IPC PROJECT WORK

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION

BASED ON THE PROPOSITION
IN THE CASE OF

MR. X..........................................................................................PROSECUTION
VS
MR. A & OTHERS…................................................................DEFENDENT

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. SHIVANI MA’AM AARUSHI GUPTA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROLL NO. – 172/21
UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY 6TH SEMESTER
SECTION – C
B.A.LL.B.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
 A, B, C and D worked as laborers under Mr. X, who is a very strict and
particular about his work.
 One day, A arrived late for work. X shouted at him and deducted his wages.
 A along with others were angry at X for doing the same with them and
wanted to teach him a lesson.
 They made a plan that when X was about to leave, they would secretly take
away X’s belongings from his car and tamper the car. B and C were to take
away the belongings, A was to tamper with the car and D was to keep X
busy in the meantime.
 One day they executed there plan. D took X away under the pretext of
discussing a holiday. A tampered with the car and B and C took away X’s
belongings, including, a briefcase containing documents and cash and a
valuable silver – plated idol (which was placed on the dashboard).
 When X returned, he noticed that his car was unlocked and his briefcase as
well as the idol was missing. He searched and asked his employees for it and
the decided to complain to the police.
 On his way to the police station, his car went out of control, he tried to stop
his car but was unable to do so.
 This resulted in an accident between X’s car and a bike. After the collision
with the bike, his car crashed into a tree causing serious damage to both the
car and the bike.
 Though alive, both, the bike rider and X suffered injuries and bike rider also
got a fracture in his arm.
 ISSUES

1. Discuss the criminal liability of all the persons involved in the case
according to the provision of Indian Penal Code.
2. Who will be liable for the injuries and fracture caused to the bike rider?
3. What will be the possible punishments given to the offenders in this case
according to the Indian Penal Code?
 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

I. Discuss the criminal liability of all the persons involved in the case
according to the provision of Indian Penal Code.
It is humbly submitted that the accused A, B, C and D are under the criminal liability
for the following offences under Section 378 for the act of Theft; Section 34, for
the offence of Common Intention; Section 425, for the offence of mischief;
Section 427 for Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupee; and Section
120A, that is for Criminal Conspiracy; of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

II. Who will be liable for the injuries and fracture caused to the bike rider?
It is humbly submitted that the liability for the injuries and fractures caused
to the bike rider involves examining the chain of events leading to the
accident but there is shortage of information. Therefore, there is no
particular person to be held liable for the injuries and fractures caused to the
bike rider.

III. What will be the possible punishments given to the offenders in this case
according to the Indian Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted that the accused would be punished under the following
sections: Section 379, punishment for theft with a sentence up to three years in jail
or a fine determined by the court, or both; Section 426, Punishment for Mischief
and would be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both; under Section 427,
Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, punished with
imprisonment of either description of a term with a maximum of two years, or
with fine, or with both; Section 120B, Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy,
punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term
of two years or upwards, or with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both; and Section 34 with makes all the
accused jointly liable to all the punishments for all the acts as if they have done the
act themselves.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) Discuss the criminal liability of all the persons involved in the case
according to the provision of Indian Penal Code.
 It is humbly submitted that the accused, namely, A, B, C and D have been involved
in various criminal liabilities in the following case under the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code.
 The accused’s action demonstrate a deliberate and coordinated effort to harm
their employer, thereby warranting appropriate legal consequences. Mr. X, a
victim of the offense, does not bear any direct criminal responsibility for the
actions of his employees.
 The accused are liable under Section 120A, that is, Definition of Criminal
Conspiracy. Section 120A reads as follows, “Definition of criminal conspiracy -
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done
i. an illegal act, or
ii. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to
a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more
parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.”1
 This section provides that when two or more people agrees to do or cause to be
done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an
agreement would be termed as criminal conspiracy. Provided that act besides the
act agreed is done by the parties.
 In the present case, the accused A, B, C and D had made a plan before hand and
conspired to take away Mr. X’s belongings, tamper the car and commit mischief
against the plan. They then put the plan into action and executed their Mens Rea
as planned.
 The Supreme Court has mentioned the essential ingredients of criminal
conspiracy in R. Venkatakrishnan vs Central Bureau of Investigation2.
(a) There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
(b) If the conspirators commit several offences in accordance with the criminal
conspiracy, all of them shall be liable for the offences, even if some of them did
not actively participate in the commission of the crimes.
(c) To do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means.
(d) The agreement may be expressed or implied or partly expressed and partly
implied.

1
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)
2
AIR 2009(11) SCC 737
 (e) As soon as the agreement is made, the conspiracy arises, and the offence is
committed. And, the same offence is continued to be committed so long as the
combination persists
 In the case, Topandas v. State of Bombay3the court held that a criminal
conspiracy is an independent offence by itself, and the mere agreement between
two or more individuals with the intent to commit a crime is punishable, even if
no illegal act follows the agreement.
 Parveen v. State of Haryana4, the court in this case held that to prove a charge of
criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must show that two or more persons agreed
to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means.
 Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) 5: The Supreme Court, in
this case, has held that the most important ingredient of the offence of
conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act.
 Ram Narain Popli v. C.B.I.6: In this case, the Supreme Court held that mere proof
of the agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or an act
by unlawful means is enough to convict the parties for criminal conspiracy under
Section 120B.
 Thus, the accused have conspired against the owner in order to teach him a
lesson for deducting their wages. Their Mens Rea followed by their Actus Reus
amounts to the act of criminal conspiracy, under Section 120A, IPC. Therefore,
this case is a fit case of criminal conspiracy, as the accused wanted to cause
damage and injury to the owner, Mr. X, and his property. They planned and made
an agreement against him and executed their actions according to this plan which
resulted in injuries and damage to Mr. X. Thus, they are liable under Section 120B,
IPC for Criminal Conspiracy.
 The accused, namely, A, B, C and D have also committed the offence of mischief,
under Section 425 of The Indian Penal Code. Section 4257 reads as follows,
“Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss
or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property,
or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender
should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or
destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to
cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether
it belongs to that person or not.

3
AIR 1955 SCR (5) 881
4
MANU/SC/1190/2021
5
AIR 1988 (3) SCC 609
6
AIR 2003 SC 2748
7
Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Explanation 2.Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property
belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others
jointly.
 This section provides that whoever intends to cause or knowing that will likely
cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes destruction
to any property, causes such change in a property or situation to destroy or
diminish the value and utility or affects it injuriously commits mischief.
 The essential element of committing mischief under IPC is that the act should
result in destruction, damage, or wrongful loss to the public or an individual. This
constitutes the actus reus of the offence. The accused’s intention may be to cause
wrongful loss or damage to a person, such as tearing important documents
related to property or finances. Mischief can also be committed by causing the
destruction or alteration of any property. It is crucial that the damage or change is
a direct result of the alleged act.
 In the present case, the accused had planned to cause injury to the victim, Mr. X,
by tampering his car. When they executed their plan and tampered with the car it
led to an accident between Mr. X and the biker, which affected the car and the
bike as well as the biker and Mr. X. were injured and the biker bared with a
fracture. The accused had intended to cause wrongful loss to Mr. X. by taking
away Mr. X’s belongings, including the briefcase containing cash and documents
and a silver idol. They have also intended to cause damage to Mr. X’s property,
that is, his car by tampering with it, which led to the accident.
 In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors,8 the defendant
removed an aircraft’s engines, thereby diminishing its utility and rendering it
useless. The court held that the damage caused fulfilled all the elements of
mischief, thus establishing the mischief offence in IPC.
 In the case Murugappa v. Morungamuthu9 ,it was held that the word ‘mischief’
under Section 425, IPC has been used in a special sense as implying the causing of
such unlawful injury to property as is punishable by law. The first and most
essential element is the intent to cause or knowledge that he is likely to cause
wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.
 Even under Section 427, Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
which states that, “whoever commits any mischief causing loss or damage to the
amount of fifty rupees or upwards, will be subject to the imprisonment of either
description of a term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both.”
 Therefore, this case is a fit case of mischief, as the accused wanted to cause
damage and injury to the owner, Mr. X, and his property. The accused,
intentionally caused damage, destruction, and impairment to property of the
petitioner. They were engaged in a behavior that resulted in wrongful loss of
X’s property causing

8
AIR 2006 SC 2780
9
AIR 1944 MAD 465
 inconvenience and injury to him as well as the bike rider. Thus, they are liable
under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code for committing mischief.
 The accused are also liable under Section 34, that is, Common Intention. Section
34 reads as follows, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable
for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”10
 This provision explains that this theory would hold an individual criminally
accountable for a crime committed by another individual if the conduct were
performed as part of a mutually agreed-upon plan between the accused and the
other individuals. It states that when numerous persons perform illegal acts in the
pursuit of a similar goal, each of them is held liable for the crime as if it were
committed by him alone. This provision creates ‘joint culpability’ for an act.
 In the present case the accused, A, B, C and D mutually agreed to teach their
employer by planning. They planned about the tampering, the theft as well as
how the fourth person would keep the employer busy. They had the common
intention of teaching him a lesson and of grievous hurt or causing damage and
injuries. While executing the plan they acted as they had agreed and planned
about. They still had the same intention.
 In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor11, the appellant Mahboob Shah was
found guilty of the murder of Allah Dad by the Sessions Judge. He was found
guilty and condemned to death by the Session tribunal. The death penalty was
also affirmed by the High Court of Justice. The murder conviction and death
sentence were reversed on appeal to the Lordship. “When Allahdad and
Hamidullah sought to flee, Wali Shah and Mahboob Shah came next to them and
fired, and therefore there was proof on the spur of the moment that they formed
a common intention,” it was stated.
 In the case of William Stanley v. State of Madhya Pradesh12, the accused was a
22- year-old man who was in love with the deceased’s sister. The deceased did
not appreciate his closeness. On the day of the incident, the deceased and the
accused had a disagreement, and the accused was ordered to leave the house.
Later, the accused returned with his younger brother and summoned the
deceased’s sister. The deceased brother appeared instead of the sister. A furious
exchange of words ensued. The accused smacked the victim across the cheek. The
accused then took his younger brother’s hockey stick and delivered a hit to the
deceased’s head, fracturing his skull. Ten days later, the deceased died in the
hospital. According to the doctor, the damage was severe enough to result in
death. Both the accused

10
Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – ‘Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention’
11
AIR 1945 PC 118
12
AIR 1956 SC 116
 and his co-accused brother were charged with murder under IPC sections 302 and
34.
 In Krishnan v. State of Kerala13, the Court stated that the required element under
this clause is the criminal conduct committed in furtherance of a common
intention, and Section 34 did not require anything else to be attracted.
 Therefore, the present case is a fit case of common intention, as the accused had
the same intention to cause injury as well as to cause some damage to Mr. X in
order to teach him a lesson for cutting their wages. The accused, planned to
intentionally cause damage, destruction, and impairment to property as well as to
the petitioner himself. Thus, they are liable for joint liability under Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code for common intention.
 The accused are also liable under Section 378, of the Indian Penal Code, for the
act of Theft. Section 378, reads as follows, “whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without
that person’ consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft.
Explanations
(a) A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not
the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon
as it is severed from the earth.
(b) A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
(c) A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by
actually moving it.
(d) A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused,
is moved by that animal.
(e) The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be
given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that
purpose authority either express or implied.
 This section provides that whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable
property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent,
moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. In simpler
terms, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's
permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful ownership of the
property.
 In the present case, the accused had planned as well as while executing the plan,
that B and C were to take away the belongings of Mr. X from his car. They on the
day of execution took away a briefcase containing documents as well as cash and
a silver idol which was placed on the dashboard of the car. They took the
belongings without the knowledge as well as without the consent of the owner of
those belongings, that is, Mr. X.

13
AIR 1997 SC 383
  In the case of Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi14, the case took in the view that
theft as having been provided and detailed under Section 378 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, lays down certain requirements as well. The most important
requirement is that the accused of theft should remove the movable property
with dishonesty from another person. Removal of movable property should be
actual in order to constitute the offence of theft because until the movable
property is removed, theft cannot be said to take place.
 In the case, Kesavan Nair vs State Of Kerala 15, The main ingredients of offence of
"theft" which are to be proved under Section 378 of IPC are therefore (1) that the
offender had the intention to "take" a movable property out of possession of
another without the consent of the latter; (2) that the offender had also intended
to cause wrongful gain by unlawful means, of such property to which the person
gaining is not entitled to or wrongful loss by unlawful means, of such property to
which the person who is losing it is entitled to and (3) that with such intentions
and in order to such "taking", the offender had moved such movable property.
Thus, it is clear that the offence of "theft" takes in both a physical act of 'moving'
and also a specified intention.
 In the case of Mayank Agrawal & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another 16, the court
held that a Court while dealing with a plea of theft is not required to adjudicate
on rival claims of title claimed by the parties. All that the Court has to decide is
whether at the time of the alleged incident the property which is the subject
matter of theft was in the possession of the complainant and whether it was
taken out of the possession of the complainant with a dishonest intention.
"Possession" referred to in Section 378 IPC is actual, physical possession and not
merely possession in law.
 Therefore, the present case is a fit case of theft, as the accused took away the
belongings of Mr. X including the briefcase containing documents and cash and a
silver idol which was placed on the dashboard, which was in his possession with a
wrong and dishonest intention of taking it away and teaching him a lesson for
cutting their wages. These facts make the accused liable under Section 378 17 for
the offence of Theft.
 Thus, the accused A, B, C and D are under the criminal liability for the following
offences under Section 378, IPC, for the act of Theft; Section 34, for the offence of
Common Intention; Section 425, IPC for the offence of mischief; Section 427 for
Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupee; and Section 120A, that is
for Criminal Conspiracy.

14
AIR 2015 (07) DEL CK 0280
15
AIR 2005 (03) KLT 391
16
AIR 2014 ALL 5991
17
Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – ‘Theft’
 2) Who will be liable for the injuries and fracture caused to the bike rider?

 It is humbly submitted that the liability for the injuries and fractures caused to the
bike rider involves examining the chain of events leading to the accident and
identifying the parties whose actions directly contributed to the harm suffered by
the bike rider. Therefore, there is no particular person to be held liable for the
injuries and fractures caused to the bike rider.
 There are many events and facts which may lead to the liability for the injuries
and the fracture or the grievous hurt caused to the bike rider. These events and
facts are mentioned below are parts to determine the appropriate course of
action but do not entirely hold any person liable for the injuries.
 The first person who could be held liable could be employees A, B, C and D as
they are jointly liable for every action. There is a possibility that the accident
occurred due to the tampering, done by A, with the car. This will come under
Section 425 and 427, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 As per the agreed plan of teaching a lesson to Mr. X for his behavior of cutting the
wages for coming late, A was supposed to tamper with Mr. X’s car. While
tampering with the car, A committed an offence under Section 425 and Section
427, that is, Mischief and Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees,
respectively.
 Section 425 reads as follows, “whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is
likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the
destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously,
commits “mischief”.”18
 Section 427 states that, “Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or
damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.”19
 In the case, Sippattar Singh v. Krishna20, it was held that Section 425, IPC
contemplates some direct act on the part of the mischief doer, either personally
or through someone else, which leads to any of the results mentioned in the
section. To convict a person under section 425, IPC it is necessary that the loss or
damage must be due to any act of the accused which causes destruction of the
property itself by reducing its value or utility.
 In Murugappa v. Morungamuthu21, it was held that the word ‘mischief’ under
Section 425, IPC has been used in a special sense as implying the causing of such
18
Section 425, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Mischief
19
Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
20
AIR 1957 ALL 405
21
AIR 1944 MAD 465
 unlawful injury to property as is punishable by law. The first and most essential
element is the intent to cause or knowledge that he is likely to cause wrongful
loss or damage to the public or to any person.
 Hence, A as well as the other employees who are jointly liable in this case can be
held liable for the fractures of the case if the accident is proved to have occurred
due to the tampering with the car. Mr. X, have tried to control the car before the
accident but he was not able to do so which led to the accident and caused
serious injuries and a fracture to the bike rider. This might make the employees
liable for the injuries of the rider.
 Another instance could be that Mr. X could be liable for this accident as well as
the injuries caused to the bike rider as he may be driving rashly or negligently
himself while going to the police station. As he was not able to handle his car
before the accident may be due to him over speeding or driving rashly, there is a
probability that it maybe due to the tampering of the car done by the employees
but the part of the car tampered has not been clearly classified.
 Mr. X’s conduct behind the wheel, including any reckless driving behaviors or loss
of control over the vehicle, could also be factors contributing to the accident. If
Mr. X's actions while operating the vehicle deviated from the standard of care
expected of a reasonable driver, such as speeding or rashly driving he could be
held liable for the injuries caused to the bike rider as a result of his negligent or
rash behavior under Section 279, of the Indian Penal Act.
 According to section 279, “Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public
way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to
cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”22
 This section provides that any person who is driving or riding any motor vehicle
on a public road or other public ways in a rash or negligent manner so as to
endanger human life or cause any kind of hurt or injury to any other person shall
be liable to punishment.
 In the case, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amar Nath23, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the truck by the respondent, he hit the taxi, which was being
driven by the complainant. The respondent was held guilty of having committed
offences under sections 279 of the IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 279 and to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month in the event of default in the payment of fine.

22
Section 279, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Rash driving or riding on a public way
23
AIR 2018
  The meaning of criminal rashness and negligence was defined in Empress of India
v. Idu Beg24, as follows: “Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act
with the knowledge that it will cause injury but without the intention to cause
injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running
the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence is the willful and culpable neglect to take
reasonable and proper care and precautions to avoid injury to the public in
general or to an individual in particular, taking into account all of the
circumstances surrounding the charge”.
 In the case of Ravi Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan 25, the phrase ‘negligent’ refers to
an omission to do something that a reasonable and wise person led by common
human-interest considerations would do, or something that a prudent and
reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do.
 Therefore, it can be presumed that Mr. X could be held liable for rash and
negligent driving for the accident and for the injuries of the bike rider. In this case,
even the bike rider could be held jointly liable due to his own actions or
negligence contributed to the accident and subsequent fracture. If the bike rider
was found to have failed to exercise reasonable caution or was rash and negligent
himself, then contributory negligence might impact the allocation of liability.
 Hence, due to plausibility of information, there is not particular person who could
be held liable for the fractures and serious injuries of the bike rider.

24
AIR 1881
25
AIR 2012 SC 2986
 3) What will be the possible punishments given to the offenders in this case
according to the Indian Penal Code?

 It is humbly submitted that as the accused, that is, A, B, C and D are held to be
liable for the offences under Section 378 for the act of Theft; Section 34, for the
offence of Common Intention; Section 425, for the offence of mischief; and
Section 120A, that is for Criminal Conspiracy; of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Therefore, they would be punished according to the before said offences as a
joint liability on all the four.
 First and foremost, they are liable under Section 378 of IPC for the act of Theft.
The accused had made a plan for taking away the belongings of Mr. X. on the day
of the execution of the plan, B and C takes away the belongings of Mr. X which
includes a briefcase with documents and cash and also a silver idol which was
placed on the dashboard with them. They took away a movable property
belonging to Mr. X without his knowledge and consent so they have committed
he offence of theft.
 The punishment for this offence is under the Section 379, IPC that is the
Punishment for theft. Section 379 states that, “Whoever commits theft shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.”26
 The punishment for theft under Section 379 IPC includes imprisonment for up to
three years, or a fine, or both. Aggravated forms of theft may attract higher
penalties. Nature of this section is Non-bailable & Cognizable, Non-
Compoundable offences and triable by the Magistrate.
 In State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai27, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of intent in theft. The accused was convicted under Section 379 IPC
for stealing jewellery. The Court held that the mere possession of stolen property
soon after theft is insufficient to convict; the prosecution must prove dishonest
intent.
 In Pyare Lai v. State28 concluded that if he stole any movable object out of the
custody of another person with the intention of returning it later, he would still
be considered too had committed theft.
 Therefore, for the offence of theft the accused are punishable under Section 379,
IPC, with a sentence up to three years in jail or a fine determined by the court, or
both.
 The second offence they are liable for is for the offence of Common Intention
under the section 34, IPC. Section 34 says that, “When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such

26
Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for theft
27
AIR 2014 SCW 557
28
AIR 1963 SC 1094
 persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.”29
 Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common
intention. This provision holds individuals equally responsible for the
consequences of a criminal act when committed jointly with a common intention.
Because Section 34 only gives a broad description of what constitutes joint
accountability, no appropriate penalty has been specified for illegal conduct
committed jointly by two or more people. This Section is only a rule of evidence in
and of itself. It is a constructive responsibility concept, with the core of the
culpability being the presence of shared intention in the minds of the accused.
 In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor 30, in which two people demanded
money from a postman as he was counting the money, and when they shot from
a handgun at the postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the suspects fled without
taking any money. In this instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot
the gun and was only standing by, but the courts rejected his appeal and found
him guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Court further held that it is not required that all participants participate equally.
 In the case of Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar 31, the Court determined that the
length of punishment for each individual engaged in that conduct with common
intention is determined by the type and degree of the offence committed.
 Therefore, in the present case all the accused would be equally punished under
the aspect of joint liability. Though each employee had different roles but they
would be entitled to same liability due to their common intention of teaching him
a lesson. Their punishment would also be same or similar. They would be
punished under Section 34, IPC that is Common Intention.
 Then the accused are also liable under Section 425, for the offence of mischief .
They with the intent and knowledge to cause harm to the employer, plans to
tamper with his car and takes his belongings causing him a wrongful loss and
destruction to his property amounting to the offence of mischief.
 The punishment for the offence of mischief is under the Section 426, IPC. Section
426 states that, “Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine,
or with both.”32
 This section says that If someone commits mischief, they can be punished with
imprisonment up to three months, or fined, or both. Under this section the
accused would be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
29
Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Common Intention
30
AIR 1925 CAL 545
31
AIR 1963 SC 1593
32
Section 426, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for Mischief
  Even under Section 427, that states that, “whoever commits any mischief causing
loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, will be subject to the
imprisonment of either description of a term with a maximum of two years, or
with fine, or with both.”33
 The nature of the offence under this section is bailable, compoundable, non-
cognizable, and triable by the Magistrate. When a Mischief committed results in
some pecuniary damage i.e. the damage is quantifiable the magnitude of the
punishment will depend upon the amount of damage incurred.
 The accused under this section would be punished with imprisonment of either
description of a term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both.
 Lastly the accused is liable for the offence of Section 120A, that is, for Criminal
Conspiracy. They have together agreed and planned for performing a series of
illegal act which they had a knowledge would cause loss and damage to the Mr. X.
 Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy is under the Section 120 B, IPC. Section 120B
states that, “Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with
both.”34
 This Section makes it a punishable offence for a person to be a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence that is punishable with death, imprisonment for
life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more. If there is no
express provision in the IPC for the punishment of such a conspiracy, the person
shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted the offence.
 In the present case the accused would be punished for the offence of criminal
conspiracy with rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more or with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both. And there offence would be seen as if they had abetted the
offence.
 Hence, the accused would be punished under the following sections: Section 379,
punishment for theft with a sentence up to three years in jail or a fine determined
by the court, or both; Section 426, Punishment for Mischief and would be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

33
Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
34
Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
three months, or with fine, or with both; under Section 427, Mischief causing
damage to the amount of fifty rupees, punished with imprisonment of either
description of a term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both;
Section 120B, Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy, punishable with death,
[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, or with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six
months, or with fine or with both; and Section 34 with makes all the accused
jointly liable to all the punishments for all the acts as if they have done the act
themselves.
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the radiance of the facts, issues raised, contentions progressed
and authorities cited, the counsels for the Prosecution modestly implores that
the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
The accused A, B, C and D are under the criminal liability for the following
offences under Section 378 for the act of Theft; Section 34, for the offence of
Common Intention; Section 425, for the offence of mischief; Section 427 for
Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupee; and Section 120A, that is
for Criminal Conspiracy; of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And they are punished under the following sections: Section 379, punishment for
theft with a sentence up to three years in jail or a fine determined by the court, or
both; Section 426, Punishment for Mischief and would be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months,
or with fine, or with both; under Section 427, Mischief causing damage to the
amount of fifty rupees, punished with imprisonment of either description of a
term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both; Section 120B,
Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy, punishable with death, [imprisonment for
life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both; and Section 34 with makes all the accused jointly liable to all the
punishments for all the acts as if they have done the act themselves.

Pass any such order, judgment, or direction that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in
the best interests of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this act of benevolence, the Counsels for the prosecution as in duty bound
shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED