Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Ninganna & Ors. v. State by Nanjangud Rural Police has held that the Trial Court cannot morally convict the accused in the absence of legal proof.

What was the Background of Ninganna & Ors. v. State by Nanjangud Rural Police Case?

• In this case, a married woman was suspected of having an affair with accused no. 3, the son of accused 1 and 2.
• As per prosecution, all three accused invited the woman to their house and set her on fire.
• She succumbed to the burn injuries a week later.
• The trial court found the evidence brought on record by the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus convicted all three accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court for setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
• In appeal, they argued that the trial court ignored the fact that none of the eyewitnesses supported the prosecution case, and it relied on hostile witnesses to pass a conviction order.
• Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

A bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah observed that the Trial Court cannot morally convict the accused in the absence of legal proof.

It was further stated that though the trial court observed that the prosecution witnesses have not supported, it has proceeded to hold that the defence ought to have proved its case which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 302of IPC

• Section 302 of IPC deals with the punishment for murder.
• It states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.
• Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of IPC and this offence is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Sessions.

Section 34 of IPC

About:

• Section 34 IPC deals with the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Under the ambit of this section, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held responsible by virtue of his or her participation in the criminal act.

Essential Elements:

• The following are the major elements of this section:
  • A criminal act must be done by several persons.
  • There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
  • Participation of all the persons is necessary in the commission of the common intention.

Case Law:

• In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993), it was held that it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence as well.