Section 34 IPC and Punishment

 

Introduction

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 is an important provision that deals with criminal liability in a group or with common intention. According to this section, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In other words, if two or more persons commit a crime together, and it is established that they had a common intention to commit that crime, then each of them will be held equally responsible for the crime, even if their individual roles in committing the crime were different.

For example, if A and B plan to rob a bank and they both carry out the robbery together, then both of them will be held equally responsible for the crime of robbery, even if one of them physically carried out the robbery and the other acted as a lookout. It is important to note that for Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the criminal act must have been pre-planned. If two or more persons come together with the common intention of committing a crime and during the commission of that crime, one of them does an act that is an offence, then all of them will be held equally responsible for that act. The Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is commonly applied in cases of mob violence, riots, and other group criminal activities. It ensures that each person involved in the crime is held accountable for their actions, regardless of their individual role in the commission of the crime.

Elements of Section 34

 

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down the principle of joint liability for criminal acts committed by a group of individuals with a common intention. The section provides that when an offence is committed by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable for that offence as if it were committed by him alone.

The essentials of Section 34 IPC are as follows:

·         Presence of two or more persons: To attract Section 34, there must be at least two persons involved in the commission of the crime.

·         Common intention: The persons involved must have a common intention to commit the offence. The common intention must be pre-arranged and not merely a sudden impulse.

·         Participation of all: All the persons involved must have participated in the commission of the offence in some way or the other. It is not necessary that each person should have physically carried out the act; even if a person aids or abets the commission of the offence, he will be liable under Section 34.

·         Commission of the offence: The offence must be committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the persons involved. If the act committed is not in furtherance of the common intention, then Section 34 will not apply.

·         Criminal liability of all: Each person involved in the commission of the offence will be liable for the act as if it was done by him alone.

It is important to note that Section 34 does not create a new offence, but only provides a rule of evidence for holding all the persons involved in a group criminal activity with a common intention equally responsible for the crime. The section is commonly used in cases of rioting, unlawful assembly, and other group criminal activities. In conclusion, the essentials of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provide that when an offence is committed by a group of persons with a common intention, each person involved in the commission of the crime will be held equally liable for the offence. The section is a crucial tool for ensuring justice and accountability in cases of group criminal activities.

Relevant Case Laws

There have been several case laws related to the essentials of Section 34 IPC, which have helped in interpreting and understanding the provision. Some of the relevant case laws are:

Kripal Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court held that for Section 34 to apply, it is necessary to establish that the persons involved had a common intention to commit the offence. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to prove common intention.

Suresh and Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2001): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the common intention must be formed prior to the commission of the offence and not during the commission of the offence.

State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court held that even if a person does not actively participate in the commission of the offence but is present with the common intention to commit the offence, he will be liable under Section 34.

State of U.P. vs. Satish (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court held that Section 34 does not create a separate offence, but only provides a rule of evidence to hold all persons involved in the commission of the offence with a common intention equally liable for the offence.

Lallan Rai vs. State of Bihar (2003): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the common intention may be inferred from the conduct of the persons involved in the commission of the offence.

These case laws highlight the importance of the essentials of Section 34 IPC and how they are interpreted and applied in criminal cases. They provide guidance on the interpretation and application of the section and help ensure that justice is delivered in cases of group criminal activities.

Punishment related Provision 

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not provide for a separate punishment. Instead, it provides a rule of evidence that makes all the persons involved in the commission of an offence with a common intention equally liable for that offence. The punishment for an offence committed under Section 34 IPC depends on the nature and severity of the offence. The punishment for the specific offence committed by the group of persons will be determined as per the provisions of the IPC.

For example, if the group of persons involved in the commission of the offence is found guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, the punishment for each person involved will be the same as that provided for murder under Section 302 IPC, which is imprisonment for life or the death penalty.

It is important to note that the punishment for an offence committed under Section 34 IPC will be the same for all the persons involved in the commission of the offence. This is because Section 34 creates joint liability, and each person involved is equally responsible for the commission of the offence.

In conclusion, there is no separate punishment provision for Section 34 IPC. The punishment for an offence committed under this section will be determined based on the nature and severity of the offence committed by the group of persons involved, as per the provisions of the IPC.

Relevant Case laws related to Punishment Provision

Since Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not provide for a separate punishment, there are no case laws specific to the punishment provision related to Section 34. However, there are several case laws related to the joint liability created by Section 34, which provide guidance on the punishment that can be imposed on the persons involved in the commission of an offence with a common intention. Some of the relevant case laws are:

 

1.      Mahboob Shah and Anr. vs. Emperor (1945): In this case, the Privy Council held that when a group of persons is convicted of an offence under Section 34, the punishment must be the same for all the persons involved in the commission of the offence, irrespective of the degree of participation of each person.

2.      Kuldip Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2004): In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a group of persons is convicted of an offence under Section 34, the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the group.

3.      State of U.P. vs. Satish (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a person is convicted under Section 34, the punishment will be the same as that provided for the offence committed by the group, and there cannot be any separate punishment for the person under Section 34.

4.      Mohd. Shafi vs. State of Haryana (2015): In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a group of persons is convicted of an offence under Section 34, the punishment should be based on the role played by each person in the commission of the offence and the extent of their involvement.

 

These case laws highlight the importance of considering the gravity of the offence committed by the group and the extent of the involvement of each person while determining the punishment for an offence committed under Section 34 of the IPC. They provide guidance on how the punishment can be determined in cases of joint criminal liability under Section 34.