Inferences From the various interpretations of Apex Court and guideline given in different cases, some inferences could be drawn to impose Joint Liability under section 34. They asked labourers to stop the work, and when the complainant objected to this, the two accused directed the mob to kill labourers. Section 149 creates a specific offence. Section 34 enunciates the principle of joint liability but creates no specific offence. It was held that, these facts were sufficient to prove that the accused persons had been actuated with the common intention to assault the victim. Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
To constitute common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act. Active participation in commission of crime is not necessary. Conclusion: Intention is defined in R. Section 149 is controlled by Section 141 while Section 34 is an independent section in the sense that it is not controlled by any section.
The crime of battery, for example, only requires the basic intent that the actor knew or should have known that his action would lead to harmful contact with the victim. Even after so much effort, there arise problems of which law will be applicable amongst the two in some crucial cases, and investigators and charge sheet filers make mistakes in this regard. To prove the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be its pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. Object means the purpose, and it will be common when it is shared by the members of the unlawful assembly. Common object may be formed at any stage by all or few members of the assembly. It is in this context the law laid down by this Court in Kammari supra ought also to be noticed. A-11 Kuppu Naicker who has a well in land bearing Survey No.
Under Section 149, number of persons must be five or more. Common Intention mainly applicable to murder and other types of crimes in judicial system. The man eluded them and they gave chase, on overtaking him they once again attacked him. The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime. When he refused, then others three opened fire from the pistol and fled from the place. Common intention may be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The gap need not be long sometimes common intention can be developed on the spot. The essential constituents of the vicarious criminal liability prescribed by Section 34 is the existence of common intention. Each of such person will be liable in an act done in furtherance of common intention as if the act was done by one person. Section 149 creates joint liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly.
There are two classes of such offences: a Some legislature decide that particular criminal offenses are sufficiently serious that the mens rea requirement must be drafted to demonstrate more precisely where the fault lies. The fact that the accused held the hand of one of the deceased to facilitate assailants to assault deceased, is said to have shared common intention of committing murder of deceased; Major Singh v. Thus, they have a certain resemblance and may be to some extent overlap. But, in certain circumstances common intention also may develop suddenly on the spot and such common intention may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused persons. In the latter class of cases Section 149 of the Code may be applicable but Section 34 is not. A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time.
Section 149 creates joint liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly. For application of section 149 the offence must be committed by five or more persons because then only they can form an unlawful assembly. Section 34 talks about common intention whereas section 149 talks about common object such as the common object has a wider scope. Under Section 34 number of persons must be more than one. Section 149 is thus wider than Section 34. A previous plan is not necessary. Seeing others running the accused also ran away by air firing with his pistol.
Section 34 does not lay down any limit to the number of persons combining, but Section 149 fixes a minimum of five to form an unlawful assembly. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Common Object. But, in certain circumstances common intention also may develop suddenly on the spot and such common intention may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused persons. State of Bihar, the Apex Court held that before convicting any person with the aid of s. Section 34 is wider in scope than Section 149 in the sense that in order to apply Section 34 only two persons are required whereas at least five persons are required for the application of Section 149. Thus, if the offence committed by the person is in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of that offence, although there may have been no common intention and no participation by the other members in the actual commission of that object. For example, in English law, s18 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 defines the actus reus as causing grievous bodily harm but requires that this be performed: 1.