1
AMBITION LAW INSTITUTE
MODEL ANSWER-8
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Q.1 When Section 34 can be invoked? What are essential ingredients of Section 34?
Ans: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be invoked when a criminal act is committed by multiple
individuals in furtherance of a common intention. It deals with the principle of joint liability. According to Section
N
34, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable as
if the act was done by them individually. Section 34 can be invoked when following conditions are satisfied:
1. A criminal act is done by several persons
The expression 'criminal act' includes within its ambit any word, gesture, deed or conduct of any kind on the
part of any one of them, active or passive, which tends to support the common design of committing a crime.
(a) It requires that there must be two or more persons involved in the criminal act.
IO
(b) Several person means more than one person.
(c) If it is only one person, then it will be an individual liability and Section 34 cannot be invoked.
2. Active Participation
Section 34 requires that the criminal act should be done by two or more persons. In other words it requires that
there should be active participation of two or more persons in commission of crime. So mere presence is not
sufficient rather participation is required.
In Barender Ghosh vs. King Emperor, (1924) 52 I.A. 40, he was standing outside and after the crime caught
T
with pistol in his hand. The question raised was whether he participated in the crime or not. The court said that who
stand, wait and watch, they also participate. Here Barinder Kumar was keeping a watch by standing outside. The
Court further said that participation may be direct or indirect, may be patent or latent or by physical presence or
otherwise.
3. Common Intention of all
BI
(a) Common Intention means pre-arranged plan or prior concert or prior meeting of minds. It requires knowledge
and sharing of each other's intention. Without this we cannot invoke Section 34.
(b) Common intention does not mean same or similar intention, as it may be possible that two or more persons
have same intention but they may not have common intention.
In Mehboob Shah vs. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118, Mehboob Shah was charged for Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Now the question arises that whether there was any common intention in this case. The Court
said that both rescuer had similar intention as both wanted to rescue the victim but there was no common intention
because both came from different directions and there was no prior concert or prior meeting of mind or pre-
AM
arranged plan.
In State of MP vs. Ramji Lal Sharma, AIR 2022 SC 1366, the Court observed that, once it has been established
and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the
deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused
who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the
deceased or not.
In Gadadhar Chandra vs. State of West Bengal, (2022) 6 SCC 576, the Court held that, Common intention
contemplated by Section 34 of IPC pre supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds. It requires a pre
arranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have
been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.
Further Section 34 deals with the principal offender of 1st Degree and it is presumed that each one has
committed the entire offence.
OUR WEBSITE ambitionlawinstitute.com s. Ambitionpublications.com WE ARE ALSO ON
BUY BEST BARE ACT
