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.
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.
To know more about the present post, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/12/what-is-common-intention-under-section.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
I am Suyash and 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 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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like, subscribe and comment.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.