https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288782 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was construed as imposing joint liability where several persons act in furtherance of a common intention, so each is answerable for the whole offence even if not every participant performs the identical fatal act. Read with sections 33, 37 and 38, the Code was treated as recognising liability for coordinated acts producing one offence. On the proved facts, the accused's presence and participation in the assault supported conviction, and the trial judge's summing-up was found to have dealt adequately with the material facts without material misdirection. The distinction between murder, attempt and abetment did not defeat liability on those facts, and the conviction was maintained. en-us Thu, 23 Oct 1924 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:47:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288782 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was construed as imposing joint liability where several persons act in furtherance of a common intention, so each is answerable for the whole offence even if not every participant performs the identical fatal act. Read with sections 33, 37 and 38, the Code was treated as recognising liability for coordinated acts producing one offence. On the proved facts, the accused's presence and participation in the assault supported conviction, and the trial judge's summing-up was found to have dealt adequately with the material facts without material misdirection. The distinction between murder, attempt and abetment did not defeat liability on those facts, and the conviction was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Oct 1924 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288782