IPC Project Hemant

8/18/2019 IPC Project Hemant

1/27

National Law University Odisha

Criminal Law I

Project Submission

Parasitic Liability and the accessory

Hemant Dhillon2!"# $%$%&% LL%$% # !'

$%&% LL%$% (Hons%)II *ear+ I, Semester

Submitted on - "#"#2!.National Law University Odisha

/athajodi Cam0us+S1C !3+ CD&+

Cuttac4


2/27

Criminal Law Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Table of contents........................................................................................................................2

Object.........................................................................................................................................3

Research Methodology...............................................................................................................4

Research Questions....................................................................................................................5

Mode of Citation........................................................................................................................5

Introduction................................................................................................................................

!efinition of "iability............................................................................................................

#oint cri$inal liability............................................................................................................

!egrees of %artici%ation.............................................................................................................&

'nglish "a(...........................................................................................................................&

Indian "a(...........................................................................................................................)*

Co$$on Intention....................................................................................................................))

+ection 34.............................................................................................................................))

,uiding -rinci%les of co$$on intention.........................................................................)3

Co$$on intention should be -rior to the occurrence......................................................)4

Intention on the s%ot.........................................................................................................)4

In urtherance of Co$$on Intention...............................................................................)5

-artici%ation.....................................................................................................................)

+ection 35.........................................................................................................................)

2 / - a g e


3/27


Co$$on object........................................................................................................................)0

+ection )4&...........................................................................................................................)0

'ssential 'le$ents...........................................................................................................)0

!ifference bet(een +.34 1 +.)4&............................................................................................)&

ibliogra%hy.............................................................................................................................22

3 / - a g e


4/27


OBJECT

This %roject (hile acno(ledging the basic ele$ents of co$$on intention and co$$on

object in the doctrine of #oint Cri$inal 'nter%rise brings out a contrast bet(een the si$ilar

looing conce%ts though they being uite different fro$ each other. It also d(ells into the

different degrees of %artici%ation in a cri$e and ho( the scenario is different in Indian

cri$inal +yste$ as co$%ared to the 'nglish cri$inal +yste$.

The doctrine of #oint Cri$inal 'nter%rise 6#C'7 has %ro8oed scholarly debate a$ong

scholars falling into t(o ca$%s. The first ca$% argues that the doctrine should be abandoned

as funda$entally inco$%atible (ith basic %rinci%les of indi8iduali9ed cri$inal la( (hile a

second ca$% defends the doctrine fe( or only $inor a$end$ents.

The %ur%ose of this %roject is to analyse the %rosecutorial as%ects of legality and legiti$acy

regarding the a%%lication of #C' as a tool in the %rosecution. On one hand the conce%t of

#C' is (idely acce%ted and routinely a%%lied before the Courts .The courts recogni9e and

reaffir$ the la(fulness and effecti8eness of the a%%lication of #C' in the %rosecution against

the accused. On the other hand the doctrine of #C' has also been highly attaced and

criticised by cri$inal la( e:%erts in $any as%ects in %articular the e:%ansi8eness of the

doctrine raises a %ros%ect of ;guilty by association


5/27


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Researcher has atte$%ted to study the nature and the e8olution of Inchoate offences

along (ith the general theoretical stances as (ell as the Indian la( %ro8isions (hich tacles

the offences (hich co$e under the afore$entioned to%ic.

The $ode of study has in8ol8ed a co$bination of facts cases and e:%lanation deri8ed fro$

boos journals online sources as (ell as authorities. . The sources used (ere secondary in

nature

The researcher has atte$%ted to fist define the conce%ts in8ol8ed follo(ed by the

e:%lanation and the %ro8isional as%ects cou%led (ith case authorities (here8er %ossible.

5 / - a g e


6/27


RESEARCH !EST"ONS

The Research Questions for the gi8en to%ic are as follo(s

)7 =hat is -arasitic "iability >

27 =hat are the degrees of -artici%ation in cri$e >

37 ?o( are Co$$on Intention and Co$$on Object different fro$ each other >

MODE OF C"TAT"ON

The $ode of Citation follo(ed is the OSCOLA citation $ethod.

/ - a g e


7/27


"NTROD!CT"ON

!'I@ITIO@ O "IAI"ITB

"iability $eans legal res%onsibility or obligation for ones acts or o$issions. ailure on %art

of a %erson or entity to $eet that res%onsibility lea8es hi$DherDit o%en to a la(suit for any

da$ages resulting out of failure or a court order to %erfor$ 6as in a breach of contract or

8iolation of statute7. In order to (in a la(suit the %laintiff $ust %ro8e the legal obligation ofthe defendant if the %laintiffs allegations are held to be true. This reuires e8idence of the

duty to act the inability to fulfil that duty and the connection 6%ro:i$ate cause7 of that

failure to %erfor$ to so$e injury or har$ caused to the %laintiff. "iability also a%%lies to

alleged cri$inal acts in (hich the defendant $ay be res%onsible for hisDher acts (hich

constitute a cri$e thus $aing hi$Dher subject to con8iction and hence %unish$ent.

#OI@T CRIMI@A" "IAI"ITB

#oint cri$inal enter%rise or cri$inal liability hereinafter referred to as JCE is an essential

conce%t in international cri$inal la(. The de8elo%$ent of #C' has been found to be

contro8ersial fro$ the beginning and nu$erous scholars ha8e called for li$ited and careful

a%%lication of a %rinci%le that could lead to E#$ilt %& a''ociation(F

efore d(elling in dee% it is i$%ortant to understand the basics of #C' liability. A E joint

criminal enter)ri'e *JCE+F is not an ele$ent of a cri$e. Rather joint cri$inal enter%rise is

a $ode of liability (hereby $e$bers are ascribed (ith cri$inal cul%ability for cri$es that

ha8e been co$$itted in furtherance of a co$$on %ur%ose or cri$es those are a foreseeable

result of undertaing a co$$on %ur%ose.

0 / - a g e


8/27


There are three different inds of #C' G

t,e -%a'ic. /orm *-JCE ".+ t,e -'&'temic. /orm *-JCE "".+ and t,e -e0ten1e1. /orm

*-JCE """.+. All for$s of #C' share a co$$on actus reus consisting of the follo(ing

ele$entsG

• A %lurality of %ersons acting in concertH

• The e:istence of a co$$on %lan design or %ur%ose (hich a$ounts to or in8ol8es the

co$$ission of a cri$e %ro8ided for in the +tatuteH

• And the EsignificantF contribution of the accused to the co$$on %lan design or

%ur%ose.

The three for$s of #C' 8ary according to the men' rea of the Accused. #C' I liability is

attracted (hen an Accused intended to %artici%ate in a #C' and intended the co$$ission of a

cri$e in furtherance of #C'


9/27


/$n1amentall& 1i//erent to w,at wa' /ore'een %& ,im'el/2 ,e too wo$l1 %e lia%le /or

crime B(

There are se8eral %ro8isions in the Indian -enal Code 6I-C7 (hich deter$ine the liability of a

%erson co$$itting a cri$e in co$bination of so$e others. In these cases the %ersons

co$$itting it either ha8e co$$on object or co$$on intention.

In I-C the cri$inal liability is deter$ined by the (ay in (hich the %erson is associated (ith

the cri$e. There are se8eral (ays in (hich a %erson beco$es a %artici%ant in a cri$e

• ?e hi$self co$$its it.

• ?e shares in the co$$ission of the cri$e.

• =hen he sets a third %arty to co$$it the cri$e.

• ?el%s the offender in screening hi$ fro$ "a(.

asically sections 67869 and 37: of I-C deals (ith situations (here joint cri$inal liability is

for$ed.

& / - a g e


10/27


DEGREES OF PART"C"PAT"ON

' @,"I+? "A=

'nglish "a( (ith reference to %artici%ants in a cri$e gi8es the follo(ing classification of

cri$inals according to the role %layed by each G

•Princi)al in t,e /ir't 1e#ree G ?e (ho actually co$$its the cri$e 6 including he (ho

gets it acco$%lished through innocent agent7

• Princi)al in t,e 'econ1 1e#ree ; ?e (ho being %resent at the co$$ission of the

cri$e aids and assists in its co$$ission

-rinci%als in the first degree are %ersons (ho %er%etrate a cri$e directly i.e. through their

o(n hands or through an innocent $ediu$ i.e. a %erson lie a child belo( the age of

discretion or a %erson of unsound $ind (ho by reason of either i$$aturity of

understanding or of i$%air$ent of $ind is legally inco$%etent to co$$it a cri$e . Thus

the %resence of the %rinci%als in the first degree at the occurrence of an offence is not

essential .

The distinction bet(een the t(o categories of %rinci%als in the first and second degree is of

little %ractical conseuence since both are liable to be a(arded (ith eual %unish$ent. Those

(ho are not %resent at the ti$e of co$$ission of deed but are associated (ith it either before

or after its co$$ission are classified as G

Acce''orie' %e/ore t,e /act ; Those (ho though not %resent in the scene of

occurrence or (here the cri$e is co$$itted counsel %rocure or co$$and another

to co$$it the cri$e .

Acce''orie' a/ter t,e /act ; Those (ho no(ing that a %erson has co$$itted an

offence no(ingly recei8e relie8e co$fort harbour or assist hi$ fro$ esca%ing

fro$ the clutches of la( .

Accessories at the fact are generally classified as %rinci%als of the second degree that is as

aiders and abettors of the %rinci%al offender in the co$$ission of the offence and (ho $ay

)* / - a g e


11/27


be actually or constructi8ely %resent in the scene of occurrence . They do not actually

%artici%ate in the co$$ission of the cri$e . ut they re$ain %resent actually or

constructi8ely at the occurrence of the cri$e and thereby aid assist encourage or abet

co$$ission of the cri$e .

I @!IA@ "A=

The Indian Cri$inal +yste$ taes a totally different stance on degrees of %artici%ation. I-C

$aes no distinction bet(een %rinci%als in either the first or second degree . All those (hoare %resent at the scene and %artici%ate in the co$$ission of a cri$e are liable either as the

actual offender under the s%ecific sections of the code or under the %ro8isions go8erning the

joint and constructi8e liability 6 +ection 34 and )4& I-C 7 . The I-C ho(e8er $aes a broad

distinction bet(een a %rinci%al and an abettor (ho corres%ond roughly to accessories before

the fact . +uch cases are dealt (ithin the cha%ter of the code under the ca%tion Of abet$ent

fro$ section )*0 to )2* I-C. On the other hand (hen the role %layed by the indi8idual is that

of an accessory after the fact the code %ro8ides for a substanti8e offence in such cases .

)) / - a g e


12/27


COMMON "NTENT"ON

Co$$on Intention is generally no(n as a %rearranged %lan and acting in concert %ursuant to

the %lan. It $ust be %ro8ed that the Cri$inal act (as done in concert %ursuant to the

%rearranged %lan. It co$es into being %rior to the Co$$ission of the act in %oint of ti$e yet

the ga% bet(een the t(o need not be a long one so$eti$es co$$on intention can be

de8elo%ed on the s%ot. The funda$ental factor is a )re8arran#e1 )lan and to e:ecute the

%lan for the desired results. 'ach of such %erson (ill be liable in an act done in furtherance of

a co$$on intention as if the act (as done by hi$ alone. Co$$on Intention $ust not be

confused (ith the si$ilar intention of se8eral %erson. To constitute co$$on intention it is

necessary that the intention of each one of the$ be no(n to the rest of the$ and shared by

the$.

+'CTIO@ 34

Section 67 8 Act' 1one %& 'e5eral )er'on' in /$rt,erance o/ common intention

=hen a cri$inal act is done by se8eral %ersons in furtherance of the co$$on intention of all

each of such %ersons is liable for that act in the sa$e $anner as if it (ere done by hi$ alone.

+ection 34 enshrines the %rinci%le of joint liability in the doing of a cri$inal act the section is

only a rule of e8idence and does not create a se%arate substanti8e offence. The feature that

$aes this section distinct is the ele$ent of %artici%ation in action. The liability of one %erson

for an offence co$$itted by another in the course of cri$inal act %er%etrated by se8eral

%erson arises under +ection 34 if such cri$inal act is done in furtherance of a co$$on

intention of the %ersons (ho join to co$$it a cri$e. There is seldo$ any direct %roof of

co$$on intension a8ailable and therefore such intention can only be inferred fro$ the

circu$stances a%%earing fro$ the %ro8ed facts of the case and the %ro8ed circu$stances.

)2 / - a g e


13/27


In order to bring ho$e the charge of co$$on intention it $ust be established by the

%rosecution by e8idence (hether direct or circu$stantial that there (as $eeting or %lan of

$inds of all the accused %ersons to co$$it the offence for (hich they are charged (ith under

+ection 34 be its %rearranged or on the s%ur of the $o$ent but it $ust be before the

co$$ission of the cri$e. The true conce%t of the section is that if t(o or $ore %ersons

intentionally do an act jointly the %osition in la( is just the sa$e as if each of the$ has done

it indi8idually by hi$self.

The section does not $ention Ethe co$$on intentions of allF nor does it say Ean intention

co$$on to allF. Knder the %ro8isions of +ection 34 the essence of the liability is to found in

the e:istence of a co$$on intention ani$ating the accused leading to the doing of a cri$inal

act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the a%%lication of %rinci%les enshrined in

+ection 34 /or e0 (hen an accused is con8icted under +ection 3*2 read (ith +ection 34

legally it $eans that the accused is liable for the act (hich caused death of the deceased in

the sa$e $anner as if it (as done by hi$ alone. The %ro8ision is intended to $eet a case in

(hich it $ay be difficult to distinguish bet(een acts of indi8idual $e$bers of a %arty (ho

act in furtherance of the co$$on intention of all or to %ro8e e:actly (hat %art (as taen by

each of the$.

A +u%re$e Court ench of #ustice M.. +hah and #ustice !orais(a$y Raju in the case of

Go)inat, J,allar


14/27


)4 / - a g e


15/27


,KI!I@, -RI@CI-"'+ O COMMO@ I@T'@TIO@

In Ma,%oo% S,a, 5( Em)eror4 the follo(ing %rinci%les (ere laid do(n by the court G

• Knder section 34 of I-C essence of liability is to be found in the e:istence of a

co$$on intention ani$ating the accused leading to doing of a cri$inal act in

furtherance of such intention.

• To in8oe the aid of section 34 successfully it $ust be sho(n that the cri$inal act

co$%lained against (as done by one of the accused %ersons in furtherance of the

co$$on intentionH if it is so then liability for the cri$e $ay be i$%osed on any one of

the %ersons in the sa$e $anner as if the acts (ere done by hi$ alone.

• Co$$on intention (ithin the $eaning of section 34 i$%lies a %rearranged %lan and

to con8ict the accused of an offence a%%lying the section it should be %ro8ed that the

cri$inal acts (ere done %ursuant to the %rearranged %lan.

• It is difficult if not i$%ossible to %rocure direct e8idence to %ro8e the intention of an

indi8idual in $ost cases it has to be inferred fro$ his act or conduct or other rele8ant

circu$stances of the case

• Care $ust be taen not to confuse sa$e or si$ilar intention (ith co$$on intentionH

the %artition (hich di8ides Etheir boundsF is often 8ery thinH ne8ertheless the

distinction is real and substantial and if o8erlooed (ill result in $iscarriage of

justice.

• The inference of co$$on intention (ithin the $eaning of the ter$ under section 34

should ne8er be reached unless it is a necessary inference deductable fro$ the

circu$stances of the case.

2 Mahboob +hah 8 '$%eror )&45N AIR ))J 6-C7

)5 / - a g e


16/27


COMMO@ I@T'@TIO@ +?OK"! ' -RIOR TO T?' OCCKRR'@C'

In Pan1$ran# 5( State o/ H&1era%a16 the +u%re$e Court obser8ed that it is (ell

established fact that a co$$on intention %resu%%oses %rior concert. It reuires %rearranged

%lan because before a %erson can be 8icariously held liable for the cri$inal act of another the

act $ust ha8e been done in furtherance of the co$$on intention of the$ all. The inference of

co$$on intention should ne8er be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible fro$

the circu$stance of the case. The incri$inating facts $ust be inco$%atible (ith the

innocence of the accused and inca%able of e:%lanation on any other reasonable hy%othesis.

I @T'@TIO@ O@ T?' +-OT

In certain cases an intention can be for$ed on the s%ot. It is not al(ays necessary that all the

accused ha8e $editated the cri$e (ell in ad8ance. In certain cases the intention can be

for$ed on the s%ot. In a fight all the accused $ay at a %oint decide to tae out their re8ol8ersand shoot the %eo%le of the other %arty in order to ill the$. ?ere the decision of illing the

%eo%le of the other %arty (as taen on the s%ot.

The issue of liability of different $e$bers of a grou% of %eo%le di8ided into $utually

antagonistic or hostile grou%s es%ecially (hen there is a free fight bet(een the$ is one of

the $ost difficult as%ects of joint liability.

In Bal%ir Sin#, 5( State o/ P$nja%7 a si$ilar uestion (as raised (herein four %ersons each

belonging to t(o different grou%s attaced each other and in the result one %erson died. oth

the trial court and the ?igh Court had held that there (as a free fight and e8ery assailant (as

accountable for his o(n acts co$$itted. ?o(e8er the +u%re$e Court held that in a free

3 -andurang 8 +tate of ?yderabad )&55N AIR 2) 6+C7

4 albir +ingh 8 +tate of -unjab )&55N AIR )&5 6+C7

) / - a g e


17/27


fight there (as a $o8e$ent of body of the 8icti$s and assailants and in such a situation it

(ill be difficult to s%ecifically ascribe to one accused the intention to cause injuries sufficient

to cause death.

I @ KRT?'RA@C' O COMMO@ I @T'@TIO@

The %rinci%le of joint liability arises out of co$$on intention follo(ed by an act in

furtherance of such co$$on intention. This has been clearly stated in the case of Ma,%oo%

S,a, 5( Em)eror (herein one Allah !ad (as shot dead by a bullet fro$ the gun used by one

of the accused (ho ca$e to rescue their cousin (ho had been attaced by Allah !ad and

shouted for hel%. The t(o accused (ere ar$ed (ith a guns and each one of the$ ai$ed at

t(o different indi8iduals shot fro$ the gun of =ali +hah the latter only recei8ed injuries

fro$ a bullet shot by Mahboob +hah. Of the three accused =ali +hah (hose shot illed

Allah !ad absconded and could not be brought on trial. The other t(o (ere tried and

%rosecuted under section 3*2 read (ith section 34 I-C. The sessions judge con8icted hi$ and

a(arded death %enalty.

On a%%eal to the "ahore ?C the "ordshi%s held that the case fell (ell (ithin the a$bit of

section 34 and as to their Eco$$on intentionF it (as said that Eco$$on intention to co$$it

the cri$e (hich (as e8entually co$$itted by Mahboob +hah and =ali +hah ca$e into being

(hen ,hula$ Qasi$ +hah shouted to his co$%anions to co$e to his rescue and both of

the$ e$erged fro$ behind the bushes and fired fro$ their res%ecti8e guns.F Their "ordshi%s

of the -ri8y Council ho(e8er disagreed (ith the 8ie( of the judges of the "ahore ?C.

In their o%inion there (as no e8idence of the co$$on intention to the e8idence that the

a%%ellant Ejust ha8e been acting in concert (ith =ali +hah %ursuance of a concerted %lan

(hen he along (ith hi$ rushed to the hel% of ,hula$ Qasi$.F In their 8ie( the co$$on

intention of both (as to rescue ,hula$ Qasi$ and both of the$ %iced u% different

indi8iduals to deal (ith. '8idence is lacing to sho( that there (as any %re$ediation to

bring about the $urder of Allah !ad. At the $ost they can be stated to ha8e a si$ilar

intention but not a co$$on intention and one should not be confused (ith each other.

?ence the -ri8y Council set aside the con8iction and sentence of $urder as i$%osed by the

?igh Court.

)0 / - a g e


18/27


)J / - a g e


19/27


-ARTICI-ATIO@

-artici%ation is a necessary ele$ent or condition %recedent to finding of joint liability. The

+u%re$e Court in the case of >antia, Rama&&a M$ni)all& 5( State o/ Bom%a&? obser8ed

that it is the essence of section 34 that the %erson $ust be %hysically %resent at the actual

co$$ission of cri$e. ?e need not be %resent on the actual s%ot he can for instance can

stand outside to (arn his co$%anions about any a%%roach of danger.

+'CTIO@ 35

+ection 35 of the I-C is in furtherance of the %receding section 34. It reads that

+ec 35 @,en '$c, an act i' criminal %& rea'on o/ it' %ein# 1one wit, a criminal

nowle1#e or intention.

=hene8er an act (hich is cri$inal only by reason of its being done (ith a cri$inal

no(ledge or intention is done by se8eral %ersons each of such %ersons (ho joins in the act

(ith such no(ledge or intention is liable for the act in the sa$e $anner as if the act (ere

done by hi$ alone (ith that no(ledge or intention. If se8eral %ersons ha8ing the sa$e

cri$inal intention or no(ledge jointly $urder each one (ould be liable for the offence as if

he had done the act aloneH but if se8eral %ersons join in the act each (ith different intention

or no(ledge fro$ the others each is liable according to his o(n intention or no(ledge.

Reference can be $ade to the case of A1am Ali Tal$1ar (here A and beat C (ho died.

A had an intention to $urder C and ne( that his act (ould cause his death. on the other

5 +hreeantiah Ra$ayya Muni%alli 8 The +tate Of o$bay )&55 N AIR 2J0

Ada$ Ali Taludar 8 ing '$%eror )&20N AIR 324 6Cal7

)& / - a g e


20/27


hand intended to cause grie8ous hurt and did not ne( that his act (ill cause C


21/27


COMMON OBJECT

Co$$on objectG the (ord Object $eans %ur%ose or design to $ae it co$$on it $ust be

shared by all. It $ight be for$ed at any stage by all or fe( $e$bers. It $ay be $odified

altered or abandoned at any state. Co$$on object $ay be for$ed by e:%ress agree$ent after

$utual consultation. The sharing of co$$on object (ould ho(e8er not necessarily reuire

the $e$ber %resent and sharing the object to engage hi$self in doing an o8er act. Therefore

this section is ina%%licable in a case of sudden $utual fight bet(een t(o %arties because of

lac of co$$on object.

+'CTIO@ )4&

Section 37: 8 E5er& mem%er o/ $nlaw/$l a''em%l& #$ilt& o/ o//ence committe1 in

)ro'ec$tion o/ common o%ject

If an offence is co$$itted by any $e$ber of an unla(ful asse$bly in %rosecution of the

co$$on object of that asse$bly or such as the $e$bers or that asse$bly ne( to be liely

to be co$$itted in %rosecution of that object e8ery %erson (ho at the ti$e of the

co$$itting of that offence is a $e$ber of the sa$e asse$bly is guilty of that offence.

'++'@TIA" '"'M'@T+

To in8oe section )4& I-C the follo(ing ingredients $ust be %resent P

• There $ust be an unla(ful asse$bly. There $ust be at least fi8e %eo%le in such an

asse$bly.

•There $ust be so$e co$$on object of such an unla(ful asse$bly. ?ere the (ordEco$$onF $ust be distinguished fro$ Fsi$ilarFH it $eans Eco$$on to all and no(n

2) / - a g e


22/27


to the rest of the$ and also shared by the$F.

• There $ust be a co$$ission of offence by anyone or $ore $e$bers of such unla(ful

asse$bly.

• The co$$ission of such offence $ust be in %rosecution of the co$$on object shared

by all and each of the $e$bers of such unla(ful asse$bly.

• The offence co$$itted in %rosecution of a co$$on object $ust be such that each one

of the $e$bers of such unla(ful asse$bly ne( (as liely to be co$$itted.

In Miaji 5( State o/ !ttar Pra1e', it (as stated that +)4& I-C has t(o %arts. The liability

of a $e$ber of an unla(ful asse$bly $ay arise for an offence co$$itted by any $e$ber of

the asse$bly in t(o (ays. The first is (here the other $e$bers co$$it an offence (hich

(as in fact the co$$on object of the asse$bly. The second is (here the co$$on object to

co$$it an offence (as different fro$ the offence (hich (as actually co$$itted.

or e:a$%le the accused B # and (ere alleged to ha8e entered into A


23/27


23 / - a g e


24/27


D"FFERENCE BET@EEN S(67 S(37:

There is a close rese$blance bet(een co$$on intention and co$$on object though both of

the$ belong to different categories of the office in cri$inal la( i.e. 6 + 34 and + )4& 7

res%ecti8ely .The %rinci%al ele$ent in + 34 of the Indian -enal Code 6I-C7 is the co$$on

intention to co$$it a cri$e. In furtherance of the co$$on intention se8eral acts $ay be done

by se8eral %ersons resulting in the co$$ission of that cri$e. In such a situation s. 34

%ro8ides that each one of the$ (ould be liable for that cri$e in the sa$e $anner as if all the

acts resulting in that cri$e had been done by hi$ alone. There is no uestion of co$$on

intention in s.)4& of the Indian -enal Code.

An offence $ay be co$$itted by a $e$ber of an unla(ful asse$bly and the other $e$bers

(ill be liable for that offence although there (as no co$$on intention bet(een that %erson

and the other $e$bers of the unla(ful asse$bly to co$$it that offence %ro8ided the

conditions laid do(n in the section are fulfilled.

Thus if the offence co$$itted by that %erson is in %rosecution of the co$$on object of theunla(ful asse$bly or such as the $e$bers of that asse$bly ne( to be liely to be

co$$itted in %rosecution of the co$$on object e8ery $e$ber of the unla(ful asse$bly

(ould be guilty of that offence although there $ay ha8e been no co$$on intention and no

%artici%ation by the other $e$bers in the actual co$$ission of that offence.

There is a difference bet(een co$$on o%ject an1 intention.

• Although the object $ay be co$$on the intentions of the se8eral $e$bers of the

unla(ful asse$bly $ay differ and indeed $ay be si$ilar only in one res%ect na$ely

that they are all unla(ful (hile the ele$ent of %artici%ation in action (hich is the

leading feature of s. 34 is re%laced in s. )4& by $e$bershi% of the asse$bly at the

ti$e of the co$$itting of the offence.

• Co$$on intention in +ection 34 is undefined and therefore unli$ited in its

o%eration (hile co$$on object in +ection )4& cannot go beyond the fi8e objects

s%ecifically indicated in +ection )4) of the I-C

• The crucial difference bet(een co$$on intention and co$$on object is that (hile

24 / - a g e


25/27


co$$on intention reuires %rior $eeting of $ind and unity of intention co$$on

object $ay be for$ed (ithout these ingredients.

Di//erence Between S 67 S37:

$ase Section3" Section !"'Nature o5 O6 ense This section is not a

substanti8e office it is only a

role of e8idence. it al(ays

read (ith other substanti8e

offices. -unish$ent cannot

be i$%osed solely u%on this

section. or e:a$%le if a

%erson con8icted uDs 3*2 rD(

34 of I-C can legally be

con8icted uDs 3*2 rD( 34.

This section is a substanti8e

offense it also read (ith

other sections. -unish$ent

can be i$%osed solely u%on

this section .=here as

%rosecution file a charge

sheet uDs

Princi0le element Co$$on intention the

%rinci%le ingredient of this

section is Co$$on intention

any act (hich co$$itted in

furtherance of co$$on

intention attract this section

Co$$on ObjectG the

%rinci%le ele$ent of this

section is Co$$on Object

any act (hich co$$itted in

%rosecution of co$$on

object (ill attract this section

7an8e o5

Princi0le

element

Co$$on intention (ithin the

$eaning of section 34 is

undefined and unli$ited.

Co$$on object is defined

and is li$ited to the fi8e

unla(ful objects stated in

section )4) of I-C.

9y0e o5 O6 ense Co$$on Intention reuires

under this section $ay be of

A@B TB-'.

Co$$on object reuire

under this section $ust be

one of the object $entioned

uDs )4) of I-C.

Necessity -rior $eeting of $ind is

necessary before (rongful

act is done under this section.

-rior $eeting of $ind is not

necessary under this section.

Mere $e$bershi% of an

unla(ful asse$bly at the

25 / - a g e


26/27


ti$e of co$$itting the

offense is sufficient.

Liabil ity It is a joint liability. A joint

liability of a %erson is

deter$ined according to the

$anner in (hich he beco$es

associated (ith co$$ission

of the cri$e.

It is a constructi8e liability

and 8icarious liability. all the

$e$bers of that asse$bly

(ill be 8icariously liable for

that offence e8en one or

$ore but not all co$$itted

the said office.

Number o5 Person Mini$u$ t(o %eo%le reuire

attracting this section.

Mini$u$ fi8e %eo%le reuire

attracting this section.

Partici0ation in

Crime

Acti8e %artici%ation in

co$$ission of cri$e is

necessary.

Merely $e$bershi% of the

unla(ful asse$bly at the

ti$e of co$$issioning of

cri$e (ould be sufficient for

this section a%%lication

acti8e %artici%ation is not

necessary.

2 / - a g e


27/27


B"BL"OGRAPHY

• -+A -illai Cri$inal "a( )2th 'dition "e:is @e:is

• ,aur ! A Te:tboo on Indian -enal Code 2*)3 ourth 'dition Kni8ersal "a(

-ublishing Co.

• Mishra +@ Indian -enal Code 2**J )th 'dition Central "a( -ublications

• ,aur ! Cri$inal "a( G Cases and Materials 2*)3 th 'dition "e:is @e:is

utter(orths =adh(a

• isho%

Documents

IPC Project Hemant