Supreme Court Clarifies Difference Between Section 34 and Section 149 IPC

Last Updated on February 19, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh

Supreme Court Clarifies Difference Between Section 34 and Section 149 IPC

The Supreme Court recently explained the distinction between Section 34 (common intention) and Section 149 (common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the ruling while hearing a dowry death case.

In this case, a husband and his mother faced charges for setting his wife on fire. The mother poured kerosene and ignited the fire, while the husband was present but did not assist. Instead, he tried to douse the flames. The Court acquitted the husband, ruling that mere presence at the crime scene does not prove common intention under Section 34 unless active participation is shown.

The Court emphasized that Section 34 IPC requires both criminal intent and an overt act. An individual must actively participate in the crime to be held liable.

In contrast, Section 149 IPC focuses on membership in an unlawful assembly. It does not require personal intent to commit the crime. If an offence occurs while pursuing the assembly’s common object, all members share liability, even if they did not actively participate or intend the act.

The Court illustrated this with an example. If a mob intends to attack a community and one member, despite personal objections, witnesses a murder by others, that member remains liable under Section 149.

The ruling also clarified that Section 34 differs from Section 120B (criminal conspiracy). Under Section 120B, an agreement to commit a crime is enough for conviction. In Section 34, actual participation is mandatory.

This judgment, delivered in the case Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr v. State of Karnataka (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218), reinforces the need for clear evidence of active involvement to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC.