Principles of joint liability Section 34 Common intention, common object and Section 120A Criminal conspiracy and its relation with Section 10 Indian Evidence Act

A criminal Liability arises when a person commits an offence which is criminal in nature. Ordinarily, everyman is responsible criminally for a criminal act done by him alone. No man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. However section 34,149 and 120A of the Indian Penal Code makes an exception to this principle. These Sections of the Indian Penal Code deals with Joint criminal liability. Joint criminal liability is the liability of two or more persons liable for an offence.

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code says that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of common intension of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability in doing a criminal act. This section deals with common intention. Sec. 34 IPC stood the test of time and remained in the statue book without any changes as drafted by Lord Macaulay in the original code since 1860.

A criminal act in section 34 includes a series of acts further, act includes omission to act. This section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive or specific offence. Section 34 lays down the principle of constructive liability. Actual or physical presence is not necessary to constitute the crime under this section. 

Supreme Court in Pandurang vs state of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216 had elucidated that, to  attract the applicability of sec. 34 of the Code the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which 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 common intention of all. The Court had in mind the ultimate act done in furtherance of the common intention.

In Suresh Vs State of  UP 2001 (3) SCC 673 Supreme Court held that even the “virtual presence “of the accused is sufficient if there is evidence for common intention and participation.

Section 149 of the code mentioned about common object. This section states that if offence is committed by member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly or such as 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. Unlike section 34 this section creates specific and distinct offence. Section 149 is wider than section 34. 

Section 120A define Criminal Conspiracy. This section states that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Single person cannot be convicted under section 120A but according to Section 34 single person can be convicted because each is responsible for the acts of all others. State of Tamil Nadu through superintendent of police CBI/SIT  Vs Nalini AIR 1999 SC 2640 in the case supreme court summarized the law relating to conspiracy. Section 196(1A) Criminal Procedure Code which requires previous sanction of the state government or the District Magistrate to launch prosecution in respect of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with less than two years imprisonment.

Sec 10 Indian Evidence Act and Sec 34 Indian Penal Code

Sec 10 Indian Evidence Act introduced the Doctrine of agency and if the acts done by one are admissible against the co – conspirators. Sec 34 IPC, 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.