SECTION 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention -

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

A person is liable only for those acts that he/she has committed and not for those acts that are committed by someone else. According to the general principles of criminal liability, the main responsibility is of the individual or person who commits the offence and only such person can be held guilty and be punished for the committed crime.

However, the Indian Penal Code consists of many provisions that include the doctrine of “common purpose” found in criminal law jurisprudences across countries. This doctrine enables criminal responsibility to be attached upon an individual for a crime that has been committed by another individual on the basis that such crime was committed as a part of a common design which was agreed upon by the accused and other individual(s). Section 34 of the IPC is one such Section.

Section 34 of the IPC 1860 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons, is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. This section, laying down “joint liability” of an act is an exception to the fundamental principal of criminal jurisprudence. The essence of joint liability lies in the presence of common intention in all the persons involved which leads to the doing of the criminal act in furtherance of this common intention.

What are the Essentials of Section 34 IPC?

Like every crime, Section 34 also has some essentials that need to be fulfilled in order to hold a person liable for joint liability. These are as follows:

1. A criminal act done by several persons:

The most important ingredient is that a criminal act must be done, that too by several persons. Committing of an act or omitting of an act of criminal nature must be done. The acts committed by different confederates in criminal action may be different, however, all must in one way or the other participate or engage in the criminal enterprise. The essence of S. 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular or intended result.

2. The common intention of all persons to commit the criminal act:

As stated above, the essence of joint liability under S. 34 of IPC lies in the existence of a common intention to do a criminal act in furtherance of the common objective of all members of that group. The term “common intention” implies a prior or previous concert or a prior meeting of minds and also the participation of all members of that group. The acts done by different persons of that group may differ in degree and character, but these acts must be actuated by the same common intention between all persons.

3. Participation of all persons involved, in the commission of the offence (in furtherance of that common intention):

In order to fix joint liability, a the criminal act of the entire group is a condition precedent. It is essential that the court finds that in furtherance of the common intention, some criminal act has been done with the group’s participation. The person who instigates or aids in the commission of the crime should physically do an act for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the actual (planned) crime.

An example for a crime under S. 34 IPC could be as follows:

“A, B and C, all persons decide to rob a bank but without hurting any individual or person at the bank. However, while robbing the bank, B and C were collecting cash, while, A decided to be at the door keeping a check for the police. In this meantime, the guard from another gate came running and out of fear, A stabbed the security guard multiple times which led to the death of the security guard. After this, B and C ran towards the security guard, took our the knife from the body of the security guard to hide evidence and then all 3 A, B and C, ran away from the bank. Although, B and C did not actively kill the security guard, but all three A, B and C will be liable for robbing the bank and for killing the security guard”

In this example, all the essentials of Section 34 are covered and thus, A, B and C will be jointly liable for all acts committed in furtherance of common intention.

One of the earliest cases where the court had convicted another person for the act of another person in furtherance of common intention is that of Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs King Emperor, where two persons demanded money from the postmaster where he was counting the money, and when they fired from the pistol at the postmaster, the postmaster died on the spot. All of the accused ran away without taking money. In this case, Barendra Kumar stated that he did not fire the pistol and was just standing as a guard, but the Courts rejected his plea and held him guilty and convicted him for murder under section 302 with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Participation in Criminal Act and Proving Common Intention under Section 34

As stated above, the participation in a criminal act of a group is a pre-condition for fixing joint liability. There must be some overt act done in furtherance of the common intention in order to commit an offence under S. 34 and be liable under it. It is required by law to be present at the “crime scene” or the spot of crime and also participate in the commission of the offence. It could even be sufficient if he is present somewhere nearby.

The essence of the liability is in the common intention and the participation in the commission of the offence.

The test for conviction under S. 34 IPC is evidence which can either be direct or it can be inferred that such accused and others have committed the offence in pursuance of common intention. Section 34 applies even when no injury has been caused by one accused himself. Thus, if it is proved that one of the accused’s was standing and witnessing a murder take place when they decided to commit the crime, he/she will be held liable under S.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

What is the Nature of Offence under Section 34 under the IPC?

Section 34 is only a general definition of joint liability. It does not create any substantial or proper crime. No particular offence has been stated therein. Two or more people can be jointly liable for an offence stated in IPC if a crime has been committed by them in furtherance of common intention. Thus, two or more people can be held liable for any crime stated under Section 34 IPC if the essentials of that section are fulfilled. Thus, whether the offence is cognizable, non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, depends upon the nature of the offence committed and the nature mentioned in the Sections under which the accused is charged.

Why is there a Need for Section 34IPC?

Section 34 lays down a very important provision for the Indian Criminal Law. It lays down a general provision for application in situations where it is difficult to prove the exact extent of liability and roles of the parties/persons involved in a joint criminal act. Section 34 helps in determining liability for individuals where it is tough to determine individual liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention of all those involved.

Punishment under Section 34 of the IPC

Since Section 34 only provides a general definition as to what constitutes joint liability, no proper punishment has been stated for criminal acts done jointly by 2 or more than 2 persons (in pursuance of common intention). This particular Section is only a rule of evidence per se. It does not create any substantial offence. Section 34 on its own does not create any explicit or distinct offence and lays down only a principle of liability stating that if two or more than two do something against the law, or something that is a crime under the Indian Penal Code, both (or all of) such persons will be held liable for that crime. Thus, the punishments for Section 34 will be in accordance with the punishments provided for the the crime committed as per the Indian Penal Code.

Section 34 of the IPC is a principle of constructive liability and the essence of the liability is the existence of common intention in the minds of the accused. Since Section 34 in itself cannot be an offence, thus, each time a criminal act is done by two or more persons, thus, both the Sections i.e. setion provided for the criminal offence and section provided for joint liability (Section 34) will be applied.

For example, if an offence of murder has been committed in furtherance of common intention, then, both the persons involved will be held liable under Section 302 of IPC along with Section 34 of IPC.

Since no offence is prescribed under Section 34 of the IPC, this Section is always read with other substantive Sections of the IPC.

Difference between Section 34 and 149 of IPC

1. Creation of a specific offence: Section 34 provides for a joint criminal liability but does not create any specific offence. Section 149, however, creates a specific offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly, which is punishable under Section 143.

2. Definition: ‘Common intention’ under Section 34 is not defined anywhere in the Code while ‘common object’ is an essential ingredient of an unlawful assembly defined under Section 141.

3. Difference between common intention and common object: A prior meeting of the minds of persons involved is essential to common intention. It is not essential for a prior meeting of minds to be present in a common object.

4. No. of persons involved: For Section 34 to be applicable, at least 2 persons must be involved. Whereas for invoking Section 149, a minimum of 5 persons is required.

5. Participation: ‘Active participation' is essential for Section 34 to be applicable while the same is not necessary for Section 149.

What to do if Charged in a Case under Section 34 IPC?

In India, being charged for any crime is a critical matter to deal with. A criminal case is not only hard for the accused, but also for the victim. A person charged for a crime in India can face severe penalties if convicted.

A person charged with a crime can face severe penalties if convicted. On the other hand, it is similarly difficult for the petitioner to prove the charges levied by him/ her. This is why it is important for both the petitioner and the defendant to thoroughly prepare for the case. A person involved in such a case must know all his/her rights before and after arrest. For this purpose, it is a must that both parties take the help of their lawyers.

A timeline of events should also be prepared and taken down in writing so that it is easier to brief the lawyer about the case. This will also help the lawyer to formulate a strategy to successfully conduct the trials and convince the court to adjudge in your favour.

The lawyer will be able to guide you on the available defences, please and bargains likely to be offered and the expectant result of the trial, depending upon the facts and circumstances of your case.

Further, it is important to have a fair understanding of the law involved in a criminal case. One must sit with his/her lawyer and understand the procedure as well as the law governing the case. It is also critical to perform your own research and understand the risks involved and how you can overcome the same.

What to do if you are Falsely Charged for a Criminal Case under Section 34 IPC?

Very often, people are falsely charged under Section 34 cases. In such scenarios, it is important to build your case in a way so as to prove your innocence in the Court by presenting valuable evidence. The accused must talk to his/her lawyer and explain the entire scenario to him/her without even minor alterations as such changes can have a big impact on the case. You should discuss the case thoroughly with the lawyer, even multiple times if you believe that you were not able to make your lawyer understand some of the technicalities involved in the case earlier. You must also do your own research about the case and prepare yourself accordingly for the trials with the help of your lawyer. You should follow your lawyer’s instructions properly and take advice for things even as minor as your appearance, cross examinations etc. in the Court.