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.

Section 499 IPC – Criminal Defamation

Criminal defamation, as defined in section 499 IPC, is one of the most controversial provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Time and again, we see defamations news popping up on our televisions and newspapers. Defamation is civil wrong under the tort law as well as a criminal offense under the IPC. We all are well aware that the right to speech is a fundamental right under the Constitution; therefore, the offense of defamation is debated on this issue. But the Supreme Court has held in several cases that the offense of defamation under Section 499 does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution.

“Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The concept of social interest has to be kept in mind when considering the reasonableness of a restriction”. [1]

What is Defamation?

Section 499 says that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputa­tion, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or a state generally considered as disgrace­ful. [2]

Therefore from the above provision, it is evident that defamation is done not only through words spoken but also written. It may be done by signs or visible representation that is directed towards a particular person to cause harm to a person’s reputation. There are four exceptions provided under the provision.

Explanation of Criminal Defamation

Right to speech and expression is one of the important Fundamental rights; therefore, when it is made, limited necessary points need to be considered. Defamation is made an offense under the criminal law, and certain explanations are attached to it to make the understanding clear.

1. Deceased person- usually no defamation is caused to a person who is dead, but, it may amount to defamation if the statement to act done to defame that person causes harm or is derogatory to his family or any of his family members.
2. Corporate body- Although it was controversial as to whether the corporate body can file a defamation suit. The SC strike out the balance between Art. 19 and the right of corporate bodies to file criminal defamation case for alleged damage to reputation.[3]
3. Indirect statement- Sometimes, even an ironically passed statement may also amount to defamation.
4. Lowering intellectual- if a statement is passed by a person to lower the person reputation, then it would be defamatory.

Defamation in English Law

Defamation in English law is classified under two categories-

1. Libel- representation made in some permanent form. For eg.- publication in a newspaper or any other writing form.
2. Slander-statement made in some transcient form. For eg.- by spoken words.

In India, there is no such classification of the offense of defamation. The Madras and Bombay High court has also held that there is no need to make such classification under the Indian criminal law.[4]

Exceptions of Defamation

1. Justification of truth- Law, will not guide a person or favor a person to receive compensation for something true. In a case, the defendant published a defamatory statement against, but the statements were true, so it was not considered as an offense.[5]
2. Fair comment- making fair comments in the public interest is not defamation.
3. Privilege- Giving special status to certain persons protects them from the offense under section 499. These privileges are absolute as well as qualified.

Conclusion

Defamation is one of the most controversial offense. Right to Speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution, but the right is not absolute, and it is restricted. The offense of defamation is a form of this restriction made on the Fundamental Right. A person cannot speak or publish any derogatory remarks for any other person.

[1] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law &ors. (2014) SC 184.

[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 499.

[3] Priya Pillai v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) SC 132.

[4] Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshawdulji (1927) Bom 22.

[5] Radheshayam Tiwari v. Eknath (1895) Bom 285.

Seven Stereotypes About Self Defence Laws In India That Aren't Always True

Introduction

It is the primary duty of the state to protect its citizens from any harm. But circumstances may arise where the state aid is not available, or the state is not able to lend hands for the protection of an individual against imminent danger or harm. In such a situation, an individual is vested upon with rights by the state to use force to fend-off the immediate threat to his or someone else’s property or person. This right is the right of private defense or self-defense.

Right of Private Defence

The primary rule in criminal law is Self-help. Every country should provide its citizens with the right of private defense to protect his life, liberty, and property. This right also brings with itself numerous restrictions and limitations. Though the right of private defense was granted to the citizens as a weapon for self-defense but is often misused by people for their evil purposes.

In India, Section 96 to 106 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for provisions relating to the right of Private Defence of person and property. This right can only be exercised when recourse to public authorities is not available to a person. One of the main principles on which the right of private defense is based is ‘reasonableness’ of the defense used. The extent to exercise the right of private defense depends on the reasonableness of the apprehension of the danger and not on the extent of actual danger.

Statutory Provision for self-defense in India

Section 96 of Indian Penal Code

This section talks about the things done in private defense and explains that nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.

Right of private defense is not an offense, and in fact, it is an act done in defense. The right of self-defense under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defense. The burden of proof is upon the person who pleads for the right of private defense.

Consequently, this right cannot be allowed to be used as a shield to justify an act. A very careful weighing of the facts and circumstances of each case is required to decide as to whether the accused had, in fact, acted under this right. There is no place for assumptions on the part of the accused while exercising this right. There must be a reasonable apprehension about the possibility of an attack to exercise the right of private defense.

Section 97 of Indian Penal Code

Section 97 talks about the Right of private defense of the body and of Property. Each individual has a right to defend himself, i.e., his body or the body of any other person.  Similarly, he has the right to protect his property or else’s property, whether movable or immovable against an act which amounts to an offense of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.

There must be an offense committed or attempted to be committed against a person who wants to invoke the plea of right of private defense. An injury caused to a man in question is not considered necessary for deciding the question of the accrual of the right of the private defense. Reasonable apprehension of causing grievous injury is absolutely enough to exercise the right of private defense.

Section 98 of Indian Penal Code

This section talks about Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. The right of private defense also exists in cases which would not result into an offense due to the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on behalf of the person. Every person has the same right to private defense against the act which he would have if the act was an offense.

Section 99 of Indian Penal Code

Section 99 limits the exercise of the right of private defense. It lays down the various conditions under which the right of private defense has to be exercised or invoked.

The first three clauses of section 99 provide that this right cannot be invoked when:

• a public servant acting in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt,
• any person acting the direction of a public servant in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt,
• reasonable time exists to resort help of public authorities.
• There must be reasonable grounds to b believe that the act done was done by a person under public authority.

Section 100 of Indian Penal Code

Sec 100 specifies seven situations in the exercise of the right to private defense of the body extend to causing death. The right of private defense of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offense is of nature herein described:

• Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of death
• Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of grievous hurt
• An assault with the intention of committing rape
• An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
• Assault having the intention of abducting or kidnapping
• An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will not be able to take protection from public authorities for his release.
• An act or attempt to throw acid

Section 101 of Indian Penal Code

This section prescribes for when the right of self-defense extends to causing any harm other than death. If the offense is not of the nature mentioned in the above section, the right of private defense of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant but does extend, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt : Provision and Punishment

Section 102 of Indian Penal Code

Section 102 deals with Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of the body. As soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises to the body from an attempt or threat to commit the offense even though the offense may not have been committed, the right of private defense commences. And it continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the body continues. This apprehension should be real and reasonable.

In Kala Singh case, the deceased was a strong man of a dangerous character. Previously in a fight with the accused, he threw the accused on the ground, pressed him hard and bit him. The accused took up a light hatchet and gave three blows of the same on the brute’s head. The deceased died after three days of this fight. It was held that the circumstances raised a strong apprehension of danger in the mind of the accused that he would be killed otherwise. This apprehension was real and reasonable and not timid and fancy, and so his exercise of the right of private defense is justified.

Section 103 of Indian Penal Code

This section provides for when the right of private defense of property extends to causing death. Whereas sec 100 provides for the exercise of the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death. The right of private defence of the property also extends to death when voluntarily caused or if any harm is caused in the form of an offense. Provided such an offense is in the form of the following descriptions, namely:

• Robbery
• House-breaking by night
• Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property
• Theft, mischief, or house-trespass

Section 104 of Indian Penal Code

It says that if the committing or attempting to commit any offense leads to the exercise of the right of self-defense, then such a right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death but extends to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death. Provided that the offense is not of any other nature as described in the previous section.

Section 105 of Indian Penal Code

Section 105 prescribes the commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property. The commencement of the right of private defense of property takes place when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property takes place. Continuation of this right against theft takes place until the offender affects his retreat with the property or the property has been recovered. Continuation of the right of private defense against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt.

Section 106 of Indian Penal Code Right

This section mentions that private defense against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person. If in the exercise of the right of private defense by a person against an assault causes reasonable apprehension of death, the defender so situated, cannot effectually exercise the right of private defense without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defense extends to the running of that risk.

The obstacle is the doubt which exists in the mind of the defender if he is entitled to exercise his right even when there is a possibility of some innocent persons being harmed by his actions. According to this Section, in case of an assault which causes a reasonable apprehension of death, if the defender is facing a situation where there exists a risk of harm to an innocent person, there is no restriction on him to exercise his right of defense, and thus he is entitled to run that risk.

Conclusion

The right of private defense is a weapon to the citizens of India for their self-defense but is often used by many people for evil purposes or unlawful purposes. It is the court’s duty to make sure if the right was exercised in good faith or not.

The extent to avail the right of private defense depends on the real apprehension of danger and not on actual danger. This right can be extended only in some situations to a certain degree. The amount of force to be used should only be the amount necessary to counter the attack.