Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Now in the BNS

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1962)Where the charge and evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly and two were acquitted, Section 149 IPC could not apply to the rest, but the appellants' murder conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34.
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954)Holding that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, the Court reduced Pandurang's murder conviction to one under Section 326 IPC and commuted the death sentences of Tukia and Bhilia.

Questions on this section

6 questions in 11 of our papers cite Section 34. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (1945), the Privy Council explained the principle of common intention now found in Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Which of the following correctly states that principle?

   A.Joint liability for a common intention attaches only to the person who actually inflicted the fatal injury on the victimB.Common intention and common object mean the same thing, so the rule applies only when five or more persons act togetherC.Common intention needs a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds; a similar intention formed independently is not enoughD.Common intention can be established only by direct evidence of an express written or oral agreement between the accused
   Show answer

2. 2. A Judicial Magistrate First Class acquits X of an offence under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC. V, the victim, wants to challenge the acquittal. Following the Supreme Court's ruling of 22 September 2026 in Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, V's appeal lies to:

   A.the High Court as of right, since every appeal against an acquittal must be heard by the High CourtB.the Court of Session, as an appeal against a conviction by such a Magistrate ordinarily lies thereC.the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the court that exercises supervision over the trial MagistrateD.the High Court, but only after V first obtains special leave to appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS
   Show answer

3. 3. In Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab (24 September 2026), the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but set aside the trial court's direction that the convicts remain in prison for the rest of their life. What sentence did it impose instead?

   A.Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years without the benefit of statutory remissionB.Rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remissionC.Imprisonment for life, with remission to be considered only after 30 yearsD.Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years, after which remission may be considered
   Show answer