There is also a general rule in criminal jurisprudence that courts cannot distinguish between persons involved in an activity and it is impossible to see what role plays in the commission of the act, so that each person is held jointly responsible for the acts of others. Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar, (1989) Cr LJ 1782: AIR 1989 SC 1593. However, the Chamber of Judges Joymalya Bagchi and Suvra Ghosh stressed that the common intention is not the same as a similar intention when it comes to combining criminal responsibility on the basis of Article 34 of the ICC. For the purposes of Article 34 of the ICC, the following key points are listed: The Supreme Court of Calcutta has recently made relevant observations on Article 34 of the Indian Penal Code (ICC). This provision establishes the same liability for an offence for all persons who had the common intention to commit it and who were involved in the promotion of the offence. (iv) If the accused has engaged in an activity of being chased with a sword or knife, this shows that he shares the common intention and can therefore be convicted under article 300. IPC SECTION 34 – INDIAN PENAL CODE – “ACTS COMMITTED BY SEVERAL PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF A COMMON INTENTION” Some important elements help to establish that the crime was committed by two or more persons for the same purpose. These are as follows:. If a crime is to be proven only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, allegations of common intent under Article 34 of the ICC cannot normally be established if the agreement of opinion, the open action of the accused, is established by his conduct, by the use of weapons by the expression of his words. The distinction between a common intention and a similar intention is real and, if overlooked by the courts, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Section 34 may be invoked only if the accused has a common intention and not a similar intention.

Unless the common intention is proven, individuals are responsible only for their actions. When doubts arise, the advantage of the doubt is given to the accused. This article states that the term “ACTS COMMITTED BY SEVERAL PERSONS TO PROMOTE THE COMMON INTENTION” means that the acts are committed by several persons in the promotion of the common intention, they would be punishable by the penalties of the acts, it will be the same as if everything were done by him alone. Most often, the common intention is confused with Article 149 (electronic book), which states that each member of the illegal assembly is guilty of the crime committed in pursuit of a common object. It is understood that the operations of the two sections differ from each other. Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code both deal with the association of persons who are to be punished for the act they commit. Although the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in Indian jurisprudence, the testimony of interested witnesses needs to be subject to more rigorous scrutiny so that its overzealous versions do not involve innocent people with the actual perpetrators. “Although the accused may have a similar intention to commit a crime, such as murder, until and as long as the following conditions: (a) pre-consent, (b) presence and (c) involvement are established with respect to each accused, it cannot be said that they shared common intentions and are responsible for the crime committed by one of them to promote that intention.” explained the bank. When the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, section 34 did not contain the provision of common intent at the time, and later in 1870 an amendment was made to include it. Intent plays a crucial role in criminal law.

The term “intent” is not defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, but section 34 of the Code deals with common intent. This involves a predetermined plan and action in accordance with the execution of that plan. He enters the scene before the commission of the act. Santosh Desai v. the State of Goa, (1997) 2 Crimes 666 (BOM) In this context, the court also held that it was not sufficient for the six accused to share a common hostility towards the deceased. The rejection of the embellished testimony offered against the defendant on the basis of such hostility in the past, the panel noted: the evidence that each of the people was involved in the actual act is irrelevant. The case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor is one of the most important and longest-standing cases in which the court has convicted another person for the act of another person committed in carrying out the common intention. A group of armed persons entered the police station and demanded money from the postmaster, where he counted it. They shot him with the gun, after which he died instantly.

All the defendants were able to escape without taking any money. Police were able to catch Barendra Kumar Ghosh, who was standing in front of the post office and carried out a check. Barendra claimed at the time of his arrest that he was only a security guard, but the Calcutta Supreme Court found him guilty of the murder of the postmaster. His appeal to the Privy Council was also dismissed. The plaintiffs were represented by lawyer Moinak Bakshi, while the State of West Bengal was represented by lawyers Rana Mukherjee, Sanjoy Bardhan and Md. Kutubuddin. In the case of Suresh Sankharam Nangare v. In the state of Maharashtra, it was noted that “if the common intention is proven but no open action is attributed to the accused, Article 34 of the ICC is attracted because it essentially involves the responsibility of the executing agent, but if the defendant`s involvement in the crime is proven and the common intention is absent, Article 34 of the ICC cannot be invoked. The court merely stated that there had to be a prior meeting of the spirits.

Article 34 – Acts taken by several persons to promote the common intention Article 34 of the IPC specifies the measures taken by several persons to promote the common intention. The article states: “If a criminal act is committed by several persons in order to promote the common intention of all, each of these persons is responsible for that act in the same way as if it had been committed by him alone.” Nethala Pothuraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 3133 (SC) (iii) To convict a person who is responsible under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove that each of them has committed manifest acts. There must be a specific goal, the achievement of which is the ultimate goal of all members of the group. For the purposes of this Section, any person involved in the commission of a criminal offence shall be held liable for his or her involvement in the offence. Joint liability applies in the event of joint intent in the offence committed. If it can be shown that this was done by one of the accused in order to promote the common intention of all, responsibility for the act may be imposed on each of the persons in the same manner as if the act had been committed by him in his capacity. Court decisions have emphasized the fact that the meeting of spirits does not always have to be something before the incident, but could be something that can develop on the ground, just when the crime is committed. In light of this, the court acquitted two of the six people accused of murdering a man together. “Common intent under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is a type of implied liability that holds any member of a group who shares such intent accountable for the criminal act committed by one of them when such an act is committed to promote the common intent. In light of these remarks, the court partially upheld the appeal, acquitting two of the six plaintiffs while upholding the conviction for the rest.

The two acquitted complainants were released if their detention was not required for any other case. “Enmity is a double-edged sword. While this justifies the commission of the crime, it is also an important motivation for interested witnesses to falsely implicate innocent individuals in the crime. “State of Punjab v. Fauja Singh, (1997) 3 Crimes 170 (P&H) There was evidence that the two remaining defendants had threatened the relatives of the deceased to report the incident to the police. However, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reliable testimony proving their presence at the school when the murder was committed. Abdulla Kunhi v. State of Kerala, (1990) SC Cr 525 v) The combination of persons punished as participants in the commission of offences falls under Articles 149 and 34. The prohibition on the conviction of the accused under article 34 on the merits is not applicable. Section 34 of the Indian Criminal Code does not mention any specific offence. It only establishes the rule of proof that if two or more persons commit an offence in the order of common intent, each of them will be held jointly liable. (ii) If the person has committed an illegal activity aimed at promoting the common intention of his co-respondent, he shall be liable to sanctions and trial against his co-respondent.

The High Court, in turn, found that reliable eyewitness testimony proved that four of the six defendants had come to school, attacked and murdered the deceased. We`re glad you love this story. Subscribe to one of our plans to continue reading the story. Section 34 is limited to a situation where a criminal offence requires specific intent or criminal knowledge and is committed by more than one person who shares that intent. Any person who participates in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable in the same manner as if it had been done by him exclusively with such intention or knowledge. The responsibility of all persons involved in this circumstance is called “total liability”. “Although there is evidence that Sasthi and Ashadhan had enmity with the deceased and may have tried to hinder P.W.