaments from his wife for selling the same for the
I

purpose of purchasing tins and wooden ballies for making a roof of his house,
c
-
but from this, guilt of the appellants who are the parents of accused no.1, is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Para 9) [771-D-F]

2.1. To establish the common intention of several persons to attract
section 34 IPC, the two fundamental facts have to be established, namely, (i)
common intention and (ii) participation of the accused in commission of the D

..
f offence. In the present case, neither common intention nor participation of
the appellants in the commission of the offences has been established beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, the charge under section 34 IPC has not been,
established. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants.
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) [772-E-G]
,E
Hamlet v. State ofKera/a, [2003) 10 SCC 108, relied on.

Anil Sharma v. State ofJharkhand, [2004] S SCC 679 and Mahbub Shah
v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 481 of F
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2006 of the Bombay High
Court Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Crl. A. No. 199/2002.

Hrishikesh Baruah and Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the Appellants. G
Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure for the Respondent.

- /

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted.
H
I

i

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.
~
..
A 2. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and
order dated 20.3.2006 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal
Appeal No. 199 of 2002.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

B 4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kalpana was married
to accused No. 1 Rajendra Dhundale on 18.3.2001 in a village known as Uti ,....
Tq. Jalgaon Jamod which is 3 kms away from village Kherda (Khurd) of the -...
complainant Bhaskar Sampat Damodhar (PWl), who is the father .of the -
deceased. Within 15 days of her marriage the deceased returned to her parents'
place along with her husband and informed her parents that her husband
c accused No. I Rajendra is demanding ornaments for the purpose of construction
of a new house. She told her father to give the money to her husband -11

otherwise she would be required to dispose of her ornaments. On this, Bhaskar
Damodhar (PWl) informed accused No. l Rajendra that he has Rs. 5000/- but
Rajendra refused to take the amount and demanded Rs .. 10,000/- for the time
D being. Bhaskar Damodhar (PWl) paid the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and assured
accused No. l Rajendra that he would give the balance amount of Rs. 5000/
- after 15 days. Thereafter, on the eve of Akhadi festival a brother of deceased
.
--'t-

Kalpana fetched her to her parents house. On the next day accused No. 1
Rajendra also came to attend a marriage in their village and he resided with
them for three days. During that period Kalpana informed her parents that she
E has been harassed to get the balance amount by her husband and his relatives.
On this, Bhaskar assured accused No. l Rajendra that he would give the
remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- after selling his cattle and persuaded him to
take Kalpana along with him and thereafter the deceased left with her husband.

5. On the next morning, original accused No. 4 Balu came to the
F --,-
complainant's house and informed that his daughter has fallen into a well. On
getting this information, the complainant went to the village of the accused
persons along with his relatives and found the dead body of his daughter
which was lying covered with a cloth with injuries on her person. The
complainant Bhaskar (PWI) also noticed bum marks on her head, leg and
G back. He was informed that his daughter had gone to a well for drawing water
and there she accidentally slipped into the well. As Bhaskar (PWl) suspected
that the death of his daughter was not natura~ he went to the Police Station
-:x-
Jalgaon Jamod for lodging a report.
"-

6. The appellants who are the parents of accused No. l Rajendra, are
H accused Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. The trial court convicted them along with

...
... -?--
LAXMANANJALIDHUNDALEv.STATEOFMAHARASHTRA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 771

accused No. l under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life A
imprisonment. They were also found guilty under Sections 498A/34 IPC and
were sentenced to three years' R.I. and also a fine.

7. The appeal of the accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the High .Court was
dismissed and hence this appeal by way of special leave.
B
~
8. From the medical evidence on record as well as the other evidence
..... it appears to us that the deceased Kalpana was murdered. The post mortem
report shows that there are injuries in her chest as well as in the abdomen.
There was abdominal bleeding injury to the liver of deceased Kalpana and
also there was a lacerated wound over her scalp caused due to hard or blunt
object. Hence we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellants c
that it was a case of suicide, rather we are of the opinion that it was a case
of homicide. This is further corroborated by the fact that the spot Panchnama
(Ex.25) shows that the well in question was not in use as it did not have
bucket, rope or chain to fetch the water and there was not even sufficient ,
water. D
_.,f
9. However, since this is a case of circumstantial evidence, we have to
see whether the chain of links connecting the accused Nos. 2 & 3 to the
deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt. We are of opinion that it
is not. There is no credible evidence showing that the accused Nos. 2 & 3
(appellants in this appeal) caused the death of the deceased. There is also E
no credible evidence of any common intention of the appellants along with
their son Rajendra to cause the death of the deceased Kalpana. There is no
doubt evidence that accused No. l Rajendra demanded ornaments from his
wife Kalpana for selling the same for the purpose of purchasing tins and
wooden ballies for making a roof of his house. However, we are not dealing
r with the case of accused No. l, Rajendra in this appeal. We are only concerned
F
with the question whether the guilt of the appellants, who are the parents of
Rajendra, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that it
is not.

IO. As regards invocation of Section 34 IPC, it was held by the Privy
Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR (1945) PC 118 at 120 as follows:
Q
r "To invoke Section 34 successfully, it must be shown that the
criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused
persons in the furtherance of the common intention of all; if it is
shown, then liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. ~

·Jr.
A persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone. This
being the principle, it is clear to their Lordships that common intention
within the meaning of the section implies a pre-arranged plan, and to '
~

convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be
proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the
pre-arranged plan. As has been often observed, it is difficult if not
B impossible to prove the intention of an individual; in most cases it
__,,.,
has to be inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant
circumstances of the case. " .....
~

(emphasis supplied)
c 11. In Hamlet v. State ofKera/a, [2003] l 0 SCC l 08, vide para 17, this
Court held that to establish the common intention of several persons to
---=
attract Section 34 IPC, the following two fundamental facts have .to be
established: .(i) common intention and (ii) participation of. the accused in
commission of the offences. In the present case, neither common intention
D nor participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence has been
established beyond reasonable doubt. ....
_..
12. No doubt, as held by this Court in Anil Sharma v. State ofJharkhand,
[2004] 5 SCC 679, vide para 17 direct proof of common intention is seldom
available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the
E circumstances appearing from the proved facts o( the case. However, in order
to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to establish
by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting
of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are
charged with the aid of Section 34. In the present case there is no credible
evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan or meeting of
F minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. Hence, ........
in our opinion, the charge under Section 34 IPC has not been established.

13. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that.the bene_fit
of doubt has to be given to the appellants and hence this appeal h~ to be
G allowed. We order accordingly. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court as well as the trial court so far as they relate to the
appellants are set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless
required in connection with some other case. However, we make it clear that ~'
we are not expressing any opinion about the case of accused No. 1, Rajendra.

H RP. Appeal allowed.