This article examines the object and elements of common intention as entailed in section 34 of IPC while examining the principle of joint liability in the light of several case laws. For more information, our top criminal lawyers in Chandigarh may be contacted.
Overview
The most specific principle of joint liability in criminal law arising out of the common intention of the accused persons has been discussed under Section 34 IPC. The said section reads as under:
“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
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.]”
It must be noted that the term intention is nowhere defined in IPC, but finds mention in section 34 itself. To constitute liability under this section the number of persons must be more than one but must not exceed four.
The object of Section 34
Section 34 IPC does not in any way specify any separate offence and states the only rule of evidence. It only goes to the extent of defining the vicarious liability in the certain acts committed by several persons in the perpetuation of common intention. It is essentially read with the relevant section under which the offence is committed.
This section is classified as cognizable offence due to the obscurity faced by the adjudicators while distinguishing the each and every act of the ‘Participes Crimines’ i.e., partners in crime. In such a case, inferences are drawn by way of presumptions and the principle of joint liability is applied wherein, each person is presumed to be liable for the criminal act committed in furtherance of common intention which was duly shared with and known to all the accomplices.
Basic elements constituting section 34:
To constitute an act under section 34, the following three basic elements must be satisfied:
- Criminal Act: Criminal Act is a wider term used in criminal law. ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ which means the unity and harmony of criminal behavior which results in something for which an individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence. It is essential for each person to divulge in some act towards achieving a common goal for example death or grievous hurt to a person. It must be noted that each of person must execute an act no matter big or small to complete the whole act amounting to an intended offence.
- Done by several persons: the criminal act under this section has to be essentially committed by several persons (more than one and less than 4 persons).it is not essential that all the offender commit a similar act. Each offender may be divulged in the separate act but they shall be held jointly liable by the law.
- Active Participation in the criminal act: To constitute an offence under this section, it must be kept in mind that to fix joint liability there must be a blatant act which manifests the common intention. The presence and participation of the all the accused person is required at the scene of occurrence of the crime.
- Common intention: It must be noted that the words “in furtherance of the common intention” were added in 1870 only after the judgment by the Privy Council in the case titled as Ganesh Singh v. Ram Raja, (1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45. It was duly observed that to constitute a common intention, there must exist a unity of purpose or pre-arranged plan. The relevant part of the judgment is as under
“Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common intention, each and every one becomes responsible for the acts of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose, as the purpose is common so must be the responsibility.”
It is pertinent to mention here that common intention denotes to the meeting of minds or a prearranged plan wherein the unity of purpose may be formed on the spot.; it has been given various meanings vide various judgments from time to time, which are as follows-
- In Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 it was observed that the participation in a criminal act of a group is a condition precedent in order to fix joint liability.
“Common intention implies a prearranged programme or plan, previous meeting of minds and discussion in between all the persons forming the group.”
- Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal. 339 necessitated the need of guilty mind to establish an offence. It was observed that,
“Common intention means the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary to constitute the offence that has been committed.”
- In Saidu Khan v. The State, AIR 1951 All 21 (F.B.) it was held that
“It also means evil or ill will intention to commit some criminal act, but not necessarily the same offence which is committed.”
- In Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Cr.L.J. 653 it was specifically observed that in absence of any cogent evidence, the common intention cannot be established. It was observed that,
“Where there is no indication of premeditation or of a prearranged plan, the mere fact that the two accused were seen at the spot scene or that the two accused fired as a result of which one of the person died and two others received simple injuries could not be held sufficient to assume common intention.”
- In Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706, while making an exception to the general rule, the Apex court made the following observation,
“Common intention may develop on the spot as between a number of persons and this has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused, and facts and circumstances of the case.”
- Active Participation in the criminal act: To constitute an offence under this section, it must be kept in mind that to fix joint liability there must be a blatant act which manifests the common intention. The presence and participation of the all the accused person is required at the scene of occurrence of the crime.
The position of law on Common Intention:
The meaning of common intention under section 34 has been clarified with time. Behind this evolution, there has been a plethora of cases and some very logical and rational arguments furnished by the best of the Advocates and some very learned Judges. When dealing with the charges under Section 34 IPC, it is essential to find the Best Criminal Advocate who understands the law thoroughly and maintains an in-depth knowledge of the topic. The following cases might come very relevant;
One of the earliest landmark cases on the point is Barendra Kumar Ghose v King-Emperor , AIR 1924 PC 1. This case is also known as Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case and the “Post Master Case”. In this case, accused Barendra along with three other persons went to Shankari Tola Post Office. The accused stood outside to keep a watch and other accused persons went in and demanded the money. On refusing, they opened fire and killed the sub-postmaster and fled away. One of the accused Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand with which he air fired before running away. He was charged with others under section 302, 394 and 34 IPC. The contention of the accused that he was mere guarding the scene and had no intention to kill was not accepted by the Hon’ble trail court. Calcutta High Court confirmed his conviction for murder under section 302 with section 34. The appeal before the Privy Council was dismissed, and it was observed that,
“criminal acts means that unity of criminal behavior which results in something for which an individual would be responsible if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in a criminal offence.”
In Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1971 CrLJ 465, it was held that
“common intention may develop in course of a fight. However, there has to be an unimpeachable evidence as to justify the inference.”
In Pandurang versus State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216, the apex court emphasized on the point that a prior concert needn’t essentially be very prior to the incident, but could always be an incidental development – on the spur of moment. While setting aside the death sentence of Pandurang and altering the sentence of the accused persons, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed:
“In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none would be vicariously convicted for the acts of any of the others; if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one, he cannot be convicted of the murder, however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in this case….”
Conclusion:
In the scenarios involving more than one person committing an offence, leads to a complex situation in determining the intention and role of each person. in such cases the principle of joint liability is applied. It is important that the accused actively participate in a criminal act with knowledge of the consequences and share a common intention. The common intention, however, has to be incidental to the act and conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
