There is a close resemblance concerning common intention and common object, though both of those of them belong to distinct classes of the office in felony regulation.
(On the other hand joint offender is not defined underneath IPC, nonetheless various provisions of the IPC contemplated joint legal responsibility of just about every human being who have committed a felony act or offence in furtherance of common intention).
The principle of joint legal responsibility is defining u/s 34, and 149 of IPC.
Exceptions of Part 34 –When a felony act is finished by numerous folks in furtherance of the common intention of all, just about every of such folks is liable for that act in the same fashion as if it had been finished by him by yourself.
Exceptions of S34:
- one. Theory of Joint Liability:
Part 34 of IPC points out the principle of joint legal responsibility, in performing the felony act with common intention. This part bring in the principle of joint legal responsibility. A joint legal responsibility of a human being is established according to the fashion in which he will become connected with commission of the crime. Typically a human being may possibly be participant in a crime in the pursuing means:
- When he himself dedicate a crime.
- When he share in commission of it.
- When he, with a perspective to the commission of crime, sets some third agency to function, that is he would make some third celebration his have agent for committing the crime.
- When he will help the offender, after the commissions of the crime committing the crime.
- two. A number of Particular person:
in this part numerous human being means two or more than two human being, felony act ought to be finished by numerous folks.
It is held in sachin jana and another v/s condition of west
Bengal that act finished by two or more folks jointly and intentionally can be taken as if finished by just about every of them separately himself
These phrase of this part deals with those people cased when it is difficult to distinguish precisely the portion taken by just about every of the participant, it is deem required to declare all human being liable for the felony act..
Furtherance of Prevalent Intention: S34 deals with the performing of separate functions, very similar or unique functions by numerous people today. If the felony act is finished in furtherance of common intention, just about every human being is liable for the end result of such act. When is verify the felony act was finished in furtherance of common intention of all, just about every human being is liable for the felony act as if it had been finished by him by yourself. Part 34 is generally meant to meet up with a circumstance in which it may possibly be difficult to distinguish concerning the functions of person customers of a celebration who act in more of the common intention of all or to verify accurately what portion was taken by just about every of them. When such participation is create part 34 can be captivated. Sc 3does not say- “common intention to all” nor does it claims – “an intention common to all” but it claims ” in furtherance of common intention.
It is held in sevaram v/s condition of UP that: the immediate proof of common intention is seldom available. It can only be inferred type conditions showing up from proved facts.
Sec34 does not develop exclusive substantive offence it is only a role of proof.
Critical ingredient of S.34:
- There ought to be a felony act.
- The felony act finished by numerous human being.
- The act is finished in furtherance of common intention of all.
- Nandu rasto v/s condition of Bihar:
Felony conspiracy is the important ingredient of common intention u/s34, of IPC. Participant in felony act in some fashion was also important but actual physical existence at scene of prevalence is not generally required.
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v/s Emperor:
It has been noticed that though the accused did not played any role to destroy the publish master but he was standing outdoors to – stand and wait around , which verify he was serving to in the felony conspiracy.
Exception of Prevalent intention:
- Personal defense:
In Subramanian v/s State of Tamil Nadu, -That if the appellant acted in physical exercise of their correct of personal defense of residence it can not be claimed that they committed a felony act in furtherance of a common intention for the reason that it is guarded u/s 96 of IPc.
Part 149: every member of unlawful assembly responsible of offense committed in prosecution of common object- if an offense committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly, or such as the customers of that assembly realized to be possible to be committed in prosecution of that object, every human being who ,at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is responsible of that offense.
Exceptions of Part 149:
- Theory of vicarious legal responsibility. This part is the declaratory of the principle of vicarious legal responsibility of the customers of an unlawful assembly for functions finished in prosecution of common object of that assembly, all the customers of that assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the claimed office.
- Unlawful assembly: It is not required underneath any regulation that in all conditions of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful object, the unlawful assembly ought to be unlawful object to bring in this part. Also also bring in part 149 of IPC, only member of unlawful assembly is not ample, the human being should really have recognized that assembly as unlawful and was possible to dedicate any of the functions which drop in the purview of part 141 of IPC, and it ought to have been committed in prosecution of common object.
- Prevalent object: the phrase Item means intent or design to make it common, it ought to be share by all. It may possibly be shaped at any phase by all or number of customers. It may possibly be modify or altered or abandoned at any condition. Prevalent object may possibly be shaped by convey agreement after mutual consultation. The sharing of common object would, nonetheless, not always demand the member present and sharing the object to interact himself in performing an about act. Thus this part is inapplicable in a circumstance of sudden mutual fight concerning two parties, for the reason that of deficiency of common object.
Critical ingredient of Part 149:
- Unlawful assembly as contemplated my part 141 of IPC.
- Accused was a member of such assembly.
- The accused voluntarily joined that assembly.
- He realized the common object of that assembly.
- An office was committed by one or number of member of that assembly.
- Offense ought to be committed in prosecution of common object of that assembly.
Variance concerning Part 34 and part 149 of IPC
Nature of Offense
This part is not a substantive office it is only a role of proof. it generally go through with other substantive workplaces. Punishment can not be imposed solely upon this part. For instance if a human being convicted u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC can lawfully be convicted u/s 302 r/w 34.
This part is a substantive offense, it also go through with other sections. Punishment can be imposed solely upon this part In which as prosecution file a cost sheet u/s 149 the court me convert it to part 34 and impose conviction.
Prevalent intention- the principle ingredient of this part is Prevalent intention, any act which committed in furtherance of common intention bring in this part
Prevalent Item: the principle element of this part is Prevalent Item, any act which committed in prosecution of common object. will bring in this part
Vary of Theory element
Prevalent intention in the indicating of part 34, is undefined and unrestricted.
Prevalent object is defined and is limited to the five unlawful objects stated in part 141 of IPC.
Kind of Offense
Prevalent Intention needs underneath this part may possibly be of ANY Kind.
Prevalent object demand underneath this part ought to be one of the object pointed out u/s 141 of IPC.
Prior conference of thoughts is required prior to wrongful act is finished underneath this part. In Nanak Chand v/s State of Punjab Sc held that – common intention presupposes prior concert and conference of minds, whereas a common object may possibly be formed devoid of that.
Prior conference of thoughts is not required underneath this part. Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at the time of committing the offense is adequate.
In the same circumstance (Chand v/s State of Punjab)Sc held that – there may possibly be conditions where the object of team is one, but the intention of members vary.
It is a joint legal responsibility. A joint legal responsibility of a human being is established according to the fashion in which he will become connected with commission of the crime. It is of interpretative charater.
It is a constructive legal responsibility and vicarious legal responsibility. all the customers of that assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the claimed office.
Selection of Particular person
Minimum amount two people today demand attracting this part.
Minimum amount five people today demand attracting this part.
Participation in Criminal offense
Lively participation in commission of crime is required.
Merely membership of the unlawful assembly at the time of commissioning of crime would be adequate for this part software, lively participation is not required.