: It serves as a safeguard against over-prosecution, ensuring that individuals are not held criminally liable for serious offences based solely on their social presence or minor assistance that lacks "active complicity". Comparison with Related Precedents
: The central question was whether a person’s mere presence at an illegal act, or their failure to prevent it, qualifies as "intentionally aiding" the offense under the law of abetment. 2. The Court's Ruling The Bombay High Court held that Umi was not guilty emperor vs umi 1882 2021
Because the Emperor was under a temporary government charter, the defense invoked early versions of "The King can do no wrong," complicating liability. : It serves as a safeguard against over-prosecution,