Requirement of Common Intention to alter from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC


Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that each part who is a piece of an unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence submitted in the prosecution of the normal object. This implies regardless of whether the offence was submitted by one individual from the unlawful assembly and the offence was submitted in the prosecution of the regular object; every one of the individuals is guilty. Every one of the individuals is guilty regardless of whether they didn’t submit the offence however realized that the offence is probably going to be submitted in the prosecution of the regular object. This encourages us to build up the basics of the offence under Section 149 as;

  • There was an unlawful assembly comprising of at least five people
  • They all had a common object
  • The offence was submitted in the prosecution of the regular object
  • The offence under Section 149 isn’t compoundable. In any case, it is cognizable, bailable and triable same as the offence submitted.

Section 141 of Indian Penal Code: Meaning of Unlawful Assembly

Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code subtleties the particulars of an unlawful assembly. It expresses that an assembly of at least five people is an unlawful assembly if the normal object of such assembly is any of the following.

  • To indicate criminal power
  • Resisting execution of a law or legal method
  • Committing criminal trespass or evil
  • Compelling others to do what they are not legally bound to do by a show of criminal power
  • Claim a property by utilization of criminal power or show of criminal power
  • Barring somebody from using ethereal right by use or show of criminal force. All the individuals from an unlawful assembly are culpable only for being a piece of it.

Mala Singh v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court in the case of Mala Singh v. State of Haryana[1] has seen that, while sentencing denounced by modifying charge from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC, their ‘basic aim’ ought to be demonstrated. Eleven blamed were sentenced by the Trial Court for submitting the homicide of one woman. In the intrigue recorded by the denounced, the High Court absolved eight people from every one of the charges though rejected the intrigue in regard of three blamed people and maintained their conviction by taking plan of action to Section 34 IPC.[2]

In this case the Court on examining the evidence observed that

Though the High Court however had the locale to adjust the charge from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC, the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC isn’t lawfully practical without any proof of normal goal qua the three blamed.

At the point when prosecution did not set up such case at any phase of the procedures against the appellants nor illustrated any proof against the appellants that they (three) preceding date of the occurrence had anytime of time shared the “regular goal” and in encouragement of sharing such normal expectation went ahead the spot to dispense with Mahendro Bai and ultimately, the High Court having neglected to give any reasons in help of changed conviction aside from saying in one line that conviction is maintained under Section 302/34 IPC instead of Section 302/149 IPC, the summoning of Section 34 IPC at the redrafting stage by the High Court, in our view, can’t be maintained.

For a situation of this nature, when there is a battle between the two gatherings and where there are firearm shots traded between the two gatherings against one another and when on proof eight co-blamed are totally let for and where the State does not seek after their request of Section 149 IPC against the absolved eight denounced which accomplishes certainty and where the supplication of Section 34 IPC isn’t confined against any blamed and where even at the redrafting stage no proof is depended on by the prosecution to continue the charge of Section 34 IPC qua the three blamed appellants autonomous for eight cleared co-blamed and when out for two fundamental denounced aggressors, one has kicked the bucket and the other is vindicated and ultimately, without any thinking given by the High Court for continuing the conviction of the three appellants in help of change of the charge, we are of the considered view that the two appellants are qualified for case the advantage of whole situation and look for modification of their conviction for bonus of the offense culpable under Section 324 IPC simplicitor as opposed to endure conviction under Section 302/34 IPC, if not finish quittance alike other eight co-charged.

[1] AIR 2019 SC 1026

[2] Ashok Kini, Victim Can File Appeal Against Acquittal Without Seeking Leave To Appeal: SC, Justice Gupta Dissents,, last visited on 6th May, 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *