34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention —
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
(i) When an offence is sought to be proved only on circumstantial evidence, the allegations of common intention under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code normally cannot be established in absence of meeting of mind, the overt act of the accused, by their conduct, by using the weapons by their utterance of words; Santosh Desai v. State of Goa, (1997) 2 Crimes 666 (Bom).
(ii) If some act is done by the accused person in furtherance of common intention of his co-accused, he is equally liable like his co-accused; State of Punjab v. Fauja Singh, (1997) 3 Crimes 170 (P & H).
(iii) In order to convict a person vicariously liable under section 34 or section 149 it is not necessary to prove that each and everyone of them had indulged in overts acts; Ram Blias Singh v. State of Bihar, (1989) Cr LJ 1782 : AIR 1989 SC 1593.
(iv) When the accused rushed with sword drawn itself showed that he shared the common intention hence liable for conviction under section 300, read with section 34; Abdulla Kunhi v. The State of Kerala, (1990) SC Cr 525.
(v) Both sections 149 and 34 deal with a combination of persons who become liable to be punished as sharers in the commission of offences. The non-applicability of section is, therefore, no bar in convicting the accused under substantive section read with section 34 if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all; Nethala Pothuraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 3133 (SC).
(vi) Mere surrender by appellant alongwith accused before police does not show meeting of minds as to bring the case within ambit of section 34; Rangaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1989) Cr LJ 875: AIR 1989 SC 1137.
(vii) In order to bring a case under section 34 it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence; Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993(1) Crimes 294 (SC).
Common intention, however, cannot be confused with similar intention.Calcutta High Court
Section 34 offers a notion of joint liability that is present in both civil and criminal law. It addresses a scenario where an offense involves a specific criminal intention or understanding and is committed by multiple persons. Each of those who join the act with such understanding or purpose shall be responsible in the same manner as if that intention or understanding was accomplished by him alone.
Common purpose, common object, under Section 34: When various people commit a criminal act in support of the common intention of all, each of those persons shall be liable for that act within the same manner as if it was done by him alone.
Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. Each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Section 34 and 149 IPC depicts the rule of constructive liability.