*Vasant V. The State of Karnataka (2025 SC)* (Every word of this judgment is important and hence the summary is a longer one) Part-A 1. Dying Declaration of the victim: “My mother-in-law poured kerosene on me and set me on fire by a matchstick. My husband poured water but couldn’t stop the fire”. The victim was taken to the hospital by neighbours. 2. ⁠HC convicted both Mother-in-law and Husband. HC held that the husband was present at the crime scene but didn’t bother to take the wife to the hospital as he wanted to ensure that she dies. Infact, he disappeared suddenly. Hence, the husband was held guilty of murder as he shared the common intention with her mother u/s.34 IPC. 3. ⁠SC acquitted the husband while holding the mother guilty. SC held that mere presence at the crime scene without any participation doesn’t amount to common intention. 4. ⁠SC cited the _locus classicus_ *Om Prakash V. State (1956 All HC)*: (i) Common Intention (CI) u/s.34 IPC is CI “of all” and not CI of “some”. It should be attributable to every member of the group. CI doesn’t disregard the intention of the individual offender. It postulates that there was an intention to commit offence in the mind of the individual offender and the same intention was also present jointly in the mind of every other members of the group. (ii) CI need not be same as “mens rea” or guilty intention which is an ingredient of crime. Guilty intention might be coincident with or collateral to the common intention.