Criminal Intention is the perfect structure of blameworthiness of mind or mens rea. Intention occupies a symbolic place in criminal law. As the very best structure of the intellectual element, it applies to murder and the gravest shape of crimes in the crook justice system. The time period ‘intention’ is now not defined in Indian Penal Code however section 34 of IPC deals with frequent intention. The intention made among quite a few humans to do something wrong and act done in that manner in which it used to be formulated comes below the sanction of Section 34 of IPC.

Section 34 deals with a situation, where an offence requires a precise crook intention or understanding and is dedicated with the aid of several persons. Each of them who join the act with such understanding or intention is responsible in the identical way as if it have been carried out via him alone with that intention or knowledge. The legal responsibility of individuals under this circumstance is called Joint Liability. The precept of Joint Liability defined in area 34.

  1. SECTION 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.

Exp:- 1st part is condition and 2nd part is liability.

  • Common intention
  • Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind, private consultation in between all the person consulting the group.
  • Common intention means a desire to commit a criminal act without any contemplation of consequence.
  • Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been committed.
  • It also means evil intent to commit some criminal act but not necessarily the same offence which is committed.
  • According to some it cannot be given any such meaning which we can apply everywhere there for its exact meaning depend upon the circumstances of each case.


A, B,C,D plan to murder X. They attacked on the place of X, A watches the door B grab hand of X. C grab leg and D stabbed X several time and in consequence X died.

 So here they plan the murder before, so they have common intention to kill X, so all the other section of murder is read with section 34 and all of them are charged for murder of X even they do different act while committing the crime.

  • Act done by several person in furtherance of common intention:-
  1. Section 34 is based on the principal laid down in case of R v. CRUISE 1839.
  • This section doesn’t create any substantive offence there for no charges required to be framed under section 34 to convict a person with the help of section 34.

(Case: – yogendra vs State of Bihar)

Section 34 is procedural in nature it provide for a rule of evidence and it is deeming provision.

  • Section 34 may take effect only provision a person may be convicted with add of section 34 but not one can be convicted under section 34.
  • Applicability of section 34.
  • Section 34 is attacked where it is not only difficult but also to differentiate the individual act or actual role of accused person.
  • Section 34 for a strict and exception rule of liability.
  • Essentials
  • A criminal act must have be done.
  • The criminal act must have been done by several person in furtherance of common intention of all.
  • Criminal act:-
  • Criminal act means an act or illegal omission prohibited by IPC.
  • Act includes series of acts and acts includes illegal omission further illegal omission includes series of illegal omission.
  • Several persons :-
  • It means more than one person.

(Case:-Sachin Jana and others versus state of West Bengal 2008.)

  1. The word several doesn’t describe or required any particular number of person.
  2. The word several doesn’t imply innumerable or numberlessness.
  3. The person in section 34 refers to natural person not juristic person
  • Common intention
  1. The term common intention is not define and explain in code, however it is soul test of liability under section 34.
  2. common intention suggests concerted action and prior meeting of mind or pre-arranged plan or prior consultation or unity of criminal behavior or knowledge of each other intention or sharing their off.
  3. Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been committed.
  4. Common intention is subjective it may be inferred from fact and circumstances. Burden of proof shall be on prosecution.
  5. Common intention must proceed the criminal act it may be develop even at the moment or on the spot and such common intention may be inferred from the fact and circumstances of case and conduct of accused.

(Case: – Rishi Dev Pandey vs State of UP)

  • Common intention may develop even while the fight is going on but it must be an impeachable truth.

(Case: – Amrit Singh case 1972 SC)

  • Common intention is different from same or similar intention it is the soul basis of liability under section 34. Common intention must not be confused with same intention that distinction is very fine but it is substantive and real.

(Case: – Mahbub shah vs emperor 1945.)

(Case: –  Nandu rastogi vs State of Bihar 2002)

  • In furtherance
  1. The word furtherance has special significance participation in action is its essence, it is advancement of common cause.
  2. Participation may be active or passive, the word furtherance demand performance in some roll however same role not required, roles may be diverse, and role may be greater or lesser.
  3. Role may be passive that is by mere presence or mere standing, they also serve who only had stand and wait.

(Case: – BK goes vs emperor 1925.)

  1. For participation physical presence on the spot is not always necessary however in some cases it may be necessary.

(Case:- Shri kantaiya ramaiya case 1954)

  • participation is not necessary to be applied by mere accompanied’

(Case:- Dashrath case 1979 SC)

  • The word furtherance enhance the scope of section 34 the accused person may be held liable which was not commonly intended by them.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.