Correct option is D
The
doctrine of joint liability as envisaged under
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 is primarily based on the principles laid down in
Reg. V. Cruise. This English case established the foundation for joint liability in criminal acts when there is a common intention, which is reflected in Section 34 of the IPC.
Information Booster
Doctrine of Joint Liability (Section 34, IPC)
Section 34 of the IPC incorporates the
principle of joint liability, which states that when a criminal act is carried out by several individuals with a common intention, each person involved is equally liable for the offense. Even if a person did not personally execute the crime, their participation in the common plan or intention renders them culpable.
In
Reg. V. Cruise, it was established that individuals participating in a common unlawful act, where the criminal offense was a probable consequence, could all be held jointly liable. This principle was applied in the Indian context under Section 34 of the IPC to ensure that each participant in a group criminal act bears equal responsibility.
Additional Knowledge
(a) Barendra Kumar Ghosh V. Emperor
In
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, the application of Section 34 IPC was further clarified, but it is not the foundational case for the doctrine. This case highlighted that even passive participants who share the common intention can be held liable under Section 34 IPC. The case confirmed that an individual need not personally commit the criminal act to be held responsible if they shared the common intent.
(b) Mulcahy V. R
This case established principles related to
conspiracy under English law. It held that an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act constitutes conspiracy. While relevant to conspiracy law, it is not directly related to the
doctrine of joint liability under Section 34 IPC.
(c) Pandurang V. State of Hyderabad
This case discussed the nuances of
common intention under Section 34 IPC but concluded that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not amount to joint liability unless it is proven that the individuals shared a common intention to commit the crime. This case is useful in explaining the limits of Section 34 but is not the basis of the doctrine.
