IPC Section 37 – Co-Operation By Doing One Of Several Acts Constituting An Offence

In criminal law, many offences are not committed by a single person alone, but through the combined efforts of multiple individuals. Sometimes, the offence is the result of several distinct actions, each performed by a different person. IPC Section 37 [now replaced by BNS Section 3(8)] addresses such collaborative criminal conduct and ensures that all those involved are held liable, even if they did only part of what was required to commit the crime.

This section complements the provisions on common intention (Section 34) and common knowledge (Section 35), but focuses specifically on joint actions where each individual performs a separate act that leads to a single offence.

In this blog, you will explore:

• The legal definition and simplified explanation of IPC Section 37
• Examples of how different acts by different individuals can form one offence
• The key elements required to invoke Section 37
• Its connection with Sections 34, 35, 107, and 120B
• The importance of this provision in modern crimes like cyber fraud and corporate scams
• Landmark case laws interpreting Section 37

What Is IPC Section 37?

Legal Definition:

“When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.”

Simplified Explanation

IPC Section 37 makes it clear that if an offence involves multiple steps or acts, and different people perform different parts of those steps, each one is equally liable if they acted with intent and cooperation.

In simpler terms, even if a person contributes only one part of a chain of events that results in an offence, they are treated as if they committed the whole offence, provided they had the intention to cooperate in committing the crime.

Example: How Section 37 Works

Example 1: Group Theft Plan

Three individuals plan a theft. One breaks the lock (Act 1), the second enters and collects valuables (Act 2), and the third stands guard outside (Act 3). Each one has contributed to the commission of the offence through a separate act. All three are liable under IPC Section 37.

Example 2: Chain of Fraud

In a fraud case, one person drafts a false document, another files it with the authorities, and a third uses it to claim illegal benefits. Even though each person did a different act, their cooperation makes all of them liable under Section 37.

Key Elements Of IPC Section 37

To apply IPC Section 37, these elements must be satisfied:

• The offence consists of multiple acts
• Each act may be performed by a different individual
• The person must have intentionally cooperated in the commission of the offence
• The final outcome is a single punishable offence

Connection With Other IPC Sections

IPC Section 37 works closely with:

• Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
• Section 35 – When criminal acts are done with common knowledge or intent
• Section 107 – Abetment
• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy

However, Section 37 is distinct in that it specifically addresses partial participation through individual acts forming a complete offence.

Importance Of IPC Section 37 In Modern Context

• Cybercrime Rings: One person creates malware, another distributes it, and a third withdraws stolen money. Each action, though distinct, constitutes a single offence when done cooperatively.
• White-Collar Crimes: In corporate scams, different executives or agents may play different roles—from falsifying records to transferring money. Section 37 ensures all such participants are held liable.

Judicial Interpretation And Case Laws

Indian courts have interpreted IPC Section 37 in various judgments involving joint criminal actions. Below are some notable case laws that illustrate how this section is applied in practice.

1. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1963)

Facts:
The appellant and four others were tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that all accused acted with common animosity and intention to kill the victim. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302/34, reasoning he acted in conjunction with others.

Held:
In the case of Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1963) Supreme Court held that an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302/34 if co-accused are acquitted and there is no evidence implicating unnamed individuals. Constructive liability under Section 34 (and by extension, Section 37) requires clear evidence of joint action and common intention. The conviction was set aside because the necessary evidence of shared intent and participation was lacking.

2. Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors. v. State of Assam (1977)

Facts:
Three appellants assaulted the deceased, Shashi Mohan. While all participated in the assault, only two developed the intention to kill during the act, while the third (Bhaba Nanda) did not share this escalated intention but was involved in the initial assault.

Held:
In the case of Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors. v. State of Assam (1977) Supreme Court differentiated liability based on the degree of shared intention. Bhaba Nanda was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II), while the other two were convicted of murder with the aid of Section 34. This case clarifies that under Section 37, liability depends on the extent and nature of each participant’s intention and cooperation.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. (1980)

Facts:
The accused were charged with attempting to smuggle silver out of India. The prosecution argued that the accused acted collectively, each performing acts that together constituted the offence of smuggling.

Held:
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub & Ors. (1980) Supreme Court held that the accused had a clear common intention and took substantial steps toward committing the offence. Circumstantial evidence established that all participants were liable, as each contributed to the execution of the offence. This case reinforces that under Section 37, all who intentionally cooperate in a criminal act are equally liable, regardless of their individual roles.

Conclusion

IPC Section 37 reinforces the idea that crime is not always a one-person show. When an offence is the result of several coordinated actions—even if performed by different individuals—the law ensures full accountability for each participant. Whether it's robbery, fraud, or corporate misconduct, Section 37 plays a vital role in closing gaps that offenders might exploit to avoid punishment.

By recognizing cooperation through individual acts, this section strengthens the foundation of criminal justice and ensures that teamwork in crime leads to shared liability.

FAQs on IPC Section 37

To help you better understand how IPC Section 37 works in real-world scenarios, here are some frequently asked questions with clear legal answers.

Q1. Is IPC Section 37 a standalone offence?

No, it is a rule of attribution. It works in combination with another offence where multiple acts lead to one punishable outcome.

Q2. What is the difference between IPC Section 34 and 37?

Section 34 deals with common intention and joint acts, while Section 37 applies when different acts are done by different people, each contributing to a crime with intent.

Q3. Can passive observers be held liable under Section 37?

No. Mere presence is not enough. There must be an intentional act of cooperation—either direct or through encouragement/participation.

Q4. How does this section help prosecutors?

It helps establish liability for group crimes, especially where there’s a division of roles or each accused claims partial involvement.