Overview: Joint and Constructive Liability | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• The principle of criminal liability suggests that an individual is solely responsible for their criminal actions and can be held guilty for them. However, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 includes provisions for group liability, also known as joint liability, constructive liability, or vicarious liability. These provisions determine the liability of each member of a group for a crime committed by the entire group or by any individual within it.
• Under these principles, a person can be constructively and jointly liable for an offense they did not physically commit. Such individuals may actively participate in the occurrence of the offense but do not contribute directly to its commission.

Key Concepts of Group Liability in IPC

• Common Intention (Section 34): Individuals can be held jointly liable if they share a common intention to commit a crime, even if their roles in the actual commission differ.
• Common Object (Section 149): Members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for crimes committed in furtherance of a common object, regardless of their individual participation.
• Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-A): Individuals involved in a criminal conspiracy can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if they did not directly commit the crime.

Concept of Joint Liability

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) reflects the principle of joint liability, as established in the case of Reg v. Cruse. According to this principle, when two or more individuals intend to commit a crime together, it is treated as if each person acted individually. Therefore, each member of the group is equally liable for the crime, just as if they had committed it alone. This section does not create a specific offence but serves as a rule of evidence in situations where it is challenging to distinguish the actions of individual members in a group committing a crime with a common intention.

Key Points

• Joint liability means that all individuals involved in a crime together are equally responsible, as if each acted alone.
• This principle helps in proving the liability of each person in a group crime.
• The law acknowledges that in some cases, it may be difficult to separate individual actions within a group.
• Illustration: If A, B, and C plan to attack D's family together, and only B and C's shots kill D, A is still equally liable for the murder because all acted with a common intention.

Section 34 of IPC:

"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such accused persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."

Illustration:

A, along with B and C, goes to D's house to take revenge for an insult by D's brother. They open fire on D's family. A's shots miss, but B and C's shots kill D. A is as liable for murder as B and C because they acted with a common intention.

Essential Ingredients under Section 34 along with Case Laws

To attract the principle under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the following three conditions must be met:

(i) A Criminal Act Done by Several Persons

• In the case of Nazir v. Emperor, the court clarified that a criminal act, when viewed through the lens of Section 34 in conjunction with Section 33 of the IPC, signifies a unity of criminal behavior.
• This unity implies that the actions of multiple individuals, when directed towards a common goal, constitute a singular criminal act for which each person is equally liable.
• For instance, if one person is guarding the door to prevent interference with the victim, while another is providing tools to facilitate the crime, both are equally culpable under the principle of common intention.
• It is essential that all individuals involved contribute to the commission of the act, even if their actions differ. Physical presence at the scene is crucial to facilitate the crime.

(ii) Act Done in Furtherance of Common Intention

• Common intention, as outlined in Section 34 of the IPC, denotes a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds among the individuals involved.
• The actions of each member may vary, but they must all align with the agreed-upon plan to commit a specific act.
• In the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court highlighted that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the attack on the victim, including the manner of arrival and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
• The establishment of common intention, as demonstrated in this case, is crucial for joint liability under Section 34.

(iii) Participation of All in Furtherance of Common Intention

• In the case of Tukaram Ganpat Panadare v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court emphasized that while physical presence at the crime scene is not mandatory, each member of the group must participate in the commission of the criminal act in some manner.
• Participation can involve activities such as alerting fellow criminals about potential danger or providing assistance in other ways.
• The principle of joint liability under Section 34 necessitates the involvement of all members in the commission of the offense, even if their roles differ.

(iv) Liability of Each Person

• Under Section 34, each individual involved is liable for the act in the same manner as if they had committed it alone. This principle underscores the equal responsibility of all participants in the criminal act.

Common Intention vs. Similar Intention in Criminal Liability

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) applies when accused individuals share a common intention, not merely a similar intention.

Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar

• The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the difference between common and similar intentions.
• The case involved a complainant who sent laborers to work on his field, and a large mob (about 200 people) who confronted the laborers and the complainant with deadly weapons.
• When the complainant objected, some members of the mob instructed others to kill the laborers, leading to a mass assault.

Key Points from the Judgment:

• Common Object vs. Common Intention: The court examined whether the mob had a common intention to commit murder at the moment of the crime, despite having a common object of preventing the laborers from working.
• Formation of Intention: Intention can be formed either beforehand or on the spot during the commission of the crime.
• Prearranged Plan: For Section 34 to apply, there must be a prearranged plan among the accused. This plan does not need to be elaborate or take a long time to form; it can arise suddenly.
• Premeditated Concert: There must be a degree of premeditated concert among the accused, indicating that they were acting together with a common purpose.

Leading Cases on Joint Liability

Understanding the concept of Joint Liability in criminal law through significant court cases.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor

• The court clarified the application of Section 34, emphasizing that it focuses on the criminal act rather than the offence as a whole.
• Section 34 considers the totality of acts leading to the offence, not just individual actions.
• The appellant, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 for the murder of a Sub-Postmaster, argued he was not liable because he did not fire the fatal shot.
• The court rejected this argument, stating that the criminal act is determined by the final outcome, regardless of individual actions.
• The phrase “they also serve who only stand and wait” was invoked to illustrate that even passive involvement contributes to the crime.

Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor

• Section 34 establishes the principle of Joint Liability in criminal acts.
• The core of this liability lies in the common intention to commit a criminal act.
• Sir Madhavan Nair emphasized that for Section 34 to apply, the criminal act must be carried out by one of the accused in furtherance of the common intention.
• If this is proven, any accused can be held liable as if they committed the act alone.

Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad

• The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that joint liability under Section 34 hinges on a common intention to commit a criminal act.
• This implies a pre-arranged plan or prior agreement among the group members to execute the criminal act.
• For joint conviction, the act must be done in furtherance of this common intention.

Concept of Constructive Liability

• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is based on the principle of Constructive Liability.
• According to this principle, being a member of an unlawful assembly with a common intention to commit an offence makes all members liable for actions taken by any member, regardless of individual involvement.
• The specific actions of individual members become irrelevant. What matters is the shared knowledge among members that a certain offence, along with its potential consequences, was to be carried out.
• In the case of Mohammad Arif v. State of Gujarat, where the intent was merely to beat the victim but one member escalated the situation by using a knife, the court determined that not all members could be held liable for the death. This was because the common objective of causing a fatal injury was not known to the other members at the outset or during the act.
• This case illustrates that for constructive liability to apply, the common object must be present among all members of the unlawful assembly.

The distinction between Section 34 and Section 149 IPC

Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) both deal with cases of constructive criminal liability where a person is held responsible for an act not actually done by him but by his associates. However, there are key differences between the two provisions.

Section 34 IPC

• Section 34 IPC applies when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. It emphasizes the shared intention behind the act.
• Under Section 34, all individuals involved are equally liable for the actions carried out, regardless of their individual roles in the crime.
• This section is often invoked in cases where multiple individuals work together to commit a crime, such as a group robbery where everyone is equally responsible for the outcome.

Section 149 IPC

• Section 149 IPC, on the other hand, deals with cases where an unlawful assembly commits an offense in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly. It focuses on the common object of the assembly.
• Under Section 149, any member of the unlawful assembly is liable for the offense committed by any other member, as long as it is in furtherance of the common object.
• This section is typically applied in situations where a group of individuals, acting together with a shared objective, engages in criminal activity, such as a mob assault where all members are held accountable for the actions of any one member.

Key Differences

• Focus: Section 34 emphasizes shared intention, while Section 149 focuses on the common object of the assembly.
• Liability: In Section 34, all individuals are equally liable for the act regardless of their roles. In Section 149, liability extends to all members of the assembly for acts committed in furtherance of the common object.
• Application: Section 34 is used in cases of joint criminal enterprise, while Section 149 is applied in cases involving unlawful assemblies.

i)  Section 34 is a substantive law while section 149 creates a specific offence

ii) The distinction between ‘Common Intention and Common Object’

iii) The distinction between ‘participation’ and ‘membership’

iv) Number of Participants

v) Operation

Case Summary: Shiv Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Incident Overview: The accused believed that the family members of the deceased were sheltering suspects involved in the brutal murder of the main accused's brother. In retaliation, they committed horrific acts, including severing three heads and roasting a 10-year-old boy alive.

Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that an unlawful assembly can quickly develop a common object, especially in response to extreme violence.

Key Legal Points:

• If any member of the unlawful assembly commits an offence, all members can be held liable, even without a shared intention, as long as certain conditions are met.
• Conditions for Liability:
  • The offence must be committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
  • The nature of the offence must be such that all members knew it was likely to occur in furtherance of the common object.

Leading Case Laws

Willie (William) Slaney v. the State of M.P.

• This case examined the legality of conviction under Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Sections 34 and 149 deal with criminal liability from different perspectives:
• Section 34: Involves acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 149: Involves the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object.
• The court held that these sections provide for different types of liability:
• Direct Liability: Where a person is directly responsible for the act.
• Constructive Liability: Where a person is held liable for the acts of others due to their participation in a common intention or object.
• In cases involving Sections 34 and 149, it is not necessary to specify who is directly liable and who is constructively liable. The focus is on the evidence regarding who was primarily responsible for the act leading to the offence.

Krishnan v. State of Karnataka

• In this case, four individuals attacked a woman accused of having an illicit relationship. The injuries were inflicted in different ways by the attackers.
• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of two accused who argued they did not cause the fatal injury.
• The court emphasized that despite the different acts, all attackers shared the same intention, fulfilling the requirement of joint liability.
• Joint liability involves proving common intention and separate acts by individuals leading to the same result.

Conclusion

• Joint and constructive liability hinges on the presence of a common intention or common object driving offenders to commit an offence.
• The principle of group liability in the IPC clarifies the specific role and liability of each group member for acts committed by others.
• The Supreme Court has affirmed that common intention does not need to exist before the criminal act; it can develop during the offence.
• Liability arises when there is a prearranged plan or common intention to achieve a specific result, allowing different individuals to perform different acts towards the same goal.
• This principle ensures that individuals can be held jointly or constructively liable for acts committed in furtherance of a common object or intention.