Mere presence and assault on an intervenor do not establish abetment of murder.

On 28 September 2022, a dispute arose during a discussion about the sale of a stone slab at the accused’s house.

The prosecution alleged that Govind Khara fatally assaulted Polabhai Rajabhai with an axe, while respondent Arvind Khara struck Polabhai’s wife, Somiben, with a stick.

Govind died during the trial and the case against him abated.

The Sessions Court acquitted Arvind of the other charges but convicted him under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Somiben and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The State appealed against the acquittal, contending that Arvind had abetted the principal accused’s offence.

1. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting Arvind of the charges of murder and the other offences, in light of the prosecution evidence and the State’s allegation of abetment.

2. Whether the acquittal disclosed perversity or another sufficient ground for appellate interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 419 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 378 of the CrPC.

In an appeal against acquittal, an appellate court may interfere in exceptional cases where compelling circumstances exist and the judgment is perverse; it must also account for the presumption of innocence, which is reinforced by the acquittal, and ordinarily avoid interference where another view of the evidence is reasonably possible.

The Court further held that mere presence at the scene is insufficient to infer abetment of murder; the prosecution must establish the necessary ingredients of the offence through sufficient evidence.

The Court accepted that the death was homicidal but noted that Arvind had not inflicted any injury on Polabhai; his proved conduct was causing injuries to Somiben, for which he had already been convicted under Section 324 IPC.

On the evidence, Arvind’s presence and conduct toward Somiben did not establish that he had abetted Govind’s fatal assault or that the injuries to Somiben were inflicted in pursuance of such abetment.

The Court therefore found the evidence insufficient to sustain the murder charge and found no perversity or compelling reason to disturb the acquittal.

The State’s appeal was dismissed at the admission stage; the record and proceedings, if any, were ordered to be returned to the trial court.