IPC Section 34- Acts Done By Several Persons In Furtherance Of Common Intention

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) acts as the cornerstone for the criminal laws in India. Among all the provisions in the Code, Section 34 deals with the instances where a few individuals come together to engage in a criminal offence, having a common intention. The provision states that when a lot of people collaborate with a common objective and commit a crime collectively, every one of them is guilty of the commission of that crime, irrespective of the role they had to play in that crime or the extent of involvement they had. The premise underlying this section is that when several individuals act with a shared goal, all of them are equally responsible as if they committed the offence in an individual capacity.

Legal Provision of Section 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.

Essentials Of Section 34 IPC

The essentials of Section 34 of the Code are listed as follows:

Common Intention

The crux of Section 34 is that the individuals engaging in the commission of the crime have a shared or common intention. It signifies that participants in the crime should have a common objective or plan to commit that crime.

The individuals don't need to have any formal agreement in place. The intention can take shape at the spur of the moment that is without any prior discussion or plan. However, it must be established that all individuals participating in the offence of that crime shared this intention.

Participation in the Criminal Act

Every person must participate actively in the commission of the offence. But it is not required that every person has to perform the main action like theft or kidnapping. The important part is that the participation of every individual should be such that even when indirect or minimal, it contributes towards the crime.

If any individual is present at the scene of the crime, encourages other participants, assists a participant or contributes in any other shape or form, it will be adequate proof to establish his participation.

Commission of a Criminal Act

The group must commit an act. The act should be unlawful. The group committing the act should have shared objectives or intentions. The act can be in physical form or any other form that is unlawful or illegal.

In a situation where no crime takes place, Section 34 cannot be applied in that scenario. It is crucial that when people have a shared intention to commit an act, it is followed by the execution of the act.

Act Done in Furtherance of the Common Intention

The commission of the crime should take place in a way that advances the common objectives of all the people engaged. When one person commits an act, it should be seen that all of them have committed that act to fulfil their shared objective.

The link between the common intention and the criminal act must be clearly visible. The link should imply that the act was done with the sole purpose of furthering the collective plan of the group.

Particulars of Section 34 IPC

• Chapter: Chapter II
• Section in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 3(5)

Consequences Of Non-Compliance to Section 34 IPC?

While it is difficult to establish the consequences of non-compliance with Section 34 of the Code in the usual sense since it is primarily a legal provision concerned with the criminal acts committed by several individuals having a shared intention or goal, instead of a directive that needs compliance.

However, if there is a failure in the establishment of the joint liability or the principles contained in Section 34 are not properly applied, there can be the following consequences

Failure to Prove Common Intention

In scenarios where the prosecution is unsuccessful in proving that accused persons had a common intention or a shared objective or plan, Section 34 cannot be used.

This may result in the discharge of a few accused individuals. Even when an individual plays an insignificantly minor role or is just present at the scene of the crime, their liability as an individual is required to be established separately and the same is true for all the involved individuals.

Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence

When there is a lack of proof signifying that there was common intention and participation of all accused individuals, the Court will have to release certain individuals and all may not get punished for their involvement under Section 34 of the Code.

Owing to the lack of ability of the prosecution to establish common intention beyond a reasonable doubt, a few accused may succeed in avoiding punishment.

Misapplication Leading to Unfair Convictions

When there is improper use of Section 34 where the common intention is not established clearly or beyond reasonable doubt, it can result in wrongful convictions. If under any circumstances, the section is invoked without meeting all the essential elements, an innocent person or several innocent individuals may be punished unfairly for the crime they did not have any intention to commit or did not engage in indirectly.

This unfair or wrongful conviction may open doors to multiple appeals and possible overturning of convictions by the Higher Court or the Apex Court considering the inappropriate application of the law.

Complexity in Legal Proceedings

If section 34 is not invoked, the prosecution must establish the involvement of each individual separately. Each individual’s action and intention has to be established directly. This makes it more complex for the prosecution, more so in the matters where they did it collaboratively and there is little to no distinction in the individual roles.

Since this complexity of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable proof can be challenging, the trial may get delayed further and the Court may face difficulties in delivering timely justice.

Significance of Section 34 IPC

The importance of Section 34 of the Code can be understood by its objective of establishing joint liability among individuals who commit an offence collaboratively with a shared goal or intention.

The Section plays a pivotal role in ensuring that every individual is held accountable, irrespective of his role or level of involvement.

Establishes Collective Responsibility

This provision ensures that when several individuals commit an offence with a common intention, not one but all of them are held responsible for the same, even if only a single individual carries out the act.

This section stops individuals from escaping their liability by stating that they were indirectly involved or did not carry out the act.

Simplifies Prosecution in Joint Crimes

When a case is of a nature where it involves several accused persons, this section makes it easier for the prosecution to focus on establishing a common intention instead of establishing the guilt of each individual separately.

This is majorly helpful in circumstances where members of a group take on distinct roles, such as planning, aiding, and carrying out the act. This provision consolidates their responsibility, making it convenient for the Courts to punish all individuals based on their common intention.

Acts as a Deterrent

Section 34 of the Code serves as a deterrent for people who plan to commit group crimes. Knowing the fact that even indirectly participating in a crime can result in the same punishment as the principal offender, individuals are less likely to participate in such activities. It discourages them from helping out in planning, encouraging or assisting any individual as they have the fear of being convicted.

Addresses the Reality of Criminal Behavior

Criminal acts are usually a result of joint efforts where individuals have to plan the act, support each other, and execute it with perfection. However, a few individuals think that mere support or encouragement will absolve them from the punishment since they are not the ones carrying out the act. However, Section 34 prevents this by acknowledging how a crime is carried out in today’s society and provides a framework to hold everyone responsible for the crime.

Ensures Fair Justice

When the law equally punishes not only the principal offender but all individuals with a common intention, it paves the way for fairness and sees that justice is not only restricted to the person who engages in the crime on a physical level but extends the scope to all individuals who were part of the collective effort.

Flexibility in Application

This provision does not mandate that there has to be a pre-planned conspiracy or a formal agreement among the individuals to commit the crime. They can form the common intention a few minutes before the commission of the crime or at the spur of the moment. This flexibility makes it easier for the law to cover a wide range of situations such as criminal acts that are committed spontaneously or premeditated offences.

Cases Related to Section 34 IPC

Mahbub Shah vs Emperor

In this case, an appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. The appeal focused on the question of whether the appellant, Mahbub Shah, was rightly convicted of murder based on the interpretation of Section 34. The court analysed the legal principle of common intention and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that Mahbub Shah acted in concert with another individual, Wali Shah, in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan to murder the victim. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, quashing Mahbub Shah's conviction for murder and the death sentence.

Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia vs The State Of Hyderabad on 3 December 1954

In this case, the Court highlighted the crucial requirement of common intention under Section 34, which necessitates a prearranged plan or prior concert between the parties involved. This means that for an individual to be held responsible for another person's criminal actions, those actions must have been undertaken to further a shared intention that was agreed upon beforehand. The Court found no evidence of such a pre-arranged plan involving Pandurang. The eyewitnesses arrived at the scene after the assault had already begun, providing no insight into any potential discussions or agreements made beforehand. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the accused fleeing together or meeting after the incident, which could have suggested a pre-existing plan.

The Court emphasised that although Pandurang was present at the scene and carrying an axe, his participation in the assault was limited to a single, non-fatal blow to Ramchander's head. This led the Court to conclude that Pandurang's actions did not demonstrate a clear intention to murder, which would have been necessary to establish a common intention with the other accused. The Court found it more likely that he was only liable for his actions, which fell under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.

Therefore, the Court ultimately decided that Pandurang could not be convicted under Section 34 due to the lack of evidence pointing to a pre-meditated agreement or plan to murder Ramchander Shelke. His actions were judged to be individual rather than part of a shared intention with the other accused individuals.

Conclusion

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code serves as an important provision that makes sure of collective accountability for criminal acts committed by individuals with a shared intention. By emphasising joint liability, it addresses the reality that crimes are often the result of coordinated efforts rather than isolated actions. The section simplifies the prosecution of group crimes, allowing for all involved parties to be held equally responsible, regardless of their roles.

However, the effective application of Section 34 depends on the prosecution's ability to establish a common intention and demonstrate each person’s active participation. While it strengthens the legal framework and acts as a deterrent against group offences, its reliance on circumstantial evidence and interpretation can pose challenges. Therefore, the provision must be applied with precision and care, ensuring that justice is both fair and comprehensive, and holding all those who act with criminal intent fully accountable.