IPC Section 34 and 149

Legal Assistance

Common Intention And Common Object

Section 34 shall be fulfilled in cases where it is difficult to distinguish between acts in which an individual or a member of a party can prove that part of it has been taken for the furtherance of a common purpose. This section means that when two or more people do something, it is the same whether they do it together or separately. What constitutes a "common intention" is an intention that one of them knows and shares with another, which he or she has, and if it is not shared by the other, it becomes the same intention, and the person responsible for the crime in this case is subject to the common intention of both. 

    

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with breaches of public peace. Section 34 deals with situations where an offence requires a particular criminal intent or knowledge which must be committed by several persons. In that section, the Court held that evidence alone did not constitute a material offence. 

    

Pursuant to Section 149 of the Indian Criminal Code, a member of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for a criminal act for the advance of a common purpose. Article 34 of the IPC provides that any person may be held liable for his or her criminal act if a number of persons commit an offence with common intent. If the deed is committed by such a person, S 34 makes that person liable for the deed, irrespective of what role a person plays in the deed. 

    

The mere presence and share of a common object in an assembly makes a person liable for an offence committed if he does not intend to commit the offence. The fact that an accused participates in an unlawful assembly and that his presence on the spot in the assembly is sufficient to hold him accountable, even if the accused himself does not commit any obvious act. 

    

In the case of Maharashtra against Joseph Mingelkoli VII, the Supreme Court ruled that membership of an illegitimate assembly could be established even if the prosecution could not prove that the accused had committed an obvious act to be performed by him in order to achieve the common purpose of the assembly. Merely being a member of an unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold a criminal offence liable if there is a common object in the assembly, i.e. 

    

Under section 34 of the Indian Criminal Code, which defines common intent, any crime carried out by more than one person to promote a common intent of more than one person shall be punishable as if it had been carried out by such a person alone. It states that the intention of two persons is to have a common goal, to commit a particular crime. Common intentions do not require a prior meeting of minds before committing the crime, and the common goal must be found in the place where the crime is committed. 

    

This principle was backed by Ram Bilas Singh in the case of Bihar State, where it was established that the sentence for a person who commits an act with common intent depends on the nature and severity of the crime committed. Common intentions are also laid down in the principle of joint and several liability in paragraph 34. This section deals with the performance of individual, similar and distinct acts by several persons carried out with a common intention, whereby a person is liable for the consequences of such an act if it is carried out by another person. 

    

In Shyamal Ghosh v. West Bengal. State Court, the Supreme Court held that if a pre-orientated plan exists and a person acts on it, it can be concluded that E and B is a common intention within the meaning of Section 34 of the Indian Criminal Code. It states that if an act is carried out by more than one person to promote the common purpose, the act shall be considered a criminal offence under paragraph 34. The common intention in p.34 is not defined in the IPC, but the common objective is one of the five elements defined in Section 141 of the IPC. 

    

In situations where there is no intention, an intention can be spontaneously developed or shared. Common intentions must precede the meeting of minds, the unity of objectives and the open measures to promote them. Whether members of an unlawful assembly know or estimate the likelihood of committing a crime does not depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. 

    

The stipulated liability of vicarious agents pursuant to s.34 and s.149 depends on the manner in which they assume and carry out the offence. Suppose that persons A, B, C and D murder Z, A provide security, C provide the weapon, D murder Z, and A and B are responsible for the crime under the provisions of paragraph 34 of the IPC. A person is liable for their killing if B is also responsible for it. 

    

In the case of Ram Bilas Singh vs Bihar State, the court ruled that the accused could not be held responsible for the crime and acquitted him. In the absence of such evidence, the complainants could not have been held liable as individuals for Dinesh Singh's actions.