Table of Contents

Topic Name Page Number

Introduction 01

Several people are acting with the same 01

intention

Object Of Section 34 02

Elements Of Section 34 02-04

Conclusion 05

References 06

Introduction:
0
Section 34 of the Penal Code 1860 deals with common intention. English Common intention
means common intention. Section 34 of the Bangladesh Penal Code states that when a criminal
act is committed by several persons in fulfillment of the same intention, then each of such
persons shall be responsible for the said act as if the said act had been committed by that person.
Any crime committed with the same intention or in fulfillment of the same intention is guilty of
that crime by all those connected with the intention [1].

To give a small example, A, B and C attack D together. In this case, A and B assaulted D and
inflicted fatal injuries resulting in the death of D. But C did not hurt D. Although C did not injure
D, yet C would be guilty of the offense of wounding D, i.e. the same offense as A, B. Here the
principle of “joint responsibility in crime” is established based on the decision in AIR 1925 PC 1
Birendra Kumar Ghosh v. Samrat [1].

Several people are acting with the same intention:

When a criminal act is committed by several persons, all with common intention, each such
person is equally liable for the act as if it had been committed by him alone (PC, s 34).

Thus, s 34 PC is an exception to the general rule that every person is liable only for his own acts
and not for the acts of others. It makes a person responsible for a crime that was not actually
committed by him or her but by another person with whom he or she shared a common intention
[2]. It embodies the common-sense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do an act
jointly, it is the same as if each of them had done it individually. It lays down a rule of evidence
that if two or more persons commit a crime in furtherance of a common object, each of them
shall be jointly and severally liable on the principle of joint liability. Thus, if two or more persons
jointly commit an unlawful act, each of them is the same as having done the act individually and
each is constructively liable for the act as if it had been done by him alone [2].

Object Of Section 34:

1
Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. This
section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of
the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in
furtherance of the common intention of all. This section really means that if two or more persons
intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it individually. The
reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives
encouragement, support and protection to the person committing an act [3].

Elements Of Section 34:

To attract the application of Section 34, the following conditions must be satisfied: -

1. Some Criminal Act: – ‘Criminal act’ used in section 34 does not refer to individual acts
where a crime is committed by a group of persons. Where a crime is committed by several
persons in furtherance of common intention of all of them, each of them doing some act, similar
or diverse, big, or small shall be liable for that act. ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ used in
section 34 which means the unity of criminal behaviors which results in something for which an
individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence [2].

2. Criminal Act Done by Several Persons: – The criminal act in question must have been done
by several persons i.e. by more than one person. The number of wrongdoers should be at least
two. Most importantly, if the criminal act was a fresh and independent act springing wholly from
the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely because when it was done, they were
intending to be partakers with the doer in a different criminal act [2].

3. Common Intention: - The words “in furtherance of the common intention of all” were added
to section 34 after words ‘persons’ in 1870 the idea for which, possibly, was derived from the
following passage of the Privy Council’s judgment: “Where parties go with a common purpose
to execute a common intention, each and every one becomes responsible for the acts of each and
every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose, as the purpose is common so
must be the responsibility [4].”

2
The expression ‘common intention’ means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan; it has been
given various meanings which are as follows-

Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds, prior consultation in
between all the persons constituting the group [5].

Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been
committed [6].

It also means evil intent to commit some criminal act, but not necessarily the same offence which
is committed [7].

Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan. Pre-arranged plan means prior concert or prior
meetings of minds. Criminal act must be done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.
Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time.

Where there is no indication of premeditation or of a pre-arranged plan, the mere fact that the
two accused were seen at the spot or that the two accused fired because of which one person died
and two others received simple injuries could not be held sufficient to infer common intention.
[8].

However, common intention may develop on the spot as between several persons and this must
be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused, and facts and circumstances of the case. [9].

4. Participation in the Criminal Act: - The participation in a criminal act of a group is a

condition precedent to fix joint liability and there must be some overt act indicative of a common
intention to commit an offence. The law requires that the accused must be present on the spot
during the occurrence of the crime and take part in its commission; it is enough if he is present
somewhere nearby.

The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must be
physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in the actual
room; he can for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any
approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape, but he must
be physically present at the scene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the
commission of the offence some way or other at the time crime is actually being committed.

3
The first leading case on the point is Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1
(also known as Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case). In this case several persons appeared
before the sub-postmaster who was counting the money on the table and demanded the money. In
the meantime, they opened fire killed the sub-postmaster and ran away without taking any
money. Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed over to
the police.

he accused was tried under sections 302/34 as according to the prosecution he was one of the
three men who fired at the sub-postmaster. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he
was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased. The trial court, on being satisfied
that the sub-postmaster was killed in furtherance of the common intention of all, convicted the
accused even if he had not fired the fatal shot.

The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings of the trial court
and held the accused guilty of murder. Giving his judgment Lord Sumner quoting a line from
Milton’s famous poem, “On his blindness” said. “Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood
outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in other things they also serve who only
stand and wait Section 34 deals with doing of separate act, similar or diverse by several persons;
if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them
all as if he had done them himself” [10].

4
Conclusion:
The real concept of section 34 of the Penal Code 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. One should not forget that section 34 does not speak “the common intentions of all” nor
does it speak “an intention common to all”. Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of
liability is to find in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the
doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. To prove the charge of common
intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that
there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which
they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be its pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but
it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime [11].

5
References

[1] D. Barua, "Crimes punishable by law with 'common intent and purpose'," Lawyers Club
Bangladesh, p. https://lawyersclubbangladesh.com/, 2022.

[2] S. A. Akkas, Principles of Penal Code, Dhaka: Bijoy Law Book House, 2021 .

[3] S. Ahmed, "Penal Code1860," p. https://cheapname.art.blog/, 2020.

[4] [Ref. Ganesh Singh v. Ram Raja, (1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45].

[5] Ref. Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118]..

[6] [Ref. As per DAS, J., in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal. 339].

[7] "[Ref. As per WANCHOO, J., in Saidu Khan v. The State, AIR 1951 All 21 (F.B.)].".

[8] " [Ref. Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Cr.L.J. 653].".

[9] [Ref. Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706].

[10] Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (also known as Shankari Tola Post Office
Murder Case).

[11] B. M. A. Halim, Laws on the penal code in Bangladesh, Beacon Publication.

[12] [Ref. Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Cr.L.J. 653].