Law of Crimes-I

Law-402
Md. Hasnath Kabir Fahim
LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M. (First Class First)
Lecturer
School of Law
Chittagong Independent University (CIU)

http://www.ciu.edu.bd/sol-faculty.html#?id=8
https://www.linkedin.com/in/md-hasnath-kabir-fahim-40bb60177/
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fWrWKIwAAAAJ&hl=en
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Hasnath_Fahim
https://iiuc.academia.edu/HasnathKabirFahim
 Joint Liability
• 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.
• 39 DLR 437
• Ingredients of Section-34:
i. Commission of criminal act
ii. Commission of criminal act by some persons
iii. Commission of criminal act in furtherance of common
intention
• 1991 BLD 158
• 40 DLR 216
• 53 DLR 287
 Common Intention
• Section-34 applies to the in the case of a sudden
fight or chance encounter (1961 PLD (Lah) 348).
• In order to make an accused constructively liable
under Section-34 for one offence not actually
committed by him, it is essential to prove that he
had intention to commit that crime (40 DLR
154).
• A Common Intention may develop in the spot
between the two participants (53 DLR 287).
 Common Intention-2
• Section-34 does not create a distinct offence, it
only lays down the principle of joint liability
(PLD 2001 (SC) 378).
• The presence of the accused at the scene of the
occurrence is not necessary (15 BLD (HCD) 53).
• Common Intention under Section-34 does not
mean similar intention of several persons. To
constitute common intention it is vital that the
intention of each of them be known to the rest
and shared by them (AIR 1953 All 668).
 Common Intention-3
Borendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor
AIR 1925 PC 01
• Once a post-master was counting money sitting at his office.
Some criminal entered & asked him to give them the money.
The post-master refused to give & was fired with gun by one
of the criminals. A criminal named Borendra Kumar tried but
failed to escape. Some people entered the post office and
captured him. Borendra Kumar was held libale under
Section-32/302 of the Penal Code, 1860. He tried to defend
the case saying that the post-master was not fired by him.
However, the Privy Council held that he had Common
Intention with other criminals & was sentenced to death.
 Common Object
• Section-149: If an offence is committed by
any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who,
at the time of the committing of that offence, is
a member of the same assembly, is guilty of
that offence.
 Common Object-2
• The term ‘unlawful assembly’ of Section-149 has been defined in the
Section-141 of the Penal Code.
• Section-141 says that when five or more persons:
i. Show criminal force to Government or Legislature, or any public
servant in the exercise of the lawful power or
ii. Resist the execution of any law or legal process or
iii. Commit any mischief or criminal trespass or
iv. By means of criminal force, take possession of any property, or to
deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way or use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment or
v. By means of criminal force, compel any person to do what he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
• An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
 Common Object-3
• However, an assembly formed just to sustain the
lawful possession in the property is not unlawful
assembly (15 DLR 615).
• Section-149 does not create a new offence. It is
declamatory of the vicarious liability of the members
of an unlawful assembly for acts done in common
object of that assembly (43 DLR 633).
• Both the Common Intention & Common Object can
not always be proved by direct evidence & shall be
inferred from the surrounding facts & circumstances
of the case.
 Common Intention
vs.
Common Object

• In Common Intention, the number of criminal is

two. But Common Object is possessed by five o
more persons of an unlawful assembly.
• In Common Intention, the criminal must directly
or indirectly take part in the crime. But in
Common Object, being member of an unlawful
assembly is sufficient to be liable.
• Common Intention may form on the spot where
Common Object is considered after joining an
unlawful assembly.