Comparison of Section 34 and 141

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

COMPARISON OF SECTION 34 AND 141-149

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 talks about acts done by several people in
furtherance of common intention. It 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.

Whereas, the sections from 141-144, talks about unlawful assembly- being a member, punishment,
joining an unlawful assembly, joining an unlawful assembly with a deadly weapon. Sections 145-148
deals with rioting, punishment, rioting with a deadly weapon respectively.

Section 149 deals with offences in which every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence
committed in prosecution of common object. It states that:

“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly, or such as the members or that assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

As we can see, there is a close resemblance between section 34 and section 149. While section 34
talks about common intention, section 149 talks about common object.

SECTION 34-

Section 34 explains the principle of JOINT LIABILITY in doing a criminal act with common intention. A
joint liability of a person is determined according to the manner in which he becomes associated with
commission of the crime. Normally a person may be participant in a crime in the following ways:

 When he himself commit a crime.


 When he share in commission of it.
 When he, with a view to the commission of crime, sets some third agency to work, that is he
makes some third party his own agent for committing the crime.
 When he helps the offender, after the commissions of the crime committing the crime.

The section specifies the term ‘several persons’ as two or more than two persons. Section 34 deals
with the doing of separate acts, similar or distinct acts by several people. If the criminal act is done in
furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result of such act. Once is prove the
criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention of all, each 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 may be
difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party who act in further of the
common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. When such
participation is establish section 34 can be attracted.

It is important to note here that, section 34 has no utility of its own. It is to be read with another
section e.g. - section 302. The section has been incorporated in the IPC in order to extend the
responsibility to another person.

Section 34 does not create distinctive substantive offence; it is only a role of evidence.
Therefore, the essential ingredients of section 34 can be noted as:
 There must be a criminal act.
 The criminal act done by several person.
 The act is done in furtherance of common intention of all.

CASES:
 Nandu rasto v/s state of Bihar:
Criminal conspiracy is the essential ingredient of common intention u/s34, of IPC. Participant in
criminal act in some manner was also essential but physical presence at scene of occurrence is not
always necessary.

 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v/s Emperor:


It has been observed that though the accused did not played any role to kill the post master but he
was standing outside to – stand and wait , which prove he was helping in the criminal conspiracy.

SECTION 149-

This section talks about the principle of vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for
acts done in prosecution of common object of that assembly, all the members of that assembly will be
vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the said offence.
It is necessary to prove that the assembly was an unlawful one. Unlawful assembly has been defined
in the IPC under section 141 which states that-

“An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of
the persons composing that assembly is-

First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government
of Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power
of such public servant; or

Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use
of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right
or supposed right; or

Fifth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.”

The term ‘OBJECT’ means purpose or design. When we say common object, it means the object must
be shared by all members of the assembly. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.
Common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation.  The sharing of
common object would, however, not necessarily require the member present and sharing the object to
engage himself in doing an over act. Therefore this section is inapplicable in a case of sudden mutual
fight between two parties, because of lack of common object.

Thus, the essential ingredient of Section 149 are:


 Unlawful assembly as contemplated my section 141 of IPC.
 Accused was a member of such assembly.
 The accused voluntarily joined that assembly.
 He knew the common object of that assembly.
 An office was committed by one or few member of that assembly.
 Offense must be committed in prosecution of common object of that assembly.
CASES:

 Om Prakash v/s State on 20/10/1955


 Pahar Singh and Ors. v/s State Of Rajasthan on 14/10/1998

COMPARISON BETWEEN SECTION 34 AND 149:

 Nature of Offense-

Section 34 is not a substantive offence it is only a role of evidence. It is always read with other
substantive offences. Punishment cannot be imposed solely upon this section. For example if a person
convicted u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC can legally be convicted u/s 302 r/w 34. Whereas section 149 is
a substantive offense, it can also be read with other sections. 

 Principle element-

Common intention- The principle ingredient of section 34 is ‘common intention’, any act which
committed in furtherance of common intention attracts this section

Common Object- The principle element of this section is Common Object, any act which committed
in prosecution of common object will attract this section.

 Range of Principle element-

Common intention within the meaning of section 34, is undefined and unlimited. Whereas, common
object is defined and is limited to the five unlawful objects stated in section 141 of IPC.
 Type of Offense
Common Intention requires under this section may be of ANY TYPE. Common object require under this
section must be one of the object mentioned u/s 141 of IPC.
 Necessity
Prior meeting of mind is necessary before wrongful act is done under this section. Whereas under
section 149, prior meeting of mind is not necessary. Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at
the time of committing the offense is sufficient.
 Liability
Under section 34, it is a joint liability. A joint liability of a person is determined according to the
manner in which he becomes associated with commission of the crime. It is of interpretative
character.
Under section 149, it is a constructive liability and vicarious liability. All the members of that assembly
will be vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the said offence.
 Number of Person
Under section 34, minimum two people are required to attract this section. Whereas, under section
149, minimum five people are required to attract this section.

You might also like