GROUP LIABILITY

UNDER IPC
.
 .Introduction
Any crime if committed by two or
more persons, all of them are
punishable for such act, these
details are in the following sections.
 Sec 34-38 deal with group liability
Sections
Sec 120A are
Sec 120B
Sec 149
Sec 396
Sec 460
S.34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention
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.
Eg. A,B are brothers, they want to kill X, while X
was sleeping, A&B went to his house, A went
inside the house and killed X, but B was did
nothing ,but standing outside the house to
watch. Here as per Law both are Liable for crime
( Lalai vs State of UP)
 Reg v.Cruse
Reg v.Cruse is the base of joint liability

A police constable went to As house to arrest

him, A was sitting with B,C,& D.
A,B,C,D, all came out and one of them beat
the police. But Court held that all are equally
liable for beating. (Sec 34)
 Act u/s 33---"Act". "Omission".--The word
"act" denotes as well as series of acts as a
single act: the word "omission" denotes as
well a series of omissions as a single
omission.
The act committed by different person ay be
different,but all must be one way or other
participate and engage in the commission of
the criminal act.
 Ingredients ----

Crime must be done by several person

There must be common intention for them
All must participation of all in furtherance of
the offence.
 Case Law
Post Master Murder case or Alipur Conspiracy
case
Some went inside the post office and threatens
to give money, one among them in the group
shoot the post master he died. They ran
away, but one was caught, he told, I was not
shooting but standing outside. But court
decided to make him liable for the murder
because they had common intention.
 There must be common intention of
all of them
Even if one person does the criminal act and
others only assisted him in doing it they are
all held liable as they have acted with a
common intention.
 Ingredients of Common intention
A pre-plan/ meeting / consultation in
between all the persons

Common intention may develop on the spot

also.

Each of them must be aware of the act and

must have given consent.
 In furtherance of common intention
The term in furtherance of used in S. 34 has
been elucidated in Shankarlal Kachrabhai v.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260, ---
Four persons intend to kill A in his house. One of them
attempts to enter the house, but he was stopped by
the sentry and he shoots the sentry. Though the
common intention was to kill A, the shooting of the
sentry is in furtherance of the said common
intention.
 Illustration .
A enters the bed room to kill B but C
was sleeping in the Bed, and on a
mistaken impression, A shoots at C
,thinking it was B. The shooting of the
wrong man is in furtherance of the said
common intention, and so Section 34
applies.
 Case laws
State of UP v.Sahrunnisa
Mere presence of accuses not indicative of
common intention.
Wasim Khan v.State of UP
It was held that even a single accused
could also be convicted in sec 34,if
accused shared the common intention
to commit the offence with some other
person.
 R v.Pandurang
In this case Ramchander Shelke (deceased) with
his wifes sister went to the field. While
Ramchander went to river side the five persons
including three appellant (Pandurang, Tukia, and
Bhilia ) attacked on him. According to
eyewitnesses, Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia were
holding axes and other two accused Tukaram
and Nilia had sticks in their hands. The deceased
died on the spot. In this case different
eyewitnesses told different story.
 The trial court convicted each of accused of
charge s.302 with s. 34 and sentenced to
death. Appeal lied in High court and
conviction of Pandurang, Tukia, Bhilia was
maintained but other two accused persons
sentence was commuted to transportation
for life. When the matter came up to
Supreme Court, the learned judge said that
each are liable for their own act.
 The Apex Court set aside the death sentence
of Pandurang and convicted him instead
under s.326, and sentenced for 10 years
rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court
altered the sentence of Tukia and Bhilia to
transportation for life. The Supreme Court
elaborated in this case that:
 In this case court was observed the following
while interpreting sec 34
1. Each person is individually liable for the
crime
The prosecution must prove there was a
clear intention among them
Similar intention & common Intention must
be distinguished.
Plan to commit offence may arise suddenly.
 Case Law --Mahboob Shah v. Emperor/ Indus
river case
Allahadad & friends went to cut reeds on the
banks of river Indus.Mohamed Hussain Shah
and ali Shah warned them not to collect reeds
from the land.Ignoring this he collected 16
bundles of reeds.
Ghasim shah,Nephew of Mohamed Hussain
Shah took away the reeds which made the
deceases anger.He struck Mohemmed Hussains
nephew with a bamboo he cried for help.
 .
Walli Shah shot allahadad, he died.
Mahboob Shah shot hameedulla ,he was
severely injured Walli Shah escaped
.Mahboob Shah was convicted for 7
years,but HighCourt ordered death sentence,
he appealed to prevy council,it was decided
that walli shah and Mahboob shah had no
common intention to kill, just to save Ghasim
shah, so it cancel the death sentence,
punished only for grevious hurt.
 .
In this case,there was no evidence whether
Walli and Mehboob Shah ever entered into a
preplan to kill the deceased.
 Difference between common
intention sec34 and common object
sec 149
Sec 34 sec 149
More than 1 person 5 or more
person
Common Intention must Common object
Liable only if crime held Assembling with
common object
is . enough
for liability
 .
Section 34 is explanatory ..section 149 creates a specific
offence.

Participation in case of section 34---Membership in case of

section 149

Section 34 can be invoked even if 2 personsminimum

5persons in case of section 149

Section 34 requires some overt act---u/s 149 mere

membership in assembly suffices to fix criminal liability.
 .
S 35.When such an act is criminal by reason of its
being done with a criminal knowledge or intention.
35. When such an act is criminal by reason of its being
done with a criminal knowledge or intention.--
Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of
its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention,
is done by several persons, each of such persons who
joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is
liable for the act in the same manner as if the act
were done by him alone with that knowledge or
intention
 .
36.Effect caused partly by act and partly by
omission.
36. Effect caused partly by act and partly by
omission.Wherever the causing of a certain
effect, or an attempt to cause that effect,
by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it
is to be understood that the causing of that
effect partly by an act and partly by an
omission is the same offence
 Illustration
A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by
illegally omitting to give Z food, and party by
beating Z. A has committed murder
 37. Co-operation by doing one of several acts
constituting an offence.
37. Co-operation by doing one of several acts
constituting an offence.--When an offence is
committed by means of several acts,whoever
intentionally co-operates in the commission
of that offence by doing any one of those
acts, either singly or jointly with any other
person, commits that offence.
 Illustrations
(a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at
different times giving him small doses of poison.
A and B administer the poison according to the
agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from
the effects the several doses of poison so
administered to him. Here A andB intentionally
co operate in the commission of murder and as
each of them does an act by which the death is
caused, they are both guilty of the offence
though their acts are separate.
 (b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have
the charge of Z,a prisoner, alternatively for
six hours at a time. A and B, intending to
cause Z's death, knowingly co-operate in
causing that effect by illegally omitting, each
during the time of his attendance, to furnish
Z with food supplied to them for that
purpose. Z dues of hunger. Both A and B are
guilty of the murder of Z.
 c) A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A,
intending to
cause Z's death, illegally omits to supply Z with food;
in consequenceof which Z is much reduced in
strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause
his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B
succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation
with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing
that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies of
hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-
operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to
commit murder.
 S 38.Persons concerned in criminal Act may
be guilty of different offences.
38. Persons concerned in criminal Act may be
guilty of different offences.--Where several
persons are engaged or concerned in the
commission of a criminal act, they may be
guilty of different offences by means of that
act.
 Illustration
A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave
provocation that his killing of Z would be only
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B,
having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill
him, and not having been subject to the
provocation, assists A in killing Z.Here, though A
and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is
guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable
homicide.
 Common Intention and Similar
Intention
Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar , the
complainant had sent about 20 labours to his
field for transplanting paddy. On the mid day
the accused party came as a mob of about
200 people armed with various deadly
weapons. They asked labourers to stop the
work, and when the complainant objected to
this, the two accused directed the mob to kill
labourers.
 The mob started assaulted the labourers as a
result of this two labours died. When the
police party reached, the mob fled from the
spot. The death was established to have
caused by injuries inflicted by shock and
haemorrhage caused by injuries inflicted with
sharp pointed weapons
 The Supreme Court in this case held that:
Common intention which developed at the
spur of the moment is different from the
similar intention actuated a number of
person at the same time.the distinction
between a common intention and similar
intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a
real one and if overlooked, may lead to
miscarriage of justice.
 Mere presence of accused together is not
sufficient to hold that they shared the
common intention to commit the offence in
question. It is necessary that the intention of
each one of several persons be known to
each other for constituting common
intention.