Vicarious Liability In Indian Penal Code

Vicarious Liability in Indian Penal Code refers to the legal principle where one person is held accountable for the wrongful acts committed by another, often in the context of a legal relationship. This doctrine, also known as joint liability, applies in both civil and criminal law. Vicarious liability arises when there is a recognized legal relationship, such as between a principal and agent, master and servant, or employer and employee. The concept of "in the course of employment" is crucial when invoking this doctrine. If a servant or employee commits a wrongful act during their employment, either with the authority of the master or through an illegal variation of a legal act, the master may be held liable.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognizes this principle, ensuring that masters or employers are held vicariously liable for the actions of their servants to prevent exploitation or wrongdoing. It also serves to provide compensation to the aggrieved party and hold the superior accountable for acts done within the scope of employment.

Vicarious Liability In Indian Penal Code Context

In India, vicarious liability is primarily governed by Section 149 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The sections lays down the circumstances under which a person can be held criminally liable for the action of another person.

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.

The section revolves around the principle that individuals can be held liable for the actions of others when those actions are conducted in furtherance of a common intention. Section 34 establishes that when two or more persons commit a criminal act in concert, both of them are liable for the entire act, not just the individual person who has actually committed the act.

The provision particularly lays down cases where individuals are engaged in a joint enterprise and it underscores the shared responsibility for actions taken collectively. According to this section if two or more persons act together with the common intention and commit an offence, then each of those persons is vicariously liable for the actions of the others and the key requirement is that the actions must be done in furtherance of a common intention.

Section 149 - Every Member Of Unlawful Assembly Guilty Of An Offence Committed In Prosecution Of Common Object

If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, if any member of an unlawful assembly commits any offence with a common intention, every member of that unlawful assembly will be held liable for that offence collectively, unless they can prove in a court of law that they did not commit the offence and had no previous knowledge of it being committed. The law presumed that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the actions of their co-members.

Further, Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code also talks about vicarious liability in relation to the occupiers or owners of land. In the event, that such owner or any person has any interest in the piece of land and does not inform the proper public authority about the unlawful assembly on that land or does not take any necessary steps on the land to avoid such a lawful assembly, then the owner will also be held liable for such activities. The liability has been fixed on the assumption that being the owner or occupier of the land the person is able to control the activities happening. Section 156 (5) imposes personal liability on the agent or the manager if some illegal activity takes place on an immovable property.

Liability Of The State For Employee Actions

Another concept of vicarious liability is that employers can be held liable for the criminal actions of the employees if undertaken during the course of employment. However, this liability is not absolute as it hinges on specific conditions, such as the employee acting within the scope of the job and not straying from their assigned duties. In a similar manner, the State can also face criminal liability for the conduct of its employees, like a police officer, if they exceed their authority or engage in any kind of misconduct while delivering their official duties.

For instance, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Mst. Vidhyawati (1962), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the State could be held liable vicariously when its employees commit an act of tort while carrying out their responsibilities. In this case, the government-owned bus was involved in an accident that resulted in a pedestrian's death and the court held that the state was liable for the driver's negligence as he was acting within the scope of his employment. In other cases, the government is held liable for a man who has died in the custody of the police due to an act of violence or torture while being in police custody. The court declared that the state was liable for the officers' actions which were carried out in the course of employment.

Such cases highlight the significance of vicarious liability in ensuring that both employers and state are held accountable for their employees' actions, hence it is crucial to apply it fairly aligning the principles of justice and due process.

Licensee And His Liability

A licensee is someone who has received permission from a property owner to use or occupy the property for a specific purpose. If a third party, commits a criminal act while being present on that property during the licensee's use, the licensee may be held vicariously liable for those actions.

Generally, the liability of a licensee is way more than an employer's liability or corporate's liability. Licensees are usually held responsible if the act occurred during their use of the property and if they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. In India, it has been clarified by the Supreme Court that a licensee can be held vicariously liable for the actions of third parties if they were aware or should have been aware that a criminal act was likely to occur. The court also noted that a licensee's liability is not absolute, they can defend themselves by demonstrating that they took appropriate measures to prevent the act from occurring. Overall, while a licensee can be held liable under certain circumstances their liability is generally less severe than that of employers or corporations if proven that they are involved.

Corporate Liability For Criminal Acts

In India, corporate liability for criminal actions is recognized through the Companies Act 2013 and various other laws and regulations. The act holds the company accountable for the actions of the directors and officers as they are jointly and severally liable for the companies' actions unless they demonstrate that the act occurred without their knowledge or they took reasonable steps to prevent it. Similarly, the Indian Penal Code establishes corporate liability for the criminal acts carried out by employees or agents and Section 141 specifies that companies can be held responsible for offences committed by their officers or members during business activities. However, for a company to be liable the offence must have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director or manager or must be linked to their negligible.

Beyond statutory provisions, the Indian judiciary has also acknowledged corporate criminal liability. In the significant case of Standard Chartered Bank vs Directorate of Enforcement (2016), the Delhi High Court ruled that a company can be held criminally liable for offences committed by its employees if it is proven before the court of law that the act was committed to benefit the company.

It is crucial to understand that corporate liability for the criminal act is not absolute and companies can defend themselves by arguing that the act was committed without their knowledge or consent, or that they took reasonable precautions to prevent it. They may also claim that the act was carried out by an employee acting outside the scope of employment. Corporate liability for criminal acts is a vital aspect of vicarious liability ensuring that companies are held accountable for the actions of their employees or agents. It underscores the importance of responsible and ethical business practices emphasizing that companies should be answerable for any criminal conduct that arises during their operations.

Case Laws

Case 1. Sikandar Singh vs State of Bihar (2010)

The 'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the actions and language of the members of the group and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances such as the conduct of each member of the unlawful assembly before the time and after the notice of the crime.

Case 2. HDFC Securities Ltd vs State of Maharashtra (2017)

The Indian Penal Code does not provide for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to be committed by a corporation. The act does not envisage any vicarious liability on the part of the managing director or the directors of the Company when the accused is the company.

Conclusion

Vicarious Liability in Indian Penal Code is a crucial legal concept that ensures individuals and corporations are held liable for the actions of others, particularly in cases where the wrongdoer cannot provide compensation. This doctrine plays an important role in ensuring victims receive proper restitution, especially when the party being held liable has greater financial resources. For vicarious liability to be applied fairly, it must align with the principles of justice and due process. Each case must be evaluated carefully, taking into account the relationship between the parties, the actions of the wrongdoer, and the extent of responsibility of the vicarious party.