Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Joint Liability
An overview of the principle of Joint Criminal Liability
under IPC, with special reference to Sections 34 & 149
Acknowledgement
Upon the successful completion of this project, I would wish to
thank everyone who has been a part of it. First and the
foremost I thank Prof. Sangita Bhalla, Director, University
Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh
for providing me with the esteemed opportunity of presenting a
project report on The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Dr.
Pushpinder Kaur Gill, Assistant Professor in Laws from
the same department for the clear concepts which she provided
us about the principles of IPC,1860, which rendered great
support during the drafting of this submission.
And lastly, my heartiest gratitude towards all the respected
authors of the numerous books I referred to, during the
research process for this submission. It is truly said, Books are
our best friends.
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Section 34
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intentionWhen 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.
Section 34 has been enacted on principle of joint liability in the
doing of a criminal act; the section is only a rule of evidence
and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive
feature of the section is the element of participation in action 2.
The liability of one person for an offence committed by another
in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons
arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in
furtherance of a common intention of the person who join in
committing the crime. Direct proof of common intension is
seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be
inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved
facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to
bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution
has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial,
that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with
the aid of Section 34, be its pre-arranged or on the spur of the
moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of
the crime. The true concept of the section is that if two or more
persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just
the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself.
The section does not say the common intentions of all nor
does it say an intention common to all. Under the provisions
2 Sewa Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 I Cri. LJ 802 (S. C.)
Ingredients of Section 34
There are three main ingredients of this section:
1. A criminal act must be done by several persons.
2. The criminal act must be done to further the common
intention of all, and
Section 35
Section 35 of the IPC is in furtherance of the preceding section
34. It reads that
When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done
with a criminal knowledge or intentionWhenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being
done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several
persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such
knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner
as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or
intention.
If several persons, having the same criminal intention or
knowledge jointly murder, each one would be liable for the
offence as if he had done the act alone; but if several persons
join in the act, each with different intention or knowledge from
the others, each is liable according to his own intention or
knowledge.
Reference can be made to the case of Adam Ali Taluqdar9,
where A and B beat C who died. A had an intention to murder
C, and knew that his act would cause his death. B on the other
hand intended to cause grievous hurt and did not know that his
act will cause Cs death. Hence, A was held guilty for murder
whereas B was charged with grievous hurt.
Section 149
Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence
committed in prosecution of common objectIf an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members or that assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every
person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Essential Elements
To invoke section 149 IPC, the following ingredients must be
present1. There must be an unlawful assembly 10. There must be at
least five people in such an assembly.
2. There must be some common object of such an unlawful
assembly. Here the word common must be distinguished
from similar; it means common to all and known to the
rest of them and also shared by them.
3. There must be a commission of offence by anyone or more
members of such unlawful assembly.
4. The commission of such offence must be in prosecution of
the common object shared by all and each of the
members of such unlawful assembly.
5. The offence committed in prosecution of a common object
must be such that each one of the members of such
unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed.
10 Section 141 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Common
Intention13
Common Object14
distinct
from
Girija Shankar
Pradesh
vs.
State
of
Uttar
by the trial court. Their appeal before the Honble High Court
met with the fate of dismissal. During the pendency of the
appeal two persons namely, Iqbal Shankar and Junglee died and
the appeal stood abated. Girija Shankar preferred the appeal
and questioned the legality of his conviction under Section 302
read with Section 34, and Section 307 read with 34.
According to the prosecution version, Arun Singh, H.P. Tiwari
(PWs) and the deceased decided to stay in village Bhawalia
when they were on the way to their village after seeing a
village fair at Bhuvreshwar as they wanted to purchase beedi.
It had become dark and was raining. They decided to stay at
the house of Raj Bahadur Singh whom H.P. Tiwari claimed to
know.
In the meantime, the accused persons saw them and thought
them as criminals. They shouted at them being notorious and
should be beaten. The (PWs) however, resisted their allegations
and disclosed their purpose of staying in the village. They were
proceeding towards Raj Bahadur Singhs house when they were
attacked upon. Suddenly one of the accused Devi Shankar fired
two shots, one of which hit the deceased and the other hit H.P.
Tiwari. It was also alleged that the gold ring and watch of
deceased were removed by Junglee and H.P. Tiwaris gun was
snatched by Devi Shankar.
To prove the prosecution case seven witnesses were examined
and the Trial Court observed that there was no direct evidence
showing pre-concert or meeting of minds amongst the accused
and the possibility of it having developed on the spot cannot be
ruled out.
The Honble Supreme Court of India observed that on reaching
at the said conclusion the Trial Court and the High Court did not
appreciate the fact that there was neither any direct nor any
circumstantial evidence showing pre-concert of the minds of
the accused persons in causing the death of the deceased.
Dilating on the provisions of Section 34 the observation of the
Honble Supreme Court of India quoted-
Bibliography
Webeography
www.legalsutra.org
www.indiankanoon.org
www.inrebus.com
www.lexisnexis.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.lawyersclubindia.com