Joint Liability Under Sections 34 And 149 Ipc
Overview: Joint Liability under Sections 34 and 149 IPC
Section 34 IPC — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable as if they had done it alone.
It is a doctrine of common intention.
Key features:
There must be a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds.
The act done must be in furtherance of the common intention.
Liability is joint and several — all involved are equally responsible.
The mental element of common intention distinguishes Section 34 from mere presence at the scene.
Section 149 IPC — Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
This applies when an offense is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
Features:
Requires unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141.
The offense committed must be in prosecution of the common object.
All members are liable, whether or not they actively participated.
It is a doctrine of common object.
Differs from Section 34 in that it applies to unlawful assemblies and does not require pre-arranged plan, but the offense must be in furtherance of the common object.
Distinction Between Sections 34 and 149 IPC
| Aspect | Section 34 IPC | Section 149 IPC |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Common intention (pre-arranged plan) | Common object (unlawful assembly) |
| Requirement | Prior meeting of minds | Formation of unlawful assembly |
| Liability | Joint and several | Joint and several for acts in prosecution of common object |
| Scope | Acts in furtherance of common intention | Acts committed in furtherance of common object of assembly |
| Presence | Requires active participation or presence | Liability for acts by any member in prosecution of common object |
Important Cases on Joint Liability under Sections 34 and 149 IPC
1. Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 300
Facts:
Multiple accused were involved in the murder but the act was committed by one.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that if the act was done in furtherance of common intention, all are liable under Section 34.
The presence at the scene and participation in the act for the common intention is crucial.
Principle:
Established that mere presence is not enough, there must be an active role or participation in the common intention.
2. R. v. Jogee & Ors, (2016) UKSC 8 (Though not Indian, influential)
The Supreme Court of the UK clarified that common intention requires intention to assist or encourage the principal offender.
This clarified the mens rea requirement, influencing Indian courts to scrutinize common intention carefully.
3. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
Facts:
Accused claimed actions were done without common intention.
Holding:
Court held that the presence and knowledge of plan can infer common intention.
If acts are done in furtherance of a plan or common intention, liability is joint.
4. Lallu @ Lalloo v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 178
Facts:
Accused were part of an unlawful assembly that committed murder.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that liability under Section 149 arises if the crime is committed in prosecution of common object.
Even if a member did not physically commit the offense, he is liable if the act is in furtherance of the common object.
5. Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 255
Facts:
Multiple accused charged under Section 149 for murder committed by one member of unlawful assembly.
Holding:
The court clarified the distinction between common object and common intention.
Section 149 requires an unlawful assembly and the offense to be committed in furtherance of common object.
6. Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 415
Facts:
Accused participated in a mob attack.
Holding:
Section 149 applies where an unlawful assembly commits offense in prosecution of common object.
Mere membership of unlawful assembly makes all liable for offenses committed by any member.
7. K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 1222
Facts:
Accused charged under Section 34 and 149 for rioting and causing injury.
Holding:
Court held that liability under Section 34 arises where there is common intention, and under Section 149 where there is common object of unlawful assembly.
Liability is strict once the conditions are satisfied.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad | 1955 | Common intention in murder | Liability if act in furtherance of common intention | Active participation required |
| Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra | 1962 | Proof of common intention | Presence and knowledge suffice to infer intention | Expanded scope of Section 34 |
| Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab | 1954 | Distinction between Sections 34 & 149 | Clarified common object vs intention | Foundation for Section 149 |
| Lallu v. State of Bihar | 2013 | Unlawful assembly and common object | Liability for all if act in prosecution of common object | Application of Section 149 |
| Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana | 2007 | Liability of unlawful assembly members | Membership sufficient for liability | Reinforced Section 149 |
| K. Chandrasekhar v. Tamil Nadu | 1992 | Rioting & injury charges | Liability under 34 & 149 when conditions met | Clear differentiation of the two sections |
Practical Illustration
If a group of people plan together to commit a robbery and one of them kills someone during the act, all can be held liable for murder under Section 34 IPC, because the act was done in furtherance of their common intention.
If a group forms an unlawful assembly to commit a riot, and during the riot a person commits murder, all members of the assembly are liable under Section 149 IPC, even if only one committed the murder, as long as it was in prosecution of the common object.
Conclusion
Section 34 IPC requires proof of a pre-arranged plan and common intention among the accused.
Section 149 IPC requires formation of an unlawful assembly and an offense committed in furtherance of its common object.
Both impose joint liability, but differ in the nature of mental element (intention vs object) and the factual matrix (common plan vs unlawful assembly).
Courts carefully analyze facts to determine whether the act was done in furtherance of common intention or common object.
RELATED Blog
0 comments