IPC Section 34: Common Intention

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson
Download our mobile app to listen on the go
Get App

Questions and Answers

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) embodies which legal principle?

  • Individual liability for all criminal acts.
  • Vicarious liability for unintended consequences
  • Joint liability for acts done with common intention. (correct)
  • Strict liability for all members of a group.

What is the significance of the phrase 'in furtherance of the common intention of all' in Section 34 of the IPC?

  • It requires that the criminal act be done to advance the pre-conceived plan. (correct)
  • It emphasizes the act should have been committed in public view.
  • It limits liability to the direct perpetrators of the criminal act.
  • It expands liability to those who indirectly benefit from the act.

According to Section 34 of the IPC, what condition must be met for multiple individuals to be jointly liable for a criminal act?

  • The act must violate a specific law.
  • The criminal act must have caused significant harm.
  • The individuals must share a common intention to commit that act. (correct)
  • Each individual must have directly participated in the act.

In the context of Section 34 IPC, what is the role of a 'pre-arranged plan' among the accused individuals?

<p>It is a mandatory requirement for establishing joint liability. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did the court determine in the case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. Emperor regarding liability under Section 34 IPC?

<p>All individuals with common intentions are liable, regardless of their specific role. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the Mahboob Shah vs. Emperor case (Indus River Case), what principle was emphasized concerning Section 34 of the IPC?

<p>The necessity of establishing a prior agreement of minds between the accused. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the key point established in the Risideo Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case regarding common intention under Section 34?

<p>Common intention can develop spontaneously at the scene of the incident. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to the A. Venkayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ruling, what is the effect on other co-accused if one is acquitted under Section 34?

<p>Other co-accused may still be liable despite one acquittal. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad, what did the Supreme Court emphasize regarding the application of common intention when several people inflict injury on a single person?

<p>It must be proven that a shared intention to cause death existed among all individuals. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is NOT a necessary condition for the application of Section 34 of the IPC?

<p>All accused must have directly participated in the crime. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Section 34 IPC: Common Intention

When a criminal act is carried out by multiple individuals with a shared intention, each person is held responsible as if they performed the act alone.

Joint Liability Principle

The concept that when two or more individuals jointly commit a crime, each is individually considered to have committed the act.

Conditions for Applying Section 34

  1. A criminal act occurred.
  2. The act was done by more than one person.
  3. The act furthers the common intention.
  4. There was a pre-arranged plan.
  5. All accused were involved.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. Emperor

Individuals sharing a common intention are liable, regardless of their specific role (e.g., waiting outside). Involvement in any form makes one liable.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Mahboob Shah vs. Emperor (Indus River Case)

To punish someone under Section 34, a criminal act must be committed with a common intention, and prior planning is essential.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Risideo Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Common intention can develop spontaneously at the scene of the incident.

Signup and view all the flashcards

A. Venkayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

If one co-accused is acquitted, it does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the others.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad

When several people attack someone, it doesn't automatically imply they all intended to kill the person, unless the prosecution proves common intention.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

Section 34 IPC: Common Intention

  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the concept of common intention in criminal acts.
  • It's a frequently asked long question in exams.
  • The section deals with situations where a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.
  • In such cases, each person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Joint Liability Principle

  • Section 34 embodies the principle of joint liability.
  • If two or more persons jointly commit an act, each is considered to have done it individually.
  • This section was created to deal with cases where it's difficult to distinguish the acts of each individual involved.
  • Key aspects:
    • Joint commission of a criminal act.
    • Personal liability of each person involved.
    • The phrase "in furtherance of the common intention of all" was added in 1870.
    • Based on the principle of joint liability.

Conditions for Applying Section 34

  • A criminal act must have occurred.
  • The criminal act must be done by more than one person.
  • The act must be in furtherance of the common intention of all those involved.
  • There should be a pre-arranged plan among the individuals.
  • All the accused must be involved in some way or the other in the act.

Key Case Laws

  • Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. Emperor:
    • The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of a sub-postmaster.
    • The appellant argued he was only standing outside the post office and didn't fire the shot, and was forced to join the others after the looting.
    • Court held that individuals who are part of a common intention are liable, even if they are waiting outside.
    • Court clarified that any person involved in any form is liable, including helping or providing information.
  • Mahboob Shah vs. Emperor (Indus River Case):
    • This case is also known as the "Sindhu River Case."
    • The court gave the guidlines for Section 34.
    • To punish an accussed under Section 34, a criminal act must be committed for the common intention.
    • There should be an agreement of minds between accussed persons.
    • Planning before an incident is very important.
    • Common intention has to be ensured until it is determined in the circumstances of cases.
  • Risideo Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh:
    • The court stated that common intention can arise even at the scene of the incident as well.
  • A. Venkayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh:
    • The court said that if one of the co-accused is acquitted, the others do not automatically get acquitted.
  • Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad:
    • The Supreme Court stated when several people strike a person to kill him, it is likely that they don't intend to kill all of them.
    • Because there were no witnesses so the prosectution could not prove that everybody wanted to kill him in order to promote common intention.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

More Like This

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Open
Browser
Browser