Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghosh (1925)

Issues

• Can the appellant be held guilty of murder under Section 34 IPC based on common intention?
• Does the importance of Section 34 make Section 149 IPC unnecessary?

Rules

• Section 34 IPC: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if he alone did it.
• Section 149 IPC: Liability for offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object. It may overlap with Section 34 but is conceptually distinct.

• The Sub-Postmaster at Sankaritolla Post Office was counting cash in the back room.
• Several men entered from the courtyard and demanded the money.
• Pistol shots were fired; the Sub-Postmaster was hit in the hand and near the armpit and died almost immediately.
• The assailants fled without taking money, splitting up as they ran.
• One appellant was caught; others escaped. He was armed but claimed he did not fire.
• Prosecution evidence showed he stood just outside, close to the shooters, could see the inside, and was seen by those within.

Arguments

Judgment

The Court rejected the narrow reading of Section 34 IPC. If the section required each member to perform identical acts or be able to commit the entire crime alone, the provision would defeat itself. Liability arises when the act is done in furtherance of the common intention, even if roles differ (such as shooting vs. standing guard).

On the relationship with Section 149 IPC, the Court stated that while there can be overlap, the two provisions are not the same and one cannot replace the other.

Ratio Decidendi

• Common intention under Section 34 creates joint liability; identical acts are not required.
• Presence + participation in the plan can be sufficient, even without firing a shot.
• Section 34 ≠ Section 149: they serve different legal purposes and may sometimes overlap.

Why It Matters

This case is a go-to authority for joint liability. It helps students and courts understand that the law looks at the shared plan and coordinated action, not just the final trigger pull. It also helps keep Section 34 and Section 149 in their proper lanes.

Key Takeaways

• Different roles, same plan → joint liability under Section 34.
• Standing guard can still mean “acting in furtherance”.
• Section 34 (intention) and Section 149 (object) are distinct.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ PLAN—PLACE—PURPOSE”

1. PLAN: Shared plan proves common intention.
2. PLACE: Presence that helps the plan counts.
3. PURPOSE: Acts push the common purpose forward.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether the appellant can be convicted of murder through Section 34 IPC based on common intention.

Rule: Section 34 imposes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention; Section 149 concerns unlawful assembly and common object.

Application: The appellant’s coordinated presence and role supported the shooters. Even without firing, he acted in furtherance of the plan; identical acts are not required.

Conclusion: Section 34 applies; Section 149 is not rendered otiose; both provisions remain distinct.

Glossary

Common Intention

A shared plan to commit a crime; all who act to advance it are jointly liable.

Common Object

Goal of an unlawful assembly under Section 149; different from common intention.

Joint Liability

Holding each participant liable for the whole crime when acting together.

FAQs

Related Cases