Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Chinta Pulla Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 March, 1993
The Section does not say "the common intention of
all", nor does it say "and intention common to all".
Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the
liability is to be found in the existence of a common
intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a
criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result
of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34,
when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for
the act which caused death of the deceased in the same
manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is
intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to
distinguish between acts of individual members of a party
who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to
prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was
observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 1899), Section 34 is applicable even if
no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself.
For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some
overt act on the part of the accused.
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 21 September, 1976
Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint
liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is
only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive
offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the
element of participation in action. The liability of one
person for an offence committed by another in the course of
criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under
Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a
common intention of the persons who join in committing the
crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available
and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from
the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the
case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home
the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to
establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial,
that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged
with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the
spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the
commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section
is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act
jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of
them has done it individually by himself. As observed in
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 109), the
existence of a common intention amongst the participants in
a crime is the essential element for application of this
Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several
persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must
be the same or identically similar. The acts may be
different in character, but must have been actuated by one
and the same common intention in order to attract the
provision.
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1