The present article has been written by Aanya Gupta pursuing BBA LLB  from Vivekananda Institute of professional studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi.


Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC represent implied liability rules, which means that one person is responsible for the effects of other people’s amendments, but sections 34 and 149 should not be mixed. In Section 34 and Section 149, the law of common intention is by no means synonymous but has its distinguishing characteristics. Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code deals with Section 141 to 160 of “Crimes against Public Peace”. The crime of disturbing public order is also called “collective crime”. Section 141 defines an “illegal assembly”, which means that there must be 5 or more people present, and it must target all of them. In the common intention, there must be a previous thought and unity, just as there must be an obvious behaviour in the progress of the common intention of all; on the other hand, the common object can develop without a mindless initial meeting. The common purpose of the illegal gathering may be one, but the purpose is different.


Common intention refers to a predetermined plan and a concerted action to execute the plan. The common intention occurred before the crime occurred, but the time interval between the two should not be too long. It can happen suddenly. As stated in section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, when two or more persons agree to perform an act with a common intention, the co-convict has the right to take equal criminal responsibility. In this case, each member must be held accountable for the behavior, in the way they did individually. In the case of Amrik Singh, it is further believed that although a common intention may develop during battle, there must be clear and irreproachable evidence to prove that the inference is correct. In the case of Pandurang v.Hyderabad, the Supreme Court emphasized this point. The previous concert may not always be long before the incident, but it may have occurred under the stimulation of the scene. At this time. Section 34 of the IPC incorporates the principle of joint and several liabilities in the commission of criminal acts, the key of which is the existence of a common intention. Its applicability is due to the crime involved. This is one of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which aims to expand the responsibilities of others.


Section 34 is designed to address a situation where it may be difficult to distinguish the common intentions of criminal acts of individual party members in favor of all, or it is difficult to prove precisely which parties each participated in. In this case, the reason everyone is found guilty is that the existence of accomplices provides encouragement, help, security, and confidence to people who engage in illegal acts. Therefore, every person who commits a crime is responsible for their participation in the act committed, even if the specific activity involved was not carried out by any member of the group.


Criminal acts of several people: The aforementioned criminal acts must be carried out by several people. If the criminal act is a completely new and independent act outside of their minds, other people will not be held responsible just because they deliberately participated in another criminal act when the criminal act occurred. Different associates may have different behaviors in criminal activity, but all must participate and participate in criminal activity in some way.

Common intention: The core of joint responsibility under section 34 lies in the existence of a common intention to commit criminal acts to support the common objective of all members of the group. The term “common intention” refers to the previous concert, that is, the opinions and participation of all the members of the group in the implementation of the plan. The behaviors performed by each participant may vary from one personality to another but must be performed with the same common intention.


Chapter 8 of the IPC deals with crimes that endanger the public peace. Section 141 defines illegal assembly and specifies that the members of the assembly have the common goal of implementing an act of enlistment. Therefore, the existence of the common object is a key factor in determining the crimes provided for in Chapter VIII of the Indian penal code. Specifically, when considering the concept of a common objective, Section 149 of the IPC establishes that if any criminal act is committed to achieving the common objective of an illegal assembly, it must be respected. The reason for considering Section 149 is that if the offense is to act by a common goal, then this article punishes the common goal.

In the case of Roy Fernandes v. Goa State the Supreme Court held that to determine the existence of a common object, the court must verify the circumstances of the incident and the illegal gathering of the members, including the criminal weapon used by the accused of the crime. Furthermore, in the case of Ramachandran v. Kerala State, the Supreme Court clarified that in the sense of meeting with members of an illegal assembly, a common goal may have been temporarily formed and no prior agreement is necessary.


Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 is defined as Every member of an illegal assembly commits a crime by pursuing a common object. This section can easily be understood as if any member of an illegal assembly commits an offense while pursuing the common purpose of the assembly, or if the member of the assembly knows that they may commit an offense while prosecuting to that end, any person who is a member of the same council at the time the crime was committed is the crime.
In Bhudeo Mandal v. Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that, with the help of Section 149, before convicting any individual, the test must not only establish the common object but also prove that the common object is illegal. The penalty under Section 149 is the same as the crime committed in an illegal assembly. If the prosecution wants to prove that it is an individual under section 149 of the IPC, it must prove that the person is on the scene and participating in an illegal assembly. This chapter creates positive or indirect responsibility for the illegal acts committed by members of the illegal assembly in the persecution common clause


A) Prosecution of common goals: “Prosecution of common goals” does not mean “persuasion of the common goal of the assembly.” The term “common objectives in the prosecution” indicates that the crime committed is common to the assembly in which the accused participated. The objective is directly related. The behavior must be a way to achieve the common purpose imputable to the members of the illegal assembly. “Suing for the common purpose” should be interpreted strictly as “to achieve the common purpose.”

(B) Members know that it is possible: -The second part refers to crimes that members of parliament know that they are likely to commit when prosecuting a common goal. An issue can only happen when it can happen or is likely to happen. When committing a crime, the word “knowing” refers to a state of mind, not the latter. Knowledge must be tested. The word “may” means strong evidence that such knowledge can be obtained by illegal assemblies. The prosecution must prove that the defendant not only knew that the crime was likely to occur, but that it was probably committed in pursuit of the common goal of the assembly.

(C) Five or more people—To apply this section, it must be demonstrated that the common object is shared by at least five people. Although some of them may be identified or their identities are doubtful, the existence of five or more people must be proven beyond doubt. In some cases, even fewer than five people can be convicted. However, if it is suspected that there are at least five persons under this article, it is impossible to convict.


Modifying the responsibility of correction Section 34 or Section 149 depends on the methods taken to provide crimes. “Common intentions” and “common objects” of the “general explanation” of the IPC are each of the “crimes” for public varicose veins, respectively. Sometimes it is difficult to prove to try if they are sharing a common intention. However, these ambiguities were eliminated by the Supreme Court in several cases after determining the facts and circumstances of each case.

Latest post


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *