In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench acquitted three members of a family accused of murder, emphasizing that shouting “mara mara” (beat her, beat her) at the scene of the crime did not demonstrate a shared intent to kill.
The case revolved around the 2015 killing of Sunanda, a widow living with her in-laws in Pusad. Rising tensions within the family, fueled by allegations of black magic, culminated in a violent incident where Sunanda was fatally attacked. On the morning of the assault, Jayanand Dhabale was seen wielding an axe, while his wife Ashabai and their sons, Niranjan and Kiran, were present. Witnesses alleged that Ashabai encouraged the attack by shouting “mara mara.”
While Jayanand’s guilt and life sentence were upheld, the Court found insufficient evidence to convict the other three family members under the doctrine of common intention, as outlined in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The ruling dissected the nuances of intent, noting that the phrase “mara mara” lacked clear implications of premeditated murder. The judges observed, “The utterance of these words might have been an exhortation to beat, not to kill,” and underscored the absence of evidence proving a prior conspiracy or coordinated effort among the accused.
This judgment overturns the 2019 convictions delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Pusad, who had sentenced all four family members for murder. The Court clarified that mere presence at the crime scene or verbal outbursts do not automatically establish intent or complicity.
The verdict reinforces the necessity of concrete evidence to attribute shared criminal intent, marking a critical stance on the interpretation of common intention under the IPC.
