in this section

There is a close resemblance betwen comon intention and comon object, though both of them belong to diferent categories of the ofice in criminal law. However joint ofender is not defined under IPC, however various provisions of the IPC contemplated joint liability of each person who have comited a criminal act or ofence in furtherance of comon intention . Exceptions of Section 34 - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the comon intention of al, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same maner as if it were done by him alone. Principle of Joint Liability: Section 34 of IPC explains the , in doing the criminal act with comon intention. It is held in sachin jana and another v/s state of west Bengal that act done by two or more persons jointly and intentionaly can be taken as if done by each of them individualy himself These word of this section deals with those cased when it is dificult to distinguish precisely the part taken by each of the participant, it is dem necesary to declare al person liable for the criminal act. Once is prove the criminal act was done in furtherance of comon intention of al, each person is liable for the criminal act as if it were done by him alone. Section 34 is mainly intended to met a case in which it may be dificult to distinguish betwen the acts of individual members of a party who act in further of the comon intention of al or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. Sc 3does not say- comon intention to al nor does it says – an intention comon to al but it says in furtherance of comon intention. Exception of Comon intention: Private defense: In Subramanian v/s State of Tamil Nadu, -That if the apelant acted in exercise of their right of private defense of property it canot be said that they comited a criminal act in furtherance of a comon intention because it is protected u/s 96 of IPc. Section 149: every member of unlawful asembly guilty of ofense comited in prosecution of comon object- if an �ofense comited by any member of an unlawful asembly in prosecution of comon object of that asembly, or such as the members of that asembly knew to be likely to be comited in prosecution of that object, every person who ,at the time of the comiting of that ofense, is a member of the same asembly, is guilty of that ofense. This section is the declaratory of the principle of vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful asembly for acts done in prosecution of comon object of that asembly, al the members of that asembly wil be vicariously liable for that ofence even one or more, but not al comited the said ofice. Unlawful asembly: It is not necesary under any law that in al cases of unlawful asembly, with an unlawful object, the unlawful asembly must be unlawful object to atract this section. Also to atract section 149 of IPC, only member of unlawful asembly is not enough, the person should have understod that asembly as unlawful and was likely to comit any of the acts which fal within the purview of section 141 of IPC, and it must have ben comited in prosecution of comon object. Comon object: the word Object means purpose or design to make it comon, it must be share by al. Case Ref: Diference betwen Section 34 and section 149 of IPC Base Section34 Section 149 Nature of Ofense This section is not a substantive ofice it is only a role of evidence. Principle element Comon intention- the principle ingredient of this section is Comon intention, any act which comited in furtherance of comon intention Comon Object: the principle element of this section is Comon Object, any act which comited in prosecution of comon object. Comon object is defined and is limited to the five unlawful objects stated in section 141 of IPC. In Nanak Chand v/s State of Punjab Sc held that - comon intention presuposes prior concert and meting of minds, whereas a comon object may be formed without that. in this section
comon Tags: in this section