Skip to main content

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Section 34 IPC states the Acts done by several persons in furtherance of Common intention. The section explains 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."

For the purpose of sec 34 IPC, following are the essentials:

Object

There must be a particular objective, fulfilment of which is the ultimate goal of all the members of the group. 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. 

Principle

Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code does not state for any specific offence. It only lays down the rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in order of common intention, each of them will be held jointly liable. 

 

There are some major ingredients which help in establishing that the offence was committed by two or more than two people with the same object. These are as follows:

1. A criminal act must be done by several persons.
2. There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act. In reference to this principle, In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 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.”
3. There must be a participation of all in the commission in relation to that common intention.
4. When an offence is sought to be proved only on circumstantial evidence, the allegations of common intention under IPC section 34 normally cannot be established in absence of the meeting of mind, the overt act of the accused, by their conduct, by using the weapons by their utterance of words.

In the case of Suresh Sankharam Nangare v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that “if common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 IPC will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, IPC section 34 cannot be invoked. Simply the court stated that there must be a prior meeting of minds.”

Most of the time, the common intention is confused with section 149 (ebook) which states that every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of a common object.
It is to be understood that the operations of both the sections differ from each other. 
Both the sections, 149 and section 34 Indian Penal Code deal with the association of person who becomes liable for punishment for the act committed by them. 

In order to hold a person vicariously liable under IPC 34 or section 149, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them was involved in the overt act. This principle was held in the case of Ram Blias Singh v. the State of Bihar.

The term of punishment for each individual who has committed the act with common intention depends on the nature and gravity of the offence committed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Love and It's Type

By  Meredith Shirey, MS, LMFT As a therapist specializing in  relationship issues , I often see people in therapy existentially contemplating what  love  really means. Some wonder whether they truly love(d) their partner, or if their partner truly loves/loved them. These are complicated questions because they often require defining “true love.” This is, of course, a subjective venture; love may look and feel different to different people. But in considering such questions for yourself, it may be helpful to think about love on a couple of levels: ego love and authentic love (often referred to as “soul love”). Ego Love When we determine we have fallen in love with someone, this is often done based on  euphoric  feelings of infatuation. We think about the person constantly, craving connection with them both physically and emotionally. We want to know their thoughts, feelings, wants, and needs. We want to know about their past, be in their prese...
Post a Comment
Read more

Importance of ‘Consistency’ – Why you MUST Stay Consistent!

 No matter how much talented you are, how much hard working you are, how much smart you are – if there is no consistency in your preparation for this exam (UPSC civil services), you will either fail or unnecessarily prolong this journey making it stressful, burdensome and frustrating.  Being consistent i.e. being regular and steadfast in what you are doing – either making notes from newspapers or from books, writing answers daily, writing essays weekly, solving test papers from test series once in a week or ten days – is the ONLY solution to all your problems. Your problems range from self-doubt to under-confidence to lack of motivation throughout this journey. Once you start procrastinating and being irregular in your studies, undone tasks pile up – creating huge mental burden. This undermines confidence as you can not focus either on future task or on the older one. Eventually you will start a new plan or strategy to suit your present predicament. This cycle continue...
Post a Comment
Read more

Obiter Dicta - Meaning

The literal meaning of this Latin expression is ―said by the way‖. The expression is used especially to denote those judicial utterances in the course of delivering a judgement which taken by themselves, were not strictly necessary for the decision of the particular issue raised. These statements thus go beyond the requirement of a particular case and have the force of persuasive precedents only. The judges are not bound to follow them although they can take advantage of them. They some times help the cause of the reform of law. Obiter Dicta are of different kinds and of varying degree of weight. Some obiter dicta are deliberate expressions of opinion given after consideration on a point clearly brought and argued before the court. It is quite often too difficult for lawyers and courts to see whether an expression is the ratio of judgement or just a causal opinion by the judge. It is open, no doubt, to other judges to give a decision contrary to such obiter dicta.
Post a Comment
Read more