COMMON INTENTION

SECTION 34 IN THE IPC

(V. Important)

& Sections 35 – 52A in the Indian Penal Code

Introduction

A person can only be held liable for harm caused by his own conduct and not by others. However, section 34 of
IPC makes an exception to this principle. It lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act.
It deals with the doing of a separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of
common intention.
Principle of Joint Liability
(Also known as Doctrine of Group Liability OR
Constructive Liability)
 There are some provisions in the Penal Code which determine the liability of a person committing a crime in combination with
some others. In all such provisions a joint liability is created either because the intention is common or the object is common to all
the persons forming a group alleged to have committed a crime.
(i) Common intention (Section 34)
(ii) Criminal conspiracy (Section 120A & 120B
(iii) Common object (Section 149)
 Justification to exceptions
• A person who intentionally joins a criminal enterprise with another is just as blameworthy as the person who actually commits the
offence.
• Sometimes it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the specific contributions made by each individual participant in the criminal
enterprise.
• Must be kept within limits; otherwise criminal responsibility can be imposed excessively on a wide range of persons other than
those who actually commit the crime.
Section 34 IPC

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.
Section 34 is Only a Rule of Evidence

 Section 34 has been enacted on principle of joint liability in doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a
rule of evidence and does not create substantive offence. Distinctive feature of Section 34 is the element of
participation in action.
 Section 34 does not say "the common intention of all" nor does it say_ “an intention common to all". Under
Section 34 essence of liability is to be found in existence of a common intention animating accused leading
to doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
 The provision of common intention in Section 34 is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to
distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of common intention of all
or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.
 The principle underlying the section is that as the participation is common, the liability must also be
common.
Ingredients OR Essentials of Section 34

1. Some criminal act

2. Done by several persons
3. Criminal act done by such persons in furtherance of
common intention of all of them
4. Pre arranged plan among such persons
5. Active participation
1. A Criminal act - Done

 ‘Criminal act’ used in section 34 does not refer to individual acts where a crime is committed by a group of
persons. Where a crime is committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all of them,
each of them doing some act, similar or diverse, big or small shall be liable for that act. ‘That act’ refers to
the ‘criminal act’ used in section 34 which means the unity of criminal behaviour which results in something,
for which an individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence.
 Act includes illegal omissions
 Act denotes series of acts.
“Done” (Doesn’t include a person who merely
plans)

 The use of the word ‘done’ shows that several persons must do a criminal act. This means that all of them
must take part in the commission of a crime. The extent of participation may be different for different
persons but all of them must actively participate in the crime. They must be physically present at the actual
commission of the crime. They need not be present on the actual spot where the crime is being committed.
One can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of
danger.
2. Done by several persons (at least two
persons)

 The words ‘several ‘persons’ have been deliberately used in this section to show that the provision refers to
group liability. Therefore, the section lays down an important principle of joint liability where at least two
persons are involved in the doing of a criminal act. Whether all of them will always be responsible, or only
one of them may also be held responsible are altogether different matters.
3. In Furtherance of the Common Intention

 The foundation of constructive liability under Section 34 of the IPC is the common intention, animating the
accused to the doing of the criminal act, and the doing of such act in furtherance of such intention.
“Common Intention”

 Common intention is an intention to commit a crime actually committed, and everyone of the accused should
have that intention. Common intention within the meaning of Section 34 of the IPC implied pre-arranged
plan and to convict the accused of an offence, it should be proved that the criminal act was tone in pursuant
to the pre-arranged plan.
 There is a difference between common intention and same or similar intention.
(Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 1945 also known as Indus River Case)
 Express and Implied common intention
(Mukundmurari Pal v. Emp. 1934)
(State of A.P v. M. Sobhan Babu, 2011)
“Furtherance”

 A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance
 The SC referred to the Oxford English Dictionary where the word “furtherance” is defined as an “action of
helping forward”.

 The word "furtherance" indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it
has to be construed as an advancement or promotion.
4. There must be pre-arranged plan among
such persons

 Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan. Pre-arranged plan means prior concert or prior meeting of
minds. Criminal act must be done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.
 Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time. But there need not
be a long interval of time between the formation of the common intention and the doing of the act.
 When there is no indication of premeditation or of a pre-arranged plan, the mere fact that the two accused
were seen at the spot or that the two accused fired as a result of which one person died and two others
received simple injuries could not be held sufficient fo infer common intention. (Ramachander v. State of
Rajasthan, 1970)
 However the common intention may develop on the spot or may even develop at the spur of movement
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. (Kripal Singh v. State of U.P 1954)
5. Active Participation

 the section comes into application when the accused persons actively participate in the execution of a pre-
arranged plan or prior concert. Active participation does not necessarily imply that all must do the criminal
act at the exact spot of the crime.
 Participation need not in all cases be by physical presence, virtual presence is sufficient.
 Barendra Kumar Ghose v. King Emp, 1925 (Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case)
 Indar Singh v. Emp, 1933
Conclusion

To attract Section 34 of IPC, the accused person must be physically present at the actual commission of the
crime. He need not be present in the actual room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to
warn his companions about any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road to facilitate their escape,
but he must be physically present at the scene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the commission
of the offence in some way or other at the time the crime is actually being committed. It is essential that the
accused join the actual ‘doing’ of the act and not merely in planning its preparation.