IPC Section 35 - When Such An Act Is Criminal By Reason Of Its Being Done With A Criminal Knowledge Or Intention

In criminal law, liability is often based on a person’s mental state—their intention or knowledge behind committing an act. While Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with acts done with common intention, IPC Section 35 [now replaced by BNS Section 3(6)] addresses cases where multiple persons commit an act that becomes criminal because of their criminal knowledge or intention. This section broadens the scope of joint liability by focusing on the mental element (mens rea) of all participants, not just their actions.

In This Blog, You Will Learn:

• What does IPC Section 35 legally mean
• The difference between intention and knowledge
• Key elements required to invoke this section
• Real-life examples and case illustrations
• How does it differ from IPC Section 34
• Relevant case laws and court interpretations

What Is IPC Section 35?

Legal Definition:

“Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.”

Simplified Explanation:

IPC Section 35 deals with situations where an act becomes criminal only because it was done with a guilty mindset—that is, either with criminal intention or knowledge. If several people are involved in such an act, and each of them shares the same intention or knowledge, they are all equally liable, regardless of their individual contribution. This section is about mental participation, not just physical acts.

Understanding “Intention” And “Knowledge”

• Criminal Intention means a deliberate desire to commit an unlawful act.
• Criminal Knowledge refers to awareness that one’s actions are likely to cause unlawful consequences.

Example:

If A and B dump industrial waste in a river, knowing it will harm public health, they both share criminal knowledge. Even if only A arranged the dumping, B is equally liable under Section 35 if he knew and agreed.

Key Ingredients Of IPC Section 35

To invoke IPC Section 35, the following elements must be satisfied:

• A joint act is committed by several persons
• The act is criminal only because of criminal knowledge or intention
• Each person must act with that same mental state (knowledge or intention)

Difference Between IPC Section 34 And Section 35

Illustrative Case Examples

Example 1: Illegal Construction with Full Knowledge

A group of builders continues construction in a restricted zone, fully aware of the High Court's stay order. The act becomes criminal because of criminal knowledge. All builders involved can be booked under Section 35.

Example 2: Sale of Harmful Products

Three shop owners jointly sell expired medicines, knowing they are unsafe. Even if only one signed the deal, all are liable under Section 35 for knowingly endangering public health.

Case Laws On IPC Section 35

The following judgments illustrate how Indian courts assess mental culpability in group offences under this provision.

1. Afrahim Sheikh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (1964)

Facts:
Multiple accused were charged with participating in a criminal act. The main issue was whether all shared the required criminal knowledge or intention, even though there was no prior planning.

Held:
In the case of Afrahim Sheikh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (1964) Supreme Court clarified that common intention (and by extension, similar knowledge or intention under Section 35) can be established even without prior concert or planning. The crucial test is whether the plan or mental element preceded the act constituting the offence. The Court held that all accused could be held liable if it was proven they acted with the requisite mental state, even if their roles differed.

2. Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (2024)

Facts:
Several individuals were present at the scene of a crime, but only some actively participated in the criminal act.

Held:
In the case of Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) Supreme Court held that mere presence or passive participation is not sufficient for liability under Section 35. There must be evidence of active participation or preparatory acts with criminal knowledge or intention. The Court acquitted those who were merely present without proof of the necessary mental state.

3. Digantha Mudrana vs. B. H. Girish Pai (2018)

Facts:
This case involved a business dispute where multiple partners were accused of jointly committing fraud against another party.

Held:
In the case of Digantha Mudrana vs. B. H. Girish Pai (2018) court held all partners liable under Section 35 because it was proven that each had knowledge of and participated in the fraudulent scheme. The decision emphasised that joint liability arises when all accused share the requisite knowledge or intention, not merely from their association with the business.

Conclusion

IPC Section 35 plays a crucial role in the Indian criminal justice system by expanding the scope of liability to include not just physical acts, but also the mental culpability of all involved parties. It ensures that when an act becomes criminal solely because of the intent or knowledge behind it, every participant sharing that mindset is held equally responsible, regardless of whether they performed the act themselves.

This provision is particularly important in cases involving collaborative wrongdoing, such as environmental offences, corporate fraud, public health violations, and other white-collar crimes where multiple individuals act with shared awareness of illegality.

By holding people accountable for their mental participation, Section 35 strengthens the principle of collective moral responsibility. It sends a clear message: in the eyes of the law, willful ignorance is not a shield, and knowledge without action is still complicity.

FAQs

To help you better understand how IPC Section 35 works in real-world situations, here are some frequently asked questions that clarify its scope, application, and legal impact.

Q1: Is Section 35 a standalone offence?

No. Like Section 34, Section 35 is not an independent offence. It is applied along with another offence to determine liability.

Q2: Can someone be punished under Section 35 without committing the act?

Yes, if they shared the criminal intention or knowledge, they can be held equally liable, even without direct action.

Q3: How is “knowledge” proved in court?

Through circumstantial evidence, conduct, prior warnings, written records, or actions taken despite known risks.

Q4: Is Section 35 applicable to corporate offences?

Yes, courts have applied this section to companies, directors, and partners who jointly act with criminal knowledge or intent.