S.34 of IPC and Common Intention in Criminal Law: Supreme Court Explains the Scope

 S.34 of IPC and Common Intention : Supreme Court Explains the Scope

Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860 says that "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."

In Muthuramalingam v State [2016] GCtR 4222 (SC), it was reiterated that "the words ‘in furtherance of the common intention of all’ are a most essential part of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is common intention to commit the crime actually committed. The common intention is anterior in time to the commission of the crime. Common intention means a pre-arranged plan." "A clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or pre-concert. Though there is substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under section 149 overlaps the ground covered by section 34." "An overt act is not always an inflexible requirement of rule of law to establish culpability of a member of an unlawful assembly."

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.