INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Gulab
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1211, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court discussed Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that deals
with criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
The purpose of this post is to provide only a
basic understanding of Section 34. For more detailed analysis on Section 34,
various commentaries and case-laws may be referred to.
SECTION 34 OF IPC
Section 34 states that: -
“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.”
INTERPRETATION
Thus, each and every person is vicariously liable
for the criminal acts done by them in furtherance of a common intention. According
to the Court, “ordinarily, a person is responsible for his own act. A
person can also be vicariously responsible for the acts of others if he had the
common intention to commit the offence. The words “common intention” imply a
prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It must be proved
that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan.
Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point
of time, which need not be a long gap.”
It is to be further understood that “though common
intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of
time to the commission of the crime showing a prearranged plan and prior
concert. The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must
be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference.”
COMMON INTENTION
We see that the text of Section 34 is so cleverly
worded that decades of judicial interpretation has taken place and still, there
is no sign that Section 34 has become irrelevant or diminished in its utility.
With respect to common intention, it has also been observed by the Court that:
-
a. “A
common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan
because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of
another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of
them all.”
b. “There must have been a prior meeting of
minds.”
c. “It is not enough to have the same
intention independently of each other.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Court held that following are
the fundamental principles underlying Section 34 of IPC: -
a. “Section 34 does not create a distinct offence
but is a principle of constructive liability.”
b. “In order to incur a joint liability for
an offence there must be a pre-arranged and pre-mediated concert between the
accused persons for doing the act actually done.”
c. “There may not be a long interval between
the act and the pre-meditation and the plan may be formed suddenly. In order
for Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution must prove an
act was done by a particular person;” and
d. “The provision is intended to cover cases
where a number of persons act together and on the facts of the case, it is not
possible for the prosecution to prove who actually committed the crime.”
Thus, I hope that basic meaning of Section 34 and ‘Common
Intention’ is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment