Principle of Joint Liability Under Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code

 

PRINCIPLE OF JOINT LIABILITY UNDER SEC.34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

 

Section 34 of Indian penal code reads as follows:

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the 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.

Principle:- This section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Therefore Sec.34 IPC, would apply even if no charge is framed under that section provided of course from the evidence it becomes clear that there was pre-arranged plan to achieve the commonly intended object. Thus where six person were charged under sec.148,302/149 and 307/149 IPC, but two were acquitted, the remaining four accused could be convicted on the charges of murder and attempt to murder with the aid of S-34 of the penal code. This section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. It is a well recognised canon of criminal jurisprudence that the courts cannot distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were possible as the part taken by each in the crime. Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common object each and every one becomes responsible for the acts of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose, as the purpose is common, so must be the responsibility. All are guilty of the principle offence, not of abetment. In combinations of this kind a mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is deemed in the eye of the law to have been given by every individual present and abetting. The person actually giving the stroke is no more than the hand or instrument by which the others strike. But a party not cognizant of the intention of his companion to commit murder is not liable, though he has joined his companion to do an unlawful act. If the criminal act was a fresh and independent act springing wholly from the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely because when it was done there were intending to be partakers with the doer in a different criminal act.

The court can take recourse to sec.34 even if the section is not specifically mentioned in the charge.