Introduction

A person who genuinely commits a crime is usually held legally accountable for their actions and
punished accordingly. The criminal responsibility concept states that the individual who commits an
offence is liable and may alone be declared guilty. However, Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, create an exception to the norm, placing criminal culpability on the culprit and their
associates who collaborated in the commission of the crime in support of a common intention or
prosecution of a common aim. Each of them becomes jointly accountable in such a scenario. The
Supreme Court of India had viewed the same in the notable case of Ramesh Singh alias Photti v. State
of Andhra Pradesh.
COMMON INTENTION (SECTION 34)
Section 34: Acts Done By Several Persons In Furtherance Of Common Intention- 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.
Object Of Section 34: Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive
offence. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the
acts of the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in
furtherance of the common intention of all. 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 has done it individually. 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.
Elements Of Section 34
To attract the application of Section 34, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: The criminal act in question must have been done by
several persons i.e. by more than one person. The number of wrong doers should be at least
two. Most importantly, if the criminal act was fresh and independent act springing wholly from
the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely because when it was done they were
intending to be partakers with the doer in a different criminal act.
2. Common Intention: The words “in furtherance of the common intention of all” were added to
section 34 after words ‘persons’ in 1870 the idea for which, possibly, was derived from the
following passage of the Privy Council’s judgment:
“Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common intention, each and everyone
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.” [Ref. Ganesh Singh
v. Ram Raja ]
Where there is no indication of premeditation or of a pre-arranged plan, the mere fact that the
two accused were seen at the spot or that the two accused fired as a result of which one person
died and two others received simple injuries could not be held sufficient to infer common
intention [Ref. Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan].
3. Participation In The Criminal Act: To constitute Section 34, the persons involved in the offence
must have been consented to it. Their physical presence coupled with actual participation is
necessary. He need not involve in commission of the offence. If he joins the other offenders and
simply stands at the door, he is liable.
4. In Furtherance of Common Intention: The expression in furtherance of" means 'action of helping
forward'. The offence is committed in accordance with the common intention. In other words, it
means putting the common intention in operation.
Relevant case laws
Common intention can be proved from the circumstances of a case which illuminate the state of mind
of the accused.
Khacheru Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: In this case, several persons attacked a man with lathis when
he was passing through a field. The man eluded them and they gave chase; on overtaking him they
once again attacked him. Held, these facts were sufficient to prove that the accused had been actuated
with the common intention to assault the victim. Conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34
was sustained.
COMMON OBJECT (SECTION 149)
Section 149, like Section 34, is the other instance of constructive joint liability. Section 149 creates a
specific offence. It runs as under:
“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 assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
Elements Of Section 149
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. So the essential ingredients of
Section 149 are:
1. There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141;
2. Criminal act must be done by any member of such assembly;
3. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly;
4. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and knew the common object of the
assembly.
5. Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a person liable for the
offence committed even if he had no intention to commit that offence.
Scope Of Section 149
The Section is divided into two parts-
1. In Prosecution Of The Common Object: The words “in prosecution of the common object” show
that the offence committed was immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful
assembly of which accused were members. The act must have been done with a view to
accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.
In Queen v. Sabid Ali, the words “in prosecution of the common object” were construed as
meaning “with a view to achievement of the common object”.
2. Members Knew To Be Likely: The second part relates to a situation where the members of the
assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
A thing is likely to happen only when the situation is like “it will probably happen” or “may very
well happen”. The word ‘knew’ indicates a state of mind at the time of commission of an offence,
knowledge in this regard must be proved. The word ‘likely’ means some clear evidence that the
unlawful assembly had such a knowledge.
Relevant Case Laws
Mahmood v. State of U.P.. In this case, it was held that once it is established that a person was a
member of unlawful assembly, prosecution need not establish any specific overt act to any of the
accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C.
Distinction between Common Intention (Section 34) and Common Object (Section 149)
BASIS FOR COMMON COMMON
COMPARISON INTENTION OBJECT

Meaning Common Common Object

Intention implies refers to a
a meeting of purpose which
mind of the is shared by all
persons charged the members of
of the crime, an unlawful
requiring a assembly.
preliminary unity.

Prior Required before Not required

agreement and the crime takes before the crime
consensus place. takes place.

Pre-arranged The criminal act is The criminal act

plan the result of a is not the result
pre-arranged of a pre-
plan. arranged plan.

Number of Two or more Five or more

persons

Substantive It sets out the It creates a

offence principles of specific
constructive substantive
liability without offence.
the creation of
any substantive
offence.

Liability All the persons All the persons

involved in involved in
committing the committing the
crime are equally crime may or
liable. may not be
equally liable.