.. ·:. ..

_._'_ _ _ _.J
_o
Pa_g_e_N
t-- Y._O~
Dale; "-
 \ \

' '

I
l

I
1-

r_.

t.

I
I
I

I
\'
 ..', _....' '--- ~
, ·~ ,-

. "'<.,
ry1 7

---
-
-<'
i .
-,...\ "·- 'v \t -~-', .6- -~
U}w)~
 ··<. ,.·
. :- ~:.· -..:.·:· .' .,:.-. .•.. - ~.-._. •.. .. : .: . . :,'.};}
. -···-

Page No.:

'(._0~ .. ~ ,.

==::;;:=-="-=--= ..
:,· ~;-, '-
~

-Tu
 Page No.:

Date:

-·

- '
I \_

' -
\
\

I I

\ '
._
• -.... ("-., •
'
:"\ \
'·
~~ i; t\ .l l~
......
, "'
..... ~~
\
T... } .__"' \ -.
-1. _..,
-.
. Q.
:, ~. t, \ t- _;.
\ \ ..,. -- \ -- . :\ . ;•
~

\ 1JJ- ~ ' ~-
.. ' ., ... ; \.
 SECTION 34
'Acts done by several -persons in furtherance of common intent-i on.' :-

NOTES
r:,a Essential Elements of Section 34 :- To attract the principle of joint liability
under section 34 there should be :
(i) Some criminal act.
(ii) Criminal act done by more than one person
(iii) Criminal act done by such persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all of them.
(iv) Common intention in the 'sense of a pre-arranged plan between such
person.
by we
(v) Participation in some manner in the act constituting the offence
persons sought to be prosecuted. _.--/
 (vi) Phy.sical presence at the time of commissl_o n of crime ·of all_the persons,
but physical presence of all is not necessary in _some cases.

~ There are some provisions in the Penal Code which determine the liability of
a person committing a crime in combination with some other
r:,- Section 34 has been enacted on principal of Joint liability in doing of a criminal
act.
~ The section is only a rule of eyidence and does not create substantive offence.
r:r Distinctive feature of section 34 is the element of participation in action.
er, In ·all such ·provisions a joint liability is created either because the intention
is common or the object is common to all the persons forming a group alleged
to have committed_a crime.
r:r Uncier the Indi~ ·Penal Code• the criminal liability of a person is . determined
·a ccording to the manner in whic~ he b~comes associated _w ith ~e commission
-o f crime.
r:r Nor~ally a person may be a -part_icipant in a ----erime in the following four -
ways:-
(i) When he himself commits a crime. - -
(ii) When he . ta.lees part in_the com:Qlission of it.
· (iii) When he, ~th ~ yiew to ~the coII!inissiqµ qf ~rim~, -sets some third agency
0

to ~~rk, that is_J1e m_a1:ces \ hird-) >arty..his own -~gent for. committing the.
- ..~ -~~ ...f ~ -- ._2~ ,,:_ - ~ - ~· ...
·c rime. :..
~-
" -- (iv) When .he . qei ps the off~-~dei' ~ff;( th~ commlssi~n . ()~ the crime in
----~ . . :~·- .-§~~~~iii1;{°g)1fm,fri>m· ju~tice: -._· · ~: _- ' _ ,,, ·:: . -
,.. - - ~..,
;a_ _ _ •
~
·- ~
.
~-. ;:;:
-
,.. _,..
-
.. -· -_
-:..:. -; ,.,,.-
~-~- - : -

I I~~ORTANT.•"CAsts -1-..
(1) State of M.P. vs. -;Jleshrcij, :Al~ 2004
In this case held that ·s·e ction 34 of Penal _Code· has been·-enact~d on the
principle of Joint liability in the- doing of a ,criminal act
(2) Barendra Kumar ·Ghosh vs. King Empero~, AIR 1925
_- ~rivy Council held th~t -to st_a ~d and~let the offence be committed by other
-persons with a common intention to commit that offence' also means serving.
_ (3) Krishna Govind Patil vs. st~~e of ~aharashtr~, AIR·-1963
.
In certain situations co"II!mm:~ intention_may develpp suddenly on the spot.
(4) The Case. of -Mahboob Shah vs. _Emperor
In this case difference between common intention and similar intention was
laid down.

b
 fJ!J I INDIAN PENAL COD E, 186 0
- - - - - - - -- - ~
r l- - - - - - - -
--

.-- - - AIR 195 5

Ris hfd eo Pan dey vs. Sta te of VP,
(S)
mon inte ntio n may develo Pon
In this case SC uph eld the view that the com
the
spo t of the crime.
(6) Vire ndr a Sin gh vs. Sta te of Ma dhy
a Pra des h, AIR 201 1
.
case cou rt held that the VICar
This case is base d on vica riou. s liability-In this . . j
0
ans e only whe n two cond1t10 ns are filled the 1.Js
liability und er sect ion 34 can
icip atio n in one form or tbe 0 trnhent a.i
_ elem ent or the inte ntio n to com mit the part er 1·
n
the com mis sion of the crim e.
0
(7) JM Des ai vs. Sta te of Bom bay , AIR 196
enc e of the acc use d was es sentia.1
V In offe nces involving phy sica l viol ence , pres
apa rt from part icip atio n.
, AIR 195 5
JS) Pan dur ang vs. Sta te of Hyd era bad
com mon inte ntio n shou ld never b
In this case SC held that the infe renc e of
e ded ucib le from the circ ums tanc e S Ofe
reac hed unl ess it is a nec essa ry infe renc
the case .
(9) Nan ak Cha nd vs. Sta te of Pun jab
inte ntio n and com mon object was
In this case dist ingu ish betw een com mon
laid down.
9
(10) Gan esh Sin gh vs. ~am Pooja, 186
After this case the wor ds "in furt hera nce of
com moq inte ntio n of all" were added
in Sec tion 34 in the yea r 1870.

SEC TIO N 35
.
.
its. bein g don e with an criminal
When suc h an act is crim inal by rea son -of
kno wle dge or inte ntio n :-
NOTES
i min al inte ntio n or knowledge jointly
If seve ral pers ons , hav ing the sam e cr_
r::r
offe nce as ·if he had d.one theact
mur der, eac h one wou ld be liab l_e for the
h _hav ing a diff eren t intention.or
· alon e, but if seve ral pers ons join in act eac
rdin g tQ his 0 ~ criminaljntention
knowledge from the _othe r, each is liab le acco
or knowledge.
with out refe renc e to any criminal
r::r If an act whi ch is an offence i~ itse lf and
r is don e tiy seve ral persons each
knowledge or inte ntio n on the par t of the doe
of them is liable for the offence.
whi ch is crim inal o~i ; by reason of
rr Where a . num ber of pers ons join in an act
. ntio . n eac h pers on ·.1s 1·1able for
1 d ge or mte
its bein g don e with a cert ai n kn owe
the act to the exte nt of his kno wle dge or 1n. t en t·10n.
 L.&. lYl t'U l(T AN ~ CASES J
19 27
(1) Ad am ~l i Ta luq da r, AI R
,
In thi s cas e, 'A' an d ,8 , b ea t ,C wh o die d 'A' ·
d th ' ' . . int en de d to mu rde r him an d kn ew
t h at t h e ac t wo uld ca us e
ea . B on ly int end. ed to cau se grievous hu rt an d did no t
kn ow his -ac t wo uld ca us e de ath or su ch bodily inj ury
'A' h ld rde r an d 'B' . . as wa s likely to cau se de ath
ilty of mu
wa s e gu of cau sin g grievous hu rt.
(2) Ke sh ub Ma hin dr a vs , AIR 19 96
pa l G
(B ho T . St ate of Ma dh ya Pr ad esh
•• rag ed y Case)
t if . ~.
t sec tio n sho ws tha
A me re loo k at tha
un t f h . the act all eged ag ain st thr ee acc use d
be co me s cri mi na l on ac co 0 t e1r sh ari ng c. o~ mo n k no wl e~ ge ab ou t the
Bh o al b t
de fec tiv e ru nn ing of pla nt at y he rem a1n 1ng ac cu sed wh o rep res en ted
wh o ha d t p
the m on the sp ot an d
oth erw ise req uir ed to sup erv
b
ise
. r
o~
act
t.
ivi
~i:rry
the ir di~ections from the m an d wh
ty. Se cti on 35 of the Ind ian Pe nal
o were
Code
m F .
co uld at lea st Pri a ac1e e inv ok ed ag ain 8 t . d 2 3 4 an d 12 to be rea d with
acc rue ,
sec tio n 30 4A Ind 'tan p enal Co de . ·

(3) Ba re nd ra Ku ma r Gh os
h vs. Em pe ro r
. fra me d u/ s 35
As Se cti on 35 cre ates no sub sta ntt ve offence, no ch arg e ca n be
of I.P .C. ·

SE CT IO N 36

es ·a n ille ga J'o mi ssi on als o. -a·

·me an s the
· pro vid es tha t a.c t 0
inc lud
r:r se·c tio ~ 32
ion . wi lf b
· e the sam e · as tha t of- an act .
of an ille ga l ~m iss
-- le.g aL clJ ns eq ue ric e· .. ..
:_ . ·--
-
,

ce is· co mm itte d -pru t 1y by

_ .an _ac t "an d pa rtl ~-_ by .an illegal
r,- J ~ ~~e for e.~·jf_.a n off en tte d
ns eq ue nc es wo uld be the :sa me as if the offence wa s.~com roi
• or: ¢$.,s ion , the · co
alo ne .
_by~-an" tac t' or by an om iss ion
ille gal ly
11 tra ·tio n· :~ 'A' int en tio na lly -ca us es Z's de ath , pa rtl y by "
· ··:· Ill us itt~ d... mu rde r.
e 'Z' f9o d\h 1-d.,_ '.Q~t }Y . by _be~ tip:g. him . ··I}.• ha_s .co mm
. . - .
' ~

om ittt iig to giv . .. -·

, :- ."":: . -
,., . ,
"'
'

20 02
Su sh il Ba ns al vs. St ate AI R t
rm er ins tal led in a cin em a ha ll led to mu ltip le de ath s bu
Fir e in the tra ns fo ilities,
a ca us an s of the tra ge dy . Th e ·ab sen ce of rap id dis pe rsa l fac
wa s no t the ca us s me an t for
om iss ion an d co mm iss ion . Vi ola tio n of rul es an d by e law
va rio us ac ts of the tra ge dy in eq ua l pro po rtio n.
us es wh ich co ntr ibu ted to
pu bli c saf ety we re oth er ca
~a s he ld to be jus tif iab le.
A ch arg e un de r thi s Se cti on
rn I INDIAN PENAL _CODE , 186 0 -- -- -- -- -- -~ r
L-~

SECT ION 37
'Co-o perat ion by doing ~ne of sever al acts cons titut ing an
offen ce' :-
NOTES
~ This secti on follow s as a Co rolla ry from secti on 3 5 as appe ars from the
illust ratio n .
..-
..., It prov1•d es that when sever al acts are done so as to resul
,
. . n of an offience the doing of any one of ,them , wit . ht toget. her in th e
comm1ss1o , an .intent ion t
co-op erate in the offence (whic h may n~t be the -~ame _as -~n . o
1_ntention common
to all) make s the actor liable to be punis hed for _th~ ~om~ 1ss10
n of the offence.
r::r If comm on inten tion is the h~b ~f sectio n .34, int~n _ t ional co-op eratio n is the
spind le of sectio n 34 of the Pena l Code: _
r::r Secti on 34 to 38 of the Pena l Code delin eates _the ·para mete
rs pf constructive
or vicar ious Pena l liabil ity. in _differ .ent situa tioh s : . ,
r:,- There fore it is not impe rative that the charg e shou ld -GOn
tain-=-the particular
sectio n of the Pena l Code with "whic h· const ructi ve liabil ity
is .fa$te ned
- - ~.. .
nlus trati on :- 'A' and 'B' agre~ t_o murd ~r •z:,::bY.Aev~.r ~ly -~ .d at
different
times givin g -him smal l dose s· of pois~n . . 'A ' i n-cf \ ~ ; _·ad.i:n
ini~t er the poison
accor ding to the agree ment with: iriten t" to m ~rtl€_r·-·,g;• ::- •z· ciie's
frotn the effect
of the sev~r al d'Q_s~s of ppi_s.o n__ so ~aq~ in_1st 8!~Jf ~f9_J 1ipr
.. __!j et ~_~'A' _a~d _•a•
int~n tiona liy ._.CO-eop erate in. tb~~-c ~\nm_issi~ n.,Jl{ niuid ei;.. a'.~ d
as~eacl). of them
does an ac~ by ~hic h· the~d~aJh".i{s::·~a~$~~?ifi~y-- a're-ho{,q_guiJty
bf the offence
thq~g h th~][ af tS' are ;~~pa:r~1 }e~h->:-~t:- ·- ~:~·:"'=L._ /": ::::~': . _! c.,2·~~-:~~::L -',: ;·;, ;_.

Bare ndra- Kym ar Ghos_ h -';,,s~. King

. '
- Emp e_ror, ~R
... -- . --1925__ . ~~-,.. -
a
-
- - . ~
·This -case i s locus ._cl~ssic-us /4d .n as ·:be_e n foliow ed by _nµrµb
er . of-hig h courts
and the Supr_em~ coq rt_ in a ! ~rge ·-~u mber . of cases . In
th.i s•--~ase , -the Judic ial
Comm ittee _.4 ~alt •with the ·scqp e -ox Secti on 34 and obser ved
,-·t hat-t inder sectio n 34
regar
- d ~
must be had nof to the offen ce· as a ~whol e·' but to the crimi nal act that is to
,

say, the totali ty of the _s(!ries of ~cts whic h ~resul t in the · bffe:h , .

ce. For instan ce, in

the case of a perso n as~au lted by m~y- accu sed, . the ·crim
inal act is the offence
whic h finall y resul ts from the_·actio n--<Jf se~er al·· pers~ n_.
., . - __

SECT ION 38 . .
'Pers ons conc erned in crim inal act ~ 'a y--b- e ·g u·tt
. . _ 1 Y. o r d"fti
1 eren t o ftience s., ..
·.
NOTES
r:,:- Secti on 38. provi des that . the· respo nsibi lity for ·the
comp leted . crimi ~al act
"~ay be of differ ~n t grade s accordi1:1g to· the share tak~n by
the differ ent- accus ed
1n -the comp letio n of the crim inal· act ·and th· S ~ .
. -- ·
: . . :
anyth ing abou t 1nten t10n comm on · or •, 1s ect10 n does not men tion
·oth · · ·
-erw1 se or ... k nowl
- edge
.
 r:,- Section 34 to 38 law down principal similar to the Errglish law of ·'prl1teipa.ls·f ii<·--~·
the first and second degrees. · -

r:,- The basic principal which runs through sections 32 to 38 is that in certain
circumstances an entire act is attributed to a person who may have performed
only a fractional part of it. This axiom is laid down in Section 34 in which
emphasis is on the act.

r:r Section 35 to 38 take up this axiom as the basis of a further rule by which the
criminal liability- of the doer of a fractional -part is to be adjudged in differenr
situatioQ. of mens rea.

~ This section provides for .different .puni_

s hments· for different offence as an ·
-- . -· -.· ;,,,

alternative to one punishment fot orie offence~,where a criminal act jointly

done by several· persons with difJerent ·fnte"iitioIIS -~tates knowiedge .in '· doing or
file 1oin1: act
-:Illi.tstrati~n . :- ''A' attacks 'i'- und er· su~h _circu~stanc·e s of grave
- "provoi~ti~h thS:t his lillling-of 'Z,. -wb~lcfb~ oniy'ctifp~ble -hom-icide_. hQ~arrtobrtting.
--~i- to 'B;·· havi~g ill-w1ll -:towards ·z·~=anl t ntindfng "-tb 71a1r?hiJli:·= adci
rtiu:a:~r.· - - • • • : • _.-:.. __ .,:.:- ••. ~ ;.....;, - -~- •• .c: - -. ' ..;:
not
- ~ ~

......:.:..~~ aiv.ipg) >eeh su_bj_e.ct...to -th~~rir.9x9.c·aJ iop.:..a~Si§ts? ~ 4 iJtj~Ung- -Z✓~ ]:Ieie,~ t;nough -..
- -

-~ -
1
-:;-_.:YA~an~ are oo-~ -eri_gagt.:<r•ii.'4~ - :·&zi ;;~~a:tJ\f i~; ~~}gu!!ty~~r-mJrfg~r, :ana 'A: :.
-)~~
1

_- -/-~~-~1~ -gu~~~-~~n1!~.-~r-~cuipf~ti5[~~1:f:~1!=ft:r -__ .. 1;1ftit:ff~:~~~-tf{:-~::--~s-.--, .. : i?

-• .!. _ ... _·-.._ -:._:~- .. - : _ - ·:_:_ __ • ..,.:- -~ ... ..:-:· ... ---~--'t= ..- ·-:. :.:·.;.-~--·-:· -: ._ :- . --~~-- -:._----:
Bhabha Nandu vs. S~te-oj- As~a~ _A l~ >1')!1!'/. -
,. -- -- . . . .-.- . . . -. - -< . - - -· -· . - .-. -- . ~ - -
- Three accused assaulted · the -·victim-, out of th~Jn,·tw<:>_used· their w~~pons and p _

the :·ininn~~-t~ - \vhi1:n·~t-hey~ga~e.<blow~~cl eariy~s'F-idw~_a - theif•~~{eri~ion -t_o -kill "the -'

victim._The :third _accu_sed cijd i:io'.t-·!:is'e hi_~-- l1;tth( fqr -:-CJl~~irtg j ~jJ}n.es._-t <?. .-the :-v{ctim. -
Th~-- two a; cus~d were h~l<j· lia:bl~- (9r.:· ~~rd~~--~ ~--ti;{~. ~elcf guilty thii~c:-~d-~~i~ct i~~
~nder s~ct:i~~ .304 Part II as~
he had -ifiterit1on_a l!J-]oJ:i1eg ._4!~;~ ~eofnin£s~io_n ~(!f the
act 'w ith the -knowledge that the -as-s ault on · the vi~tim__,:~ ~s-·lik~ly ) n :·hi~_·death and -__ ="
he never had intention:·td .,.-Gofuinit -mu rder:. -~ _:-__ ~- - ·--~ ,·. - ·- -
.. - . - ~ .
 SECTIO N 149
Eve.r_y mem.b er of unlaw ful ass.e mbly _guilty . of offenc e commit ted in
prosec ution of commo n object :- - -
NOTES ·
-
r::,a Some offence must be commi tted by any membe r of an unlawf ul ~ssembly.
~ Such offence must have been com:mi tted in prosecu tion of the common obj~ct
of the assemb ly/ or must be such as the membe rs of the assemb iy· knew to be
likely to be commi tted.
~ This section -incorp orates the· princip le 9f constru ctive crimina l liability on
the ba~is of commo n object of unlawf ul assemb ly.
This section creates· a specific , distinc t & substan tive offence .
, . ·r ble
It also incorpo rates the princip le of vicario us liability & ·holds a person ia .
. .
for an offence , which he might not have actuall y commi. tted by reason of h1s
bei~g a membe r of an unlawf ul assemb ly. _
 ~----- ---l I --- I
IMPORTANT CASES
vs. State of M.P.
111 ,its
111 erne court held that presence of accused
lle 5upr .ction as part of unlawful assembly
'f . t for conVl .
ffic1en -
•s s\J · n.,zar Rai vs. State of Bihar
I Jaff'I. v.,.
121was held that mere presence in unlawful assembl ·
. Y cannot render a person
It be was actuated by common object and that ob. t .
. ble unleS 5 f IPC 1ec is one of those set
1111 c•;on 141 o •
iJ1 se ....
01.1t ..is styaram and others vs. State of U.P
131 JP/' • . .
It wa-s held that the .expression
. . m prosecution of common ob· ·t h
~ec ave to be
·ctlY construed as equivalent to m order to attain the common object.
stfl .,. han Singh vs. State of Pu~ab, AIR 1963
141 IP'0
The acquittal of some of the five or more persons named in the charge & tried,
d thereby reducing the member less than five, does not necessarily either displace
: affect the validity of the charge _u / s 149, if the court is able to reach the conclusion
t the persons composing the unlawful _assembly neverthless were five or more
: : have not been ide~tified .& so have n~t · been named. ·
0

Differe~ce between Common Intention & Common Object

In the case of Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 distinguish between Section
& 149 was laid down by The Hon. Apex Court as follows ~-
34
1. Section 34 deals ·:w ith common intention .which incorporate s the principle of
joint liability. Section 149 on the other hand, deals. with_common object which
incorporates the principle of constructiv e criminal liability.
2. For the application of Section 34, more than one person is n_ecessary, while
Section 149 deals with unlawful assembly, hence, there must be five or more
persons.
.. -.
3. S~ction 34 is basically a rule of evidence & hence it does not create any
substantive offence. Section 149 creates -a specific offence.
4. Common i~t~ntion u/s 34 may b~ of any type. Com~on object u/s 149 must
be one of the five obje~ts mentioned _in Section l~l. .
S. Oomt?on intention requir~s prior m~eting of minds or pre-arrange d plan
betweent he accused · persons. im; common object, no prior meeting of minds
is necessary, mere membershi p of the unlawful assembly at the time of
commission of the offence 1.s sufficient.
6· U/ s 34, ,criminal act is done in ·furtheranc_e of common intention. U / s 149,
criminal act is done for executing the common object, or it is enough that .
members know that criminal act is likely to be committed.
- -
 -----------
!64 / / IND IAN PE NA L CO DE , 18 60 ,I- - - - - -
~
wit h the crim ina l act .
7. U/ s 34 , acc use d per son s mu st be con nec ted With the
ll as me nta l sta te. U/ s 149 , he is gui lty onl y b
ang le of phy sic al as we . ecaus
law ful ass em bly at the tim e of com mis s· e
he wa s a me mb er of the un ion of
off enc e.