Section 34 IPC vs Section 3(5) BNS — Common Intention

# Section 34 IPC vs Section 3(5) BNS — Common Intention

The doctrine of common intention is a foundational principle of Indian criminal law that makes each person involved in a jointly committed criminal act liable for the act as if they had individually done it. Under the IPC, this was codified in **Section 34**. Under the BNS, the corresponding provision is **Section 3(5)**. This page provides an educational comparison.

Section Text

Section 34 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

> "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."

Section 3(5) BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

> "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."

Plain Language Explanation

Section 34 IPC / Section 3(5) BNS establishes the principle of **joint criminal liability based on common intention**. When two or more persons act together to commit a criminal act, and each of them shares the same intention, then each person is equally liable for the criminal act — even if only one person physically committed it.

For example, if A and B go together to rob C, and during the robbery A kills C while B holds C down, both A and B are equally liable for the murder if they shared a common intention to commit the robbery even at the risk of causing death. B cannot escape liability by saying "I did not strike the fatal blow."

**Important:** Section 34 is not a standalone offence — it is a rule of evidence or a principle of joint liability. It is always read with another substantive offence (e.g., Section 34 read with Section 302 IPC, or Section 3(5) read with Section 101 BNS). A person cannot be charged under Section 34 alone.

Key Ingredients / Elements

1. **A criminal act** — There must be a criminal act that constitutes an offence.

2. **Done by several persons** — Two or more persons must be involved in the commission of the act.

3. **In furtherance of the common intention of all** — All the persons must have shared a common intention to commit the criminal act.

4. **Participation** — Each person must have participated in some way in the commission of the act (though the participation need not be identical in nature).

IPC vs BNS Comparison Table

| Feature | Section 34 IPC | Section 3(5) BNS |

|---|---|---|

| **Principle** | Common intention — joint criminal liability | Common intention — joint criminal liability |

| **Nature** | Rule of evidence / principle of liability | Rule of evidence / principle of liability |

| **Standalone offence?** | No — must be read with substantive offence | No — must be read with substantive offence |

| **Minimum persons** | Two or more | Two or more |

| **Pre-arranged plan required?** | Yes, but can develop on the spot | Yes, but can develop on the spot |

| **Distinction from Section 149/common object** | Requires common intention (meeting of minds); no minimum number | Common object requires 5+ persons (unlawful assembly) |

| **Substantive change** | — | No substantive change; renumbered and placed in the general clauses chapter |

Key Differences and Observations

The BNS has **retained Section 34 IPC verbatim** as Section 3(5) BNS. The text is identical. The principle of joint criminal liability based on common intention continues unchanged.

The placement of this provision has changed — instead of being a separate section (Section 34), it is now part of the general clauses chapter (Section 3) as sub-section (5). This is a structural reorganisation that does not affect the substantive law.

The distinction between common intention (Section 34 IPC / Section 3(5) BNS) and common object (Section 149 IPC / corresponding BNS provision) remains important:

- **Common intention** requires a meeting of minds — a shared plan or purpose. It can apply to even two persons.

- **Common object** is linked to an unlawful assembly of five or more persons and does not require a shared plan — it requires only that the act was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.

Important Judgments

1. **Mahbub Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118** — The Privy Council laid down the foundational test for common intention: there must be a prior meeting of minds, a pre-arranged plan, and the criminal act must have been done in furtherance of that common intention. However, the pre-arranged plan can develop on the spot and need not be elaborate.

2. **Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216** — The Supreme Court held that common intention does not require a long-standing pre-arranged plan. It can develop during the course of the transaction and can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances of the accused.

3. **Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1** — The Privy Council discussed the scope of Section 34 and held that a person who stands guard during a robbery and murder shares the common intention and is equally liable, even though they did not fire the fatal shot.

4. **Kripal Singh v. State of UP AIR 1954 SC 706** — The Court discussed the evidentiary requirements for establishing common intention and held that it must be inferred from the totality of the circumstances — the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident.

5. **Suresh v. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673** — The Court discussed when common intention transforms during the course of an act and held that if the common intention changes (e.g., from assault to murder), all participants must be shown to have shared the changed intention for Section 34 to apply to the more serious offence.

Practical Implications

- **For legal practitioners:** Section 34 / Section 3(5) is one of the most frequently invoked provisions in Indian criminal law. Establishing or negating common intention is often the central issue in cases involving multiple accused. Evidence of prior planning, conduct during the incident, weapon similarity, and post-incident conduct are all relevant.

- **For accused persons:** Being present at the scene of a crime does not automatically make a person liable under Section 34. There must be evidence of shared intention and participation. Defence strategies focus on establishing that the accused had no prior plan, did not share the intention, and their presence was coincidental.

- **For the prosecution:** Common intention can be proved through direct evidence (prior discussions, planning) or circumstantial evidence (coordinated actions, similar weapons, joint conduct before and after the offence). The prosecution need not prove the exact role of each accused — it is sufficient to show shared intention and joint participation.

- **For courts:** The application of Section 34 requires careful examination of the evidence against each accused individually. Mechanical application of Section 34 to all persons present at the scene without evidence of shared intention is an error of law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the common intention provision changed under BNS?

No. Section 3(5) BNS is identical to Section 34 IPC. The text, meaning, and application are the same. Only the section number has changed.

What is the difference between common intention (Section 34) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC / Section 61 BNS)?

Common intention (Section 34/3(5)) is a principle of joint liability — it makes all participants in a jointly committed act equally liable. It is not a standalone offence. Criminal conspiracy (Section 120B/61) is a substantive offence — the agreement to commit an illegal act is itself an offence, even if the illegal act is never carried out. Common intention requires actual commission of the criminal act; conspiracy does not.

Can common intention develop on the spot?

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that common intention does not require a long-standing pre-arranged plan. It can develop during the course of the transaction, even on the spur of the moment. It can be inferred from the coordinated conduct of the accused during the incident.

Is mere presence at the scene sufficient to invoke Section 34?

No. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to invoke Section 34. There must be evidence that the person present shared the common intention and participated in the criminal act in some manner. A bystander who happens to be present but does not share the intention or participate is not liable under Section 34.

---

*This content is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified legal professional. Content is compliant with Bar Council of India guidelines on legal information sharing.*