Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Introduction

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the joint liability of persons involved in a criminal act. It says that if more than one person is involved in a criminal act done to satisfy a common intention, then each of such persons will be liable in the same way as if it was done by him alone.

The ingredients of Section 34 are as follows

• There should be a criminal act;
• Several persons should do the act;
• The criminal act must be done to satisfy a common intention of all;
• There must be actual participation of all the persons in some way or the other in furthering the common intention.

Common Intention

When the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, Section 34 at that time did not include the provision of common intention, and later an amendment was made in the year 1870 to include it. Intention occupies a very crucial place in criminal law. The term ‘intention’ is not defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, but Section 34 of it deals with common intention. It implies a pre-decided plan and acting in accordance to execute that plan. It comes into the picture before the commission of the act.

Section 34 is limited to a situation, where an offense requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and is committed by more than one person who shares that intention. Each person who participates in the act with such knowledge or intention will be liable in the same way as if it were done by him exclusively with that intention or knowledge. The liability of all the individuals involved in this circumstance is called ‘Joint Liability.’

Joint Liability

Joint liability occurs in the case when there is the existence of common intention in the criminal act done. If it can be shown that it was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then the liability for the act may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him in his capacity. Court decisions have emphasized on the point that meeting of minds need not be something always very much before the incident, but could be something that may develop on the spot, at the very moment when the crime is being committed.

Proving that every one of the persons was involved in the actual act is irrelevant. The case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor is one of the most important and earliest cases where the court convicted another person for the act of another done in fulfillment of common intention. A group of armed persons had entered the police station and demanded money from the postmaster, where he was counting it. They fired from the pistol at him, due to which he died on the spot. All of the accused were able to escape without taking money. The Police were able to catch Barendra Kumar Ghosh who was standing outside the post office keeping a check. Barendra on being arrested contended that he was only standing as a guard, but the Calcutta high court convicted him for the murder of the postmaster. His appeal to the Privy Council was also rejected.

There is also a general rule in the criminal jurisprudence that the courts cannot distinguish between the people involved in an activity and it is impossible to see what part is played by whom in the commission of the act, so each person is held jointly liable for the acts of another.

Common intention versus Similar Intention

A common intention can only be said to be formed when the intention of one is known to all others and shared by them. It does not mean the similar intention of several persons formed at the moment. The mere presence of the accused together is not sufficient to form a common intention to commit the offense. It is necessary that the intention of each one of ‘several persons’ be known to each other for constituting common intention; otherwise, it will be a similar intention. Similar intention can happen for several persons at the same time.

The distinction between a common intention and similar intention is a real one and if overlooked by courts, may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Section 34 can be invoked only when the accused shares a common intention and not one a similar intention. Unless the common intention is proved, individuals will be liable for their actions only. If there occurs any doubt, the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused.

Conclusion 

Section 34 does not lay down a separate offense but defines the liabilities. Therefore, it is always read with other sections for framing of charges or while deciding the punishment. The maximum sentence for an offense would depend upon the main offense along with which Section 34 is applied. To bring this section into effect a prior meeting of minds need not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between several persons and could be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case. There must be an ultimate objective, the fulfillment of which should be the goal of each person involved.

Original blog is published in legodesk please do visit the website for legal service and legal help.

Simple Guidance For You In Section 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

INTRODUCTION TO IPC 323

The Indian Penal Code covers the offense of hurt under Chapter XVI, i.e., “Offences Affecting Life.” Section 323 punishes voluntary causing of hurt under the same.

The provision laid under Section 319 reads as: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The important points for establishing an offense of under Section 319 are:

• Firstly, bodily pain caused should be physical. In other words, such pain should not be emotional or mental.
• Secondly, infirmity includes temporary mental impairment, hysteria, or terror.
• Thirdly, communicating diseases is also a cause of ‘hurt.’

The courts have taken a mixed approach to the third point. For example, in the case of R v. Clarence[1], there was a transfer of venereal disease from the husband to wife. The husband resisted from informing his wife in spite of knowing about his condition. Because if she had come to see, she would not have agreed for sexual intercourse. Contrarily, the court held that the husband was not guilty of causing ‘hurt.’

It is differentiated from the offense of ‘Grievous-Hurt[2]’. It is of a graver intensity as compared to ‘hurt’ and thus, lesser punishment is applicable in case of hurt.

VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT

A small case under Section 319 is not punishable. Thus, IPC demarcates a separate offense for hurting voluntarily or intentionally. Section 321 states: “Whoever does any act to thereby cause hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said, “voluntarily to cause hurt.”

In Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva v. State of Gujarat[3], the court has discussed the essential ingredients which constitute the offense under section 323 IPC. These areas under:

1. “The accused caused hurt to another person;
2. He caused such hurt voluntarily;
3. S. 334 does not protect his act.”

Exception

Furthermore, these provisions under Section 321 is subject to Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. Anyone who acts unintentionally or without any knowledge and causes hurt to a person who provoked him would have a reduced punishment as a result of lack of intention.

However, it is necessary here that the provocation must be grave and sudden.

Punishment

A person causing hurt voluntarily is punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both under Section 323 IPC.

However, this punishment is subject to Section 334 which provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both in case of doing the act under grave and sudden provocation.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt: Provision and Punishment

Other Forms Of Voluntarily Causing Hurt

1. Voluntarily Causing of Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Section 324 specifically defines ‘voluntarily causing of hurt by dangerous weapons or means’ as an offense. The special circumstances of voluntarily causing hurt laid down under Section 324 are by means of:

1. an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
2. an instrument which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, or
3. fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
4. explosive substance, or
5. the substance which is harmful to the human body to inhale, to swallow, to receive into the blood, or
6. any animal.

Likewise, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, is enforceable in case of voluntary hurt by dangerous means.[4] And it is also subject of Section 334.

2. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Property, Or To Constrain To An Illegal Act –

Voluntarily hurting a person to extort any property or valuable security from him or any person interested in him or constraining to do anything illegal is separately punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also relevant fine.[5]

3. Causing Hurt by Means of Poison to Commit an Offence – 

Section 328 of the IPC says that, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt is an offender.

Furthermore, such an offense would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.[6]

4. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Confession – 

Voluntarily hurting a person so as to extort any confession or information from either the sufferer or anyone interested, which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct and vice versa, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also makes a person liable to fine.[7]

Illustration: Torturing a person in order to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited makes a person guilty of an offense under Section 332.

5. Voluntary Hurt by Endangering Life in Public – 

Whoever hurts any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.[8]

CONCLUSION

Thus, intentional or voluntarily hurting anyone is a punishable offense. Section 323 of the IPC punishes it accordingly. In addition to this, several separate offenses are also formed in furtherance of a voluntary act.

[1] (1889) 22 QB 23.

[2] Section 322, Indian Penal Code 1860.

[3] Criminal Misc. Application No. 3120 of 2014.

[4] Supra note 2, Section 324.

[5] Ibid, S. 327.

[6] Ibid, S. 328.

[7] Ibid, S. 332.

[8] Ibid, S. 337.