top of page

Join Liability Under S.34 of IPC


Content:


The principle of joint liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence in India. It embodies the concept of constructive criminality, where the liability for a criminal act is shared among all individuals who participate in the act with a common intention.


This principle ensures that the law does not allow the dilution of responsibility merely because a crime is committed by several persons. The essence of Section 34 lies in the simultaneous consensus of the minds of the participants, leading to a unified criminal behavior.


Rationale and Justification

The rationale behind Section 34 is to prevent the dilution of liability in group crimes. The law recognizes that the presence of accomplices provides encouragement, support, and protection to the principal offender. 


Therefore, all participants are deemed equally guilty, as their collective presence and actions contribute to the commission of the crime. This principle discourages the formation of criminal groups by ensuring that each member is held accountable for the collective act.


Legal Framework

Section 34 of the IPC states: 

"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 is done by him alone." 

This section is interpretative and does not create a substantive offense. Instead, it serves as a rule of evidence to establish the liability of co-accused individuals.


The principle is rooted in the idea that if two or more persons intend to do something jointly, it is as if each of them had done it individually.


Essential Ingredients

For Section 34 to apply, two key elements must be established:

  1. Common Intention: This implies a prearranged plan or prior concert among the participants. It is not enough for the individuals to have the same or similar intention; there must be a meeting of minds to form a prearranged plan. The intention of each participant must be known to and shared by all others.

The distinction between common intention and similar intention is crucial. In Mahbub Shah v Emperor (1945), the Privy Council highlighted that common intention implies a prearranged plan. In this case, A and B killed C and injured D when C and D tried to attack A's cousin. The court found that A and B had a similar intention to rescue the cousin but lacked a prearranged plan to commit murder. Thus, they were not held liable under Section 34.


In Pandurang v State of Hyderabad (1955), the Supreme Court reiterated that common intention presupposes prior concert. The case involved five accused who attacked and killed Ram Chander. The court found no evidence of a prearranged plan or prior meeting of minds, and thus, Section 34 was not applicable.


  1. Participation: The individuals must participate in the criminal act in some manner. This participation can be direct or indirect, active or passive. The emphasis is on the actual "doing" of the act, which can include standing guard, waiting in a car, or any other form of assistance that furthers the common intention.


Participation need not always be by physical presence. In Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (1979), the accused was not present at the scene of the crime but was held liable under Section 34 because he supplied the duplicate key and waited at a nearby weighbridge. The court held that participation could be overt or covert, active or passive, and even remote direction could constitute participation.


In Suresh v State of U.P. (2001), the court clarified that an overt act is not necessary to attract Section 34. The case involved the brutal murder of a family, and the court held that the presence of the accused near the scene, even without an overt act, could indicate participation in furtherance of the common intention.



Application and Scope

Section 34 applies to a wide range of criminal activities, including but not limited to:


A. Criminal Conspiracy (Sections 120A and 121A):


Criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. It is deemed a distinct offense from the substantive crime that is the object of the conspiracy, and even if the substantive crime is not committed, the conspirators can be held liable for the conspiracy itself.


The essential elements of criminal conspiracy are:

  • An agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime,

  • The intent to commit the crime,

  • Some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.


Each conspirator is liable for the acts of others in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if they were not present when the acts were committed. This is based on the principle that by entering into a conspiracy, each conspirator becomes an agent of the others for the purposes of the conspiracy.


B. Dacoity with Murder (Section 396):


Dacoity is defined as a robbery committed by a group of five or more persons. When dacoity is accompanied by murder, all the participants in the dacoity are liable for the murder, regardless of whether they actually committed the murder or not.


This is based on the principle of common intention, which states that when a group of individuals engage in a criminal act, each of them is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of the act.


Therefore, when dacoity is committed, all the participants are presumed to have intended the possibility of murder, and they are therefore all liable for the murder if it occurs.


C. Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking by Night (Section 460):


Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night is defined as entering a dwelling house or any building attached to it with the intent to commit a crime. All participants in such acts are liable for the consequences of their actions, including any harm caused during the commission of the crime.


This is based on the principle of joint liability, which states that when two or more individuals participate in a criminal act, they are all liable for the consequences of the act, regardless of who actually committed it.


Therefore, if a group of individuals enter a dwelling house or any building attached to it with the intent to commit a crime, all of them are liable for any harm caused during the commission of the crime, even if only one of them actually committed the crime.


In Nandu Rastogi v State of Bihar (2002), the main accused, along with four others, committed murder. The court held that all the accused had a common intention to commit the murder and acted in pursuance of a pre-fixed plan.


The presence of some accused at the scene, even if they did not directly assault the victim, was sufficient to establish their liability under Section 34.


Case laws on S. 34 IPC

Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of Section 34:

  1. Reg v Cruise (1838): In this case, a police constable went to arrest A at his house. B, C, and D came out of A's house and gave the constable a blow. The court laid down the principle of joint liability, stating that the presence of accomplices provides encouragement, support, and protection to the person actually committing the act.

  2. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor (1925): In this case, several persons appeared before a sub-post master counting money and demanded the money. They opened fire, killing the sub-post master. One accused, Barendra Kumar, was caught with a pistol in his hand. The court held him guilty of murder, even though he did not fire the fatal shot, as he participated in the criminal act with a common intention.

  3. Mahbub Shah v Emperor (1945): In this case, A and B killed C and injured D when C and D tried to attack A's cousin. The court held that A and B had a similar intention to rescue A's cousin but lacked a prearranged plan to commit murder, distinguishing between common intention and similar intention.

  4. Pandurang v State of Hyderabad (1955): In this case, five accused attacked and killed Ram Chander. The court found no evidence of a prearranged plan or prior meeting of minds, and thus, Section 34 was not applicable. The court reiterated that common intention presupposes prior concert.

  5. Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (1979): In this case, the accused broke into a godown and removed copper wires. One accused was present at a nearby weighbridge but not at the scene of the crime. The court held that participation need not always be by physical presence, and criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or distant direction, constitutes participation under Section 34.

  6. Suresh v State of U.P. (2001): In this case, the accused brutally murdered his brother and his family. The court held that establishment of an independent overt act by each accused is not required for Section 34 to operate. Participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention is essential, but an overt act is not always necessary.

  7. Nandu Rastogi v State of Bihar (2002): In this case, the main accused and four others caught hold of the informant's son and took him inside a residential apartment at gunpoint. The court held that all the accused had a common intention to commit murder, and it was not necessary for each one to assault the deceased, as long as they played their assigned roles in furtherance of the common intention.


Shared Culpability

The principle of joint liability under Section 34 of the IPC ensures that the law holds all participants in a criminal act equally accountable. By emphasizing common intention and participation, the law prevents the dilution of responsibility and discourages group criminal activities.


The judicial interpretations of Section 34 have further clarified its scope and application, ensuring that justice is served in cases involving multiple offenders. This principle remains a vital tool in the administration of criminal justice in India.


This principle is grounded in the concept of common intention and participation, which underscores the shared culpability of individuals who engage in a joint criminal enterprise.


By emphasizing common intention, Section 34 prevents the dilution of responsibility and discourages group criminal activities. It recognizes that individuals who participate in a criminal act, even if they do not directly commit the offense themselves, are equally liable for the consequences of their actions.


This principle is especially important in cases involving organized crime syndicates or gangs, where individual members may have specific roles but are all part of a larger criminal conspiracy.


Constructive Liability

Another important aspect of Section 34 is the concept of constructive liability. This means that individuals who aid, abet, or conspire to commit a crime are equally liable as those who directly commit the offense.


This principle extends the reach of criminal liability beyond the immediate perpetrators of a crime and ensures that all those involved in the planning, preparation, or execution of the criminal act are held accountable.


The principle of joint liability under Section 34 is a vital tool in the administration of criminal justice in India. It ensures that all participants in a criminal act are held responsible for their actions, regardless of their individual roles.


By emphasizing common intention and participation, the law prevents the dilution of responsibility and discourages group criminal activities, thereby promoting justice and upholding the rule of law.


78 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


bottom of page