Elements Of Section 34: To attract the application of Section 34, the following conditions must be satisfied:- 1. Reality Common Intention Section 34 Common Object Section 149 Number of persons must be more than 1. Section 149 creates specific offence. The number of wrong doers should be at least two. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.
In short, doing any act which advances or aids the carrying out of the common intention makes a person guilty of the main offence. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instanti. Section 149 deals with joint liability on common object while Section 34 deals with joint liability on common intention. The act must have been done with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. Section 34 does not lay down any limit to the number of persons combining, but Section 149 fixes a minimum of five to form an unlawful assembly.
Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such which was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object; 4. C is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all. Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the offence is sufficient. Section 149 creates joint liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly. Sometimes there arises difficulty in proving with evidence that whether they shared common intention or not. He having ceased to be a member of the unlawful assembly, constructive liability for murder in pursuance of common object cannot be fastened on to him under Section 149. The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings of the trial court and held the accused guilty of murder.
Section 149 creates a specific offence. However, there may be cases which would be within the first part but offences committed in prosecution of the common object; would be generally, if not always, be within the second part, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. Common Intention and Similar Intention Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. It dose not create a distinct offence but merely enunciates a principal of joint liability for act dene in furtherance of common intention of the offenders.
Although, there is a difference in common object and common intention, they both deal with combination of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence, and a charge under Section 149 is no impediment to a conviction under Section 34 if the evidence discloses the commission of the offence in furtherance of the common intention of all. Section 34 refers to cases where several persons intend to do and do an act, it does not refer to cases where several persons intend to do an act and some one or more of them do an entirely different act. Common object :- Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides that If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. Pre-arranged plan means prior concept or prior concert of prior meeting of minds. It also means evil intent to commit some criminal act, but not necessarily the same offence which is committed was held in Saidu Khan vs. The distinction between common intention and common object has also been pointed out elaborately.
Ramachander vs State of Rajasthan, 1970 Cr. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and knew the common object of the assembly. In the mean time they opened fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money. Even after so much effort, there arise problems of which law will be applicable amongst the two in some crucial cases, and investigators and charge sheet filers make mistakes in this regard. Liability under section 149 is based on the existence of common object or knowledge of the probability of the commission of the offence i. Offence of criminal conspiracy is thus wider in amplitude then abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107, Indian Penal Code. It states a rule of law which is read with other substantive offences.
However, these ambiguities were removed by the Supreme Court in different cases, after determining its facts and situation of each case. The number of wrong doers should be at least two. Common intention :- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the offence is sufficient. When two agree to carry it into effect the very plot is an act itself. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act.
Criminal act must be done by any member of such assembly; 3. Elements Of Section 149:- The essence of offence under Section 149 is assembly of several five or more persons having one or more of the common objects mentioned in Section 141 and it could be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. Active participation in commission of crime is not necessary. There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141; 2. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary.
According to Section 34, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Unlawful Assembly The Indian Penal Code does not punish mere assembly of persons. An offence may be committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and the other members will be liable for that offence, although there was no common intention between that person and other members of the unlawful assembly to commit that offence provided the conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled. Section 149 creates a specific offence and deals with the punishment of that offence alone. He has worked in senior management positions in both public and private sectors.
Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: — The criminal act in question must have been done by several persons i. A small group within the procession feels at a certain stage that a mere gherao would be ineffective and so they break furniture, another group commits arson. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon inference to be drawn from proved facts and circumstances of each case. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. Prior Plan: The expression common intention implies a pre-concert plan before the act. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled 'Babasaheb Apparo Patil v.