COMMON INTENTION UNDER SECTION 34 OF IPC
INTRODUCTION: Chapter 2 of Indian Penal Code explains General explanations. Out of them section 34 defines Common Intention. Common intention is also called as Joint Liability in Criminal Law. Section 34 explains the legal provisions about the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Common intention to commit a crime must be shared between the doers, even though the actual crime may be committed by anyone of them. Common intention could be inferred from facts and circumstances. It is a question of fact and subjective. It signifies pre-arranged plan. Section 34 is intended to meet a case in which it maybe difficult to distinguish between criminal act of individual member of a party, who act in furtherance of a common intention of all, or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.
OBJECT OF SECTION 34: Section 34 means that is one or more persons intentionally do a common thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. Section 34 to 38 are inter-woven, which explains the principal of joint liability in doing a criminal act with common intention. Whereas section 34 explains about joint liability including common intention. Section 34 doesn’t create distinctive substantive offence. It is only a rule of evidence.
Section 34 deal with the doing of separate acts, similar on distinct acts by several persons. If the criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of such act. Once it is proved that a criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person is liable for the criminal act as if it were done by him alone. Section 34 is mainly intended to meet a case in which it maybe difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party who acts in the furtherance of common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. According to this principle when participation in some action with the common intention of committing a crime, once such participation is established, section 34 is at once attracted.
In the case of Tunnu Vs. State of Orissa (1988 CRLJ 524 Ori.). 4 persons attacked the deceased with a pre arranged plan on a public road. 4 other persons blacked the road so that the criminal action should be completed successfully. The police prosecuted the actual offenders who attacked the deceased and also the person who did not participate in the actual assault. The court held that the persons facilitated by blacking the road were also having the criminal liability because they shared the common intention to cause the death of the deceased. Hence the High Court upheld the conviction against the persons who directly attacked the deceased and also the persons who did not participate in the actual assault, but facilitated it by blacking the road sharing the common intention under section 34.