There is a difference between object and intention, for, though their object is common, the intentions of the several members may differ and indeed may be similar only in respect that they are all unlawful, while the element of participation in action, which is the leading feature of Section 34, is replaced in Section 149 by membership of the assembly at the time of the committing of the offence. Both sections deal with combinations of persons, who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap, but Section 149 cannot at any rate relegate 34 to the position of dealing only with joint action by the commission of identically similar criminal acts, a kind of case which is not in itself deserving of separate treatment at all.
Abetment does not in itself involve the actual commission of the crime abetted. It is a crime apart. Section 114 deals with the case, where there has been the crime of abetment, but where also there has been actual commission of the crime abetted and the abettor has been present thereat, and the way in which it deals with such a case is this. Instead of the crime being still abetment with circumstances of aggravation, the crime becomes the very crime abetted.
Showing posts with label IPC 34. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPC 34. Show all posts
Sep 12, 2009
SURYA KANT AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. decided by Allahabad High Court on 31.8.2009
During course of that heated verbal onslaught, it is alleged that all of a sudden two of the appellants picked up knives but appellant Mani Kant picked up only a blunt object. Their was no challenge call nor their was any instigation to murder the deceased. No sooner than picking up the weapons that all the appellants launched an assault on the prosecution side. While two of theappellants assaulted the deceased but Mani Kant did not even endeavour to beat him. There is no evidence on record to even remotely suggest that Mani Kant had the same intention as that of his other two brothers.For the applicability of section 34 I.P.C. sharing of common intention is sine qua non. Without such sharing of intention section 34 I.P.C. has got no applicability. Thus Mani Kant Acquitted.
Jagannath versus State ofM.P. 2007SC(Supp)905
A common intention may be developed on the spot, but the same must not only be developed but also must be shared with theotheraccused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)