Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It was held in case titled Man Singh & Anr vs State of Madhya Pradesh in Cr. A No.312 of 2011 dated 27.04.2022 from Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at relevant para that Section 34 IPC does not create a distinct offence. It was laid down that Section 34 does not create a distinct offence but it is a principle of constructive liability. The relevant para are reproduced as hereunder:

15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent.'' (23) So far as next contention of the counsel for the appellants that no conviction for instigation or exhortation can be recorded against the accused appellant Man Singh alleged to have exhorted the actual assailant is concerned, in the case at hand, there is direct and positive evidence that at the instigation of appellant accused Man Singh, appellant-

U/s 395/397/120B IPC P. S. Sadar Bazar accused Narendra fired at the deceased. Therefore, in the light of unanimous and categorical statements of prosecution witnesses, the contention of counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. The evidence of witnesses relating to exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable. In view whereof, it cannot be said that appellant accused Man Singh was not sharing common intention with appellant accused Narendra Singh in commission of murder of deceased in question. In this regard, a reliance can be placed on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Bhoma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 1987 WLN UC 128 wherein, it has been held as under:-

U/s 395/397/120B IPC P. S. Sadar Bazar 11 Section 109, IPC defines abetment.

Among other things, it speaks that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing. Instigation in law, thus, indicates some active suggestion such as command, order exhortation etc. to the commission of the offence. It is a direct incitement by one to the other to commit the crime. Exhortation by one culprit to the other to commit the offence, constitutes abetment.

13. It was argued by Mr. Doongarsingh that the evidence as regard to the verbal exhortation should not be readily believed. Oral evidence relating to exhortation is of weak type and the Court should be reluctant to accept that evidence. In support of his contention, Mr. Doongar Singh placed reliance on Jainual Haque v. State of Bihar . It was observed by their Lordships that the evidence of exhortation is by nature weak and conviction for abetment should not be recorded without clear, cogent and reliable evidence in this respect.'' (24) We shall also go back into the history to understand Section 34 of IPC as it stood at the inception and as it exists now. Generally speaking, Section 34 IPC provides an acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. 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. (25) In the recent decision of Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs. State of Punjab decided on 7th January, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1584 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 1816 of 2019) U/s 395/397/120B IPC P. S. Sadar Bazar the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under in detail:-