Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 is India’s new criminal law code, aimed at modernizing and consolidating the country’s criminal justice system. It replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Among the many provisions in the new law, Section 34 plays a critical role in addressing how criminal liability is determined when more than one person is involved in committing a crime.
What Does Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Say?
Section 34 of the BNS 2023 deals with the concept of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is committed by several individuals who share a common intention, they will all be treated as equally responsible for the crime, even if one person performs the act, and others assist in it.
The section reads as follows:
Section 34: “When a criminal act is done by several persons, and if it is done with a common intention, each of those persons is liable for the act as if it were done by him alone.”
This provision highlights that all persons involved in the commission of a crime with a shared goal (or intention) will face the same punishment, regardless of the actual role they played in carrying out the crime.
What Is ‘Common Intention’?
Common intention means that the individuals involved in the crime had the same objective in committing the unlawful act. It is the mental state of a group of people who decide to commit a crime together. For example, if two or more individuals plan to rob a bank and, during the process, one of them kills a guard, all involved can be charged with murder because they shared the common intention of committing the robbery, even though only one person carried out the killing.
It’s important to note that common intention does not require pre-planning, and it can develop at any point during the commission of the crime. What matters is that the individuals involved act with a shared purpose.
Important Aspects of Section 34
- Joint Liability: The section ensures that everyone who acts with a common intention is equally responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even if one person carries out the act, all those who participated with the shared intention will be punished.
- No Need for Prior Agreement: The law does not demand that the individuals involved must have a detailed prior agreement or plan. The intention to commit the crime can form at any time during the act. As long as the participants share the same goal, they are jointly liable.
- Scope of Liability: This provision broadens the scope of criminal liability. Even those who may not physically commit the crime (but assist or encourage others) can still be held fully accountable.
- Proof of Common Intention: The prosecution must prove that the accused individuals had a common intention at the time of committing the crime. This can be done through direct or circumstantial evidence. The accused cannot be convicted solely based on their association with others involved in the crime.
Application of Section 34 in Case Laws
To better understand how Section 34 works, let’s look at some important case laws that have shaped its application.
1. Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad (1945)
This is one of the earliest cases that clarified the application of Section 34 of the IPC, which is similar to Section 34 of the BNS 2023. In this case, the court ruled that even if a person does not carry out the criminal act but shares the common intention with others, they are equally liable. In this case, the accused were part of a group that planned a robbery, and even though one of the accused did not directly commit the robbery, they were still held liable because they had a common intention to commit the crime.
2. K. S. Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka (2016)
This case dealt with the question of whether common intention can be presumed, and the court ruled that it cannot be. The court emphasized that a common intention must be clearly proven through direct or circumstantial evidence. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish common intention. It must be shown that the individuals involved consciously decided to commit the crime together.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2006)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with a situation where the accused were charged with murder. One accused person had physically committed the murder, while others were involved in the crime, but in different capacities. The court ruled that all those involved were guilty under Section 34, as they had a common intention to commit the crime of murder during the robbery. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that all persons sharing common intention are equally liable for the outcome of the crime.
4. R. v. Govinda (1950)
In this case, the court applied Section 34 in determining the liability of two individuals involved in a fight, where one had injured the victim. Even though one person physically inflicted harm, both were held liable because they acted together with the same objective. The case illustrated how common intention links the actions of multiple individuals in criminal law.
5. Surender Singh v. State of Haryana (2019)
In this recent case, the Supreme Court of India observed that while common intention is a critical aspect of determining liability under Section 34, each case should be judged on its own facts. It must be proven that the accused shared the same mental state and goal at the time of the crime. The court clarified that mere suspicion or association with the crime is not sufficient to charge someone under Section 34.
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 is an important provision in Indian criminal law that ensures fairness in the treatment of individuals involved in the commission of a crime with a common intention. It holds all involved parties equally responsible for the crime, even if they had different roles in carrying out the act.
Through various case laws, it has been established that common intention does not necessarily require prior planning, but it does require evidence of a shared purpose among the accused. Courts have emphasized the need for concrete proof of common intention, and they have clarified that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to convict someone under Section 34.
The BNS 2023 is designed to bring more clarity and fairness to India’s criminal justice system. By ensuring that everyone with a common intention is equally liable, Section 34 helps to prevent the escape of those who might otherwise avoid responsibility by distancing themselves from the actual act but still played a significant role in committing the crime.
