Section 34 IPC: Criminal Liability U/S IPC 34 for Common Intention

What is Section 34 IPC Bare Act?

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Bare Act (Section 34 IPC Bare Act) is the exact text of the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , passed by the Indian legislature or Parliament. Thus, it is a replica of the original Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC 34) available to the people of India by the Indian legislature or Parliament.

Section 34 IPC Bare Act (As Per the Indian Legislature or Parliament)

¹[ 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.]

Section 34 IPC Explanation

Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is committed by several individuals with a common intention among them, then each of such individual shall be held liable for the act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. In other words, if two or more people jointly commit a crime then they are each responsible for the entire crime and can be charged as if they had acted alone.

Common Intention

This IPC Section 34 states that “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” that is, when a criminal act is committed by several individuals, it is considered to be done by each of them in furtherance of a common intention, then each of such individuals shall be held liable for the act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.

The common intention, under Section IPC 34, refers to a prior plan among the individuals to commit the crime. It is important to note that common intention does not require an agreement. In other words, it can be judged from the circumstances of the case and the acts of the accused.

Evidence Required

To establish the existence of common intention under this IPC Section 34, the prosecution must provide evidence that the accused had a prior plan to commit the crime and that they acted in furtherance of that common intention. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial and can include statements, actions, or other conduct of the accused before, during, or after the committing of the crime.

Joint Liability

Once the existence of common intention under this IPC Section 34 has been proved, each individual involved in the commission of the crime will be held jointly liable for the entire crime, regardless of the extent of their individual participation. This means that even if one of the individuals played a minor role in the crime, they will be held equally responsible for the entire crime as the other individuals.

What are The Essential of IPC 34

• More than one accused should be involved in the crime
• All the accused should have a common intention of crime
• Complainant should have evidence of the crime done by accused in furtherance of common intention.
• Other IPC section must be charged with this IPC Section 34
• Date and time of the crime should be mentioned in the F.I.R or plaint / complaint.
• All accused name should be mentioned in the F.I.R or plaint / complaint.
• The criminal act done by each accused should be mentioned in the F.I.R or plaint / complaint in detail with evidence.
• Section 120B IPC can be charged against all accused because the intention of the crime of all accused is same but you have to prove that all accused has done criminal conspiracy against you with evidence.
• Based on the nature / type of the crime, other IPC Section can be charged against all accused with this IPC Section 34.
• It is not essential that all the accused will commit same crime but it is essential that all the accused should have a common intention of crime under Section 34 IPC (IPC 34).
• Most important, false allegations and false IPC section must not be charged against any innocent people.

What is Punishment for Section 34 IPC?

Section 34 IPC (IPC 34) doesn’t specify punishment but establishes joint liability when multiple individuals commit a crime with a common intent. Each person involved is held accountable as if they committed the offense individually.

Section 34 IPC (IPC 34) states that all persons have committed an offense with the same intention and therefore each accused should be punished with the same punishment (equal liability and equal punishment) as if he had committed the crime alone.

The actual punishment is determined by the relevant IPC section defining that specific offense. So, IPC Section 34 itself doesn’t outline penalties. Instead, it should be used in conjunction with other IPC sections that correspond to the committed offense.

For example, if Section 120B IPC is charged along with Section 34, it may result in punishment for criminal conspiracy, which includes imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both. Section 34 IPC doesn’t warrant standalone cases or FIRs. It’s used to attribute collective liability when a crime is committed with shared intent, ensuring equal punishment for all involved.

Section 34 IPC Example

Example 1: If two individuals are involved in a theft, and it is established that they acted with a common intention to steal, each individual will be held liable for the entire theft, even if one of them had a minor role in the crime. This is because their common intention to commit the theft makes each of them equally responsible for the entire crime under IPC 34.

Example 2:

Suppose 10 people come together with the intention to kill person “A”. One of the people tries to kill person “A”, but the other 9 people just threaten person “A”.

Under Indian law, only the person who tried to kill person “A” can be punished for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The other 9 people can only be punished for the specific offenses that they committed (such as threatening person “A”).

However, person “A” may want all 10 people to be punished for attempt to murder, even though only one person tried to kill person “A” because all 10 people had common intention. In this case, person “A” can file a case in court or register an FIR against all 10 people under Section 307 IPC, along with Section 34 IPC.

Section 34 IPC says that if two or more people commit a crime with the same intention, each person can be punished for the crime as if he or she had committed crime alone.

So, if person “A” can prove that all 10 people had the same intention to kill person “A”, then all 10 people could be punished for attempt to murder, even though only one person tried to kill person “A”.

Is IPC 34 bailable?

Section 34 IPC (IPC 34) does not define a specific offense, it does not have a specific classification of being bailable or non-bailable. The bailability of an offense depends on the specific offense committed in conjunction with this Section 34 IPC.

Punishment is not defined under this Section 34 IPC, So this Section IPC 34 is neither bailable nor non-bailable. But you can say that bailable nor non-bailable is completely depend on the other IPC section charged with this IPC Section 34 .

If this Section 34 IPC charged with other non-bailable IPC Section then you can consider this Section 34 IPC (IPC 34) as a non-bailable for all accused.

If section IPC 34 charged only with other bailable IPC section then you can consider this Section 34 IPC as a bailable for all accused.

Is IPC 34 Compoundable or Not?

IPC 34 does not define a specific offense, it does not have a specific provision regarding compoundable or not. The compoundability of an offense depends on the specific offense committed in conjunction with this IPC Section.

As Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not tell about the type of crime and punishment of crime. Thus, This IPC Section is neither compoundable nor non-compoundable.

Compoundable refers to the ability of parties involved in a criminal case to reach a mutual agreement and settle the dispute, thereby withdrawing the case. Compoundable or not is completely depend on the other IPC section charged with this IPC Section 34.

Section 34 IPC Cognizable or Not?

Section 34 IPC does not define a specific offense but deals with the principle of joint liability, it does not fall under the classification of cognizable or non-cognizable offenses. The nature and classification of the underlying offense to which this IPC Section is applied will determine whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable.

This IPC Section is not categorized as cognizable or non-cognizable in itself. The categorization of an offense under the IPC as cognizable or non-cognizable is determined by the nature and severity of the offense, as specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Section 34 IPC Judgments / Rulings

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6893 OF 2021)

This appeal by Krishnamurthy (also described as Krishna Murthy), Gopala and Thimmappa takes exception to the judgment dated 20th February 2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 200147 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, has affirmed their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and individually for the offences under Sections 447, 504, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

Facts: Three accused, Krishna, Thimmappa, and Gopala, were charged with the murder of one Narayana. Krishna was found to have stabbed Narayana to death, while Thimmappa and Gopala were present at the scene and helped Krishna to dispose of the body.

Issue: Whether Thimmappa and Gopala could be convicted of murder under Section 34 IPC, even though they did not physically assault Narayana.

Supreme Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court held that Thimmappa and Gopala could be convicted of murder under Section 34 IPC, even though they did not physically assault Narayana. The Court observed that Section 34 IPC does not require an overt act to be attributed to each accused for their conviction. It is sufficient if the accused had the common intention to commit the crime.

In this case, the Court found that Thimmappa, Gopala, and Krishna had the common intention to kill Narayana. Thimmappa and Gopala were present at the scene of the crime and helped Krishna to dispose of the body. This showed that they were all involved in the conspiracy to kill Narayana and were equally responsible for his death.

Download PDF

Summary

In conclusion, This Section IPC 34 tells about joint liability in cases where a criminal act is committed by multiple individuals acting in furtherance of a common intention. This section holds that each person involved in the commission of a crime is responsible for the entire crime and can be charged as if he or she had acted alone.

1. Subs. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 1, for section 34.