Section 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 are declaratory of a principal law as they do not create any substantive offense as observed in Case - King emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose(1929) Section 34 of Indian Penal Code states that if any criminal act is done by several persons with common intention then each person is equally liable under this section although physical presence is not required the mind must be engaged in criminal activity.
In Akloo Ahir v. State of Bihar(2010), the court held that the accused won't be held liable for the offense if the prior meeting of the mind isn't proved. While in Aizaz v. State (2008), the court held that the physical presence of the accused isn't necessary at the occurrence of the event if the mind was engaged in the offense. Section 35 states that the act is considered as a criminal if it is done with criminal knowledge or intention by several persons having the criminal knowledge or intention then each person is liable for the act equally.
In Gharet v. Ex(1949) the court observed that Section 35 is supplementary of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 36 of the Indian penal code talks about the effect caused partly by act and partly by omission. It states that any act or omission is having the same effect as an act done partly and partly omitted and both are considered the same offense. Section 37 of the Indian penal code states that if any offense is done by several acts with intention cooperation then the act will be also considered as an offense. The requisite element of this section is intentional cooperation.
As in case - Birendra Kumar v. Emperor, Lord Sumner observed that Section 37 deals with intentional cooperation. Section 38 of the Indian Penal Code states that the accused may be guilty of different offenses no matter whether they are engaged in the activity with several persons.
Read More Latest Bollywood Movie Reviews & News
Read More Sports News, Cricket News
Read More Latest Mobile, Laptop News & Review