S.34 Common Intention & S.149 Common Object of IPC Lecture by Justice S.Nagamuthu, Sr Advocate, SC

BM Law Lecture -Webinar Series, Organized by Bhavani B Mohan & Associates, Advocates, Tamilnadu

Topic: Salient Features of Common Intention and Common Object (A comparative Study of S.34 & S.149 IPC)

Speaker: Mr Justice(Rtd) S.Nagamuthu, Madras High Court. Now practicing at Supreme Court of India and in 2019 designated Senior Advocate by Supreme Court . Justice S. Nagamuthu of the Madras High Court, the first judge to be elevated to the post from among lawyers practicing in the Madurai Bench of the High Court in 22.03. 2007 and retired from service on 31.05.2017. The Judge had disposed of 84,867 cases in his tenure.

The learned Senior Advocate has explained S.34 & 149 of IPC & quoting following Indian & foreign judgments.

1. AIR 1924 PC 1 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor

2. 2001 (3) SCC 673 Suresh & Another Versus State of UP

3. 2013 (7) SCC 629 Manga @ Man Singh vs State Of Uttarkakhand

4. 2018 (7) SCC 743 Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel

5. A Full Bench Srilankan High Court 1914 THE KING v. SUPPAR et al

6. Singapore Court of Appeal/ PP v Tan Meng Khin & 24 Ors [1995] 2 SLR 505]

7. Singapore Court of Appeal/ PP v Fo Son Hing [[1994] 2 SLR 561

[Important-gg]

Your judgments clearly explain that all orders of honorable court are historical and of great importance.. Thank you very much honorable judge sir.

[shekhartalashilkar]

Excellent erudite lecture. Thank you🙏🙏🙏

[anandshinde]

Honorable justice Nagmuthis efforts to enrich the knowledge of law students as well as lawyers is praise worthy. Every body should learn lesson of hard work, consistency, perseverance and nobility to donate knowledge is really worthy of appreciation. I always hear Justice Nagmuthi whenever I get opportunity.

[adv.arshadmuhammed]

No words, mr.nagamuthu sir is the best .

[ravikumar-iwgf]

Tq my Lord for giving lecturer on these section and said difference between section 34 and 149 IPC

[gauravsiag]

Hello everyone....
Hon'ble Justice Nagamuthu has raised a very critical question on the "third" clause of section 141 relating to the words "other offences".

In my view also the words "other offences" ought not have to be written as it makes the classification under section 141 redundant if it aim to include any kind of offences under IPC.

However the point which justice Nagamuthu has raised at around 01:21:20 timings of this video regarding the overlapping of section 34 and 149 because of the words "other offences" written in 141(3), is not correct according to my humble view. The reasoning is as follows:-

Suppose a case that the words "other offences" is not even written in 141(3).

Then further suppose a situation that a group of 7 people forms a common intention to commit mischief upon the house of X, and in the process of commission of that mischief they also occasioned hurt to X.
Here in this example they all will be liable according to section 34.

Now in this same exmaple suppose they had formed a common object to commit mischief upon X' s house and in the process of committing mischief they also occasioned hurt to mr. X . In this example they will all be liable because of section 149 as being member of unlawful assembly
Plus(+) they all will also be liable because of section 34 as common intention can be even formed at the time of commission of the act.

Hence by reading these examples it can be very well said that both section 34 and 149 overlapped, and that too even in that situation in which we supposes that the words "other offences" are not written under section 141(3).

Thanks.

[kanimozhikanimozhi]

Great respect sir,
Sir, I have a doubt, why should apply the doctrine of Ejusdem generis it means ' of the same kinds of nature. as you said if 5 people having same intention to commit criminal act like cause death it will come under sec.302 r/w 34 of ipc, if 5 people having commen object ( stated under sec 141 of ipc) but committed other offence also like death. It will come under 302/149, but this doctrine says same nature will apply it is not apply to sec 149, the offence may be different at the time of committing sec 141. Then how this doctrine would apply sir, this is my doubt.

[hssingh]

Outstanding lecture...thanks to Respected Sir...

[mithileshkumarca]

Sir, Can the court invoke section 34 and 149 of ipc in single offence in different accused persons.
For example one accused person against section 34 and other person against 149.

[abulhasanjamadar]

Excellent lessons achieved. Thank you your Lordship.

[TheSHAMEER]

With furtherance to the live lectures, the YouTube videos are very helpful and we can access it as digital library which helps to refresh our memory.... Thanks for the team🤝

[Aalaporanthamizan]

Sir pls upload other classes videos also pls

[raguram]

thanks you lordship giving us a wonderful lecture to understand each and every words in the section 34 and 149 of code clearly

[ravikumar-iwgf]

Tq my Lord for giving lecturer on these section and said difference between section 34 and 149 IPC