Skip to main content

Difference between section 34 and 35 of IPC

Difference between section 34 and 35 of IPC

&

JOINT LIABILITY 

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 34 and Section 35 deal with concepts of joint liability in criminal acts. Although both these sections address situations where multiple persons are involved in committing a criminal act, they differ slightly in their application and scope. Let’s break them down with examples to clarify the distinctions.

Section 34: Common Intention

Section 34 : “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.”

This section imposes joint liability when:

  1. Two or more persons are involved.
  2. There’s a pre-arranged or common intention among them to commit a crime.
  3. The criminal act was done in furtherance of that common intention.

The essence of Section 34 lies in the shared intention to commit the crime, meaning that even if one individual carries out the act, others involved in the planning are equally culpable.

JOIN NEW BATCH, LL.B. 1ST SEMESTER CLASSES /JUDICIARY 

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BjCiaaxfBq7BAlvDJJWw1l

Example:

Consider three friends, A, B, and C, who plan to rob a house together. While robbing, C stays outside to act as a lookout, while A and B enter the house. During the robbery, A kills the homeowner. Even though only A committed the murder, all three (A, B, and C) can be held responsible for the murder under Section 34, because they shared a common intention and acted together to commit the robbery.

Section 35: Criminal Act with Criminal Knowledge or Intention

Section 35 : “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.”

Section 35 applies to:

  1. Crimes requiring criminal knowledge or intention, where each participant is aware of the criminal nature of the act.
  2. The section creates liability for everyone involved even if they didn't share a pre-planned intention, as long as they knew the criminal nature of the act.

The crucial element in Section 35 is that the act becomes criminal due to the knowledge or intent of the persons involved, which can vary slightly among participants. 

JOIN NEW BATCH, LL.B. 1ST SEMESTER CLASSES /JUDICIARY 

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BjCiaaxfBq7BAlvDJJWw1l

Example:

Suppose X, Y, and Z are at a protest that suddenly turns violent, with some protesters vandalizing public property. X, Y, and Z join in and start breaking things, fully aware that their actions are illegal. Even if there wasn’t a common plan among them to destroy property, they each knew their actions were criminal. In this case, under Section 35, X, Y, and Z can each be held liable, as they engaged in the act with the necessary knowledge of its criminality.

Key Differences at a Glance


Section 34 focuses on a shared intention and holds everyone involved equally liable.

Section 35 emphasizes individual criminal knowledge or intention rather than a pre-planned intention, so it applies even if the participants didn’t plan the crime together but knew the act was criminal.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping laws and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

APPEALS - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

  Appeals "The word "appeal" means the right of carrying a particular case from an inferior court to a superior court with a view to ascertain whether the judgement is sustainable. An appeal is a creature of statute only and a right of appeal exists where expressly given. A right of appeal is neither an inherent right nor a fundamental right. Right to appeal is not merely a procedural right. It is a substantive right as well. This right accrues on the date of lis though it may be exercised later. Section 372 provides that no appeal lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for this Code or any other law for the time being in force." Right of victim to file appeal : In Section 372 a proviso was inserted by Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2008, provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court (i) Acquitting the accused; or (ii) Convicting for a lesser offence; or (iii) Imposing inadequate com...
Post a Comment
Read more

JURISPRUDENCE

  JURISPRUDENCE   Jurisprudence is derived from Latin word ‘juris-prudentia’- knowledge of law or skill in law. Study of jurisprudence first started by Romans. Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832) is known as father of  modern jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is basically the theoretical aspect of the word law. In jurisprudence, we do not deal with the practically applicable pieces of statutory law; rather we try to understand the very essence of law and its various dimensions. Like in the other subjects, for example, geography, we have geographical thought as a subject of study, similarly, in law we have got "legal thought" which is called "jurisprudence". The basic questions that we try to answer in jurisprudence are - What is law?, Why should it exist?. What should be the nature and purpose of the law?, What are rights and duties and what should be their nature?, What is ownership and possession and why does law have to protect them?, etc. Jurisprudence refers to a certain type...
Post a Comment
Read more