When two or more people come together to commit a crime, each of them will be held accountable as though they had each committed the crime on their own. Under IPC, this is referred to as the joint liability principle. A criminal act must be committed by two or more people with a shared intention and a sense of prior arrangement for it to fall within the umbrella of the principle of joint culpability.

The fundamentals of this joint liability principle are covered in Sections 34 and 149. In fact, Section 34 states that everything done with intent by two or more people will be regarded as having been done by them individually if done together. When people get together with the aim to complete an agreed-upon task, each person becomes responsible for the conduct of the other parties; because they have the same goal, they must share the same responsibility.

Section 34 of the IPC

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.

From the Above reading, we can conclude that if the common intention leads to the commission of a crime each one of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively held liable for the criminal offense done by one or more of them.

Essential Elements to apply the principle of Joint liability

To attract the principle of joint liability there have to be the following necessary elements in the case

1. there should be a criminal offense
2. involvement of two or more persons in the above-stated criminal act
3. presence of a common intention

There are a few other elements that should be seen as per the situation and circumstances of the case

• Pre-arranged plan
• Participation
• Physical presence

Pre-arranged plan: indicates a prior agreement or gathering of the minds, i.e., the accused should have met separately and talked about their shared objective. Each of them was aware of the crime before committing it. It is possible, though, for the accused to create a shared intention on the spot even though they had never met before the crime was committed.

Application of Section 34

In terms to discuss the applicability of Section 34, the scope of the liability was to be decided first. The courts required sincere guidelines to decide whether section 34 is applicable to a certain case or not.

A systematic approach to apply section 34 was provided in the famous case of Mahboob Shah Vs Emperor.

For the application of section 34, the following principles were laid down by the court in the Mahboob Shah Vs Emperor.

1. According to Section 34 of the Penal Code, the essential element of liability is the existence of a Common intention that drives the accused and results in the commission of a crime.
2. For the application of section 34, there must be a criminal act that has been carried out by one of the accused in furtherance of the common intention. In such a situation the liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the acts were done by him alone.
3. Common intention, as defined by section 34, implies a pre-arranged plan.
4. In order to convict the accused of an offense under section 34, it must be shown that the unlawful act was carried out in accordance with the concerted or pre-arranged plan.
5. When the intention of an individual cannot be proved directly from the evidence then, the intention of that individual must be inferred from the conduct and relevant circumstances of the case.
6. A proper distinction must be done between ‘similar intention’ and ‘common intention’ before concluding the case. Similar intention may vary from common intention drastically according to the circumstances of the case.
7. Inference of common intention should be drawn only when there is a certain degree of assurance and it is a necessary inference deductible from the circumstances of the case.

Supreme Court’s comment on the application of Section 34.

In Suresh V. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that the accused must have taken some action that has a connection to the offense in order to attract the application of section 34 of the I.P.C. If the defendant does not try any act at the scene but keeps the common intention in mind, he or she is not liable under section 34.

The Court held that it is even if the person is guarding the scene of the crime to facilitate other accused, it will be enough to be booked under section 34. The act need not be overt, it would be enough if it is only a covert act provided that such act is proved to have been done by the co-accused in the furtherance of the common intention.