You are on page 1of 2

Participation

In instances where there are several perpetrators, the principal perpetrator will be charged for the
offence that he committed. However, the other perpetrators who took part in the commission of the
offence must also face criminal sanctions, based on the participation.

If the facts shoe that the perpetrators had conspire, the 2 relevant sections will be s. 120A and
107(b).

Under s.120A, the conspiracy must be done by two or more persons (similar to s.107(b)).

Under 120A, the conspirators must have agreed to carry out an illegal act or a legal act in an illegal
manner. It is essential for the prosecution to prove that there were more than one participants and
therefore these two/more participants had agreed to carry out the wrongful act. It is also essential
for the conspirators to agree on carrying out the wrongful act. Therefore there must have been a
meeting of the minds, thus they need not have met physically/ in person to be liable for s.120B.

Read: p913-914

Distinction between s.107 & 120A

s.120A would be relevant even if the conspirators did not carry out what they agreed to do.
However, 107(b) can only be invoked if it is shown that the wrongful act was done in pursuant to the
conspiracy.

If the facts, however, show that the participation is in a form of instigation or encouragement, then
the relevant sections will be s.107(a). If the facts show that the perpetrators had instigated,
encouraged or motivated the principal offender to commit an offence, the prosecutor will have to
show that the participation of the perpetrator was in the form of an instigation.

Instigation can’t be established if the accused was silent

-Raj Kumar v State of Punjab

-R v Mohit Pandey

s.107(aa)- this subsection was recently introduced. Based on the literal meaning of this section, the
prosecution must prove that the abettor had commanded the principle offender to carry out the
wrongful act.

s.107(b) is similar to s.120A, however under 107(b), it must be established that the wrongful act was
done in pursuant of the agreement.

For both 120a and 170b, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrators had the intention to
carry out what they agreed. Read: p916 onwards.

s.107c penalizes offenders if they have intentionally provided physical assistance to the principal
offender to carry out the offence. This is a wide section and it punishes perpetrators who assist or
aid the principal offender by giving any kind of physical assistance which enables the principal
offender to carry out the wrongful act.

s.34

s.34 has 4 elements. If all these 4 elements are proven BRD, those who participated in carrying out
the wrongful act will face the identical punishment as the principal offender. The purpose of this
section is to ensure that all persons who participated in the commission of a wrongful act will face
the same punishment. (Joint Liability- p939)

s.34, similar to s.107, cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read together with the sections which
penalizes the substantive offence.

The 4 elements of s.34:

1. Perpetrators had carried out criminal act.


2. All participants had a common intention/goal/purpose to carry out the crime. This common
intention can be formed in any one stage. (PP v Ho So Mui; Daniel Vijay v PP)
3. All offenders participated in the criminal act. (PP v Tan Joo Cheng)
4. Act was done in the furtherance of the common intention. (Daniel Vijay v PP)