IPC Section 35
IPC Section 35 – When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention
Bare Language (Simplified):
When an act is criminal only because it is done with a particular knowledge or intention, then:
If multiple persons do that act,
Each person is guilty only if he had that particular knowledge or intention when doing the act.
Purpose of Section 35:
This section clarifies criminal liability in joint acts or group actions, especially when intent (mens rea) or knowledge is essential for the act to be considered a crime.
It ensures that:
Only those who possess the criminal mindset at the time of the act are held guilty.
Others involved in the same act without criminal intention or knowledge are not held liable under that section.
Key Elements:
Act must be criminal because of intention or knowledge – The act itself is not a crime unless it is done with a guilty mind.
Multiple people involved – It addresses situations where more than one person is involved in the act.
Individual assessment of guilt – Each person’s mental state (knowledge or intention) is assessed separately.
No automatic liability – Just being present or involved isn’t enough for guilt unless the person had the required mental element.
Illustration (Hypothetical Example):
Suppose A, B, and C are workers unloading boxes. One of the boxes contains smuggled goods, and they are caught. If only A knew that the box had illegal goods and B and C were unaware and just doing their job:
Under Section 35, only A is guilty, because only he had the required criminal knowledge.
B and C are not liable, even though they performed the same physical act, because they lacked criminal intention or knowledge.
Why It Matters:
This section protects individuals from being unfairly punished just because they were part of an act that later turned out to be criminal, provided they did not share the guilty intent or knowledge.
It is rooted in the principle:
"Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"
An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind.
Judicial Interpretation:
Courts have used Section 35 in many cases to determine whether each participant in a joint act should be held criminally liable. It is especially relevant in:
Conspiracy
Abetment
Common intention (with Section 34)
Joint liability cases
The courts focus on whether the accused had the necessary intent or knowledge to commit the offence.
Comparison with IPC Section 34:
Section 34 IPC talks about acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention — it imposes joint liability.
Section 35 IPC qualifies that such joint liability applies only if each person had the required mental state (knowledge or intention).
Conclusion:
IPC Section 35 ensures fairness in criminal liability by focusing on the mental state of each person involved in an act. It reinforces the legal principle that a person can be punished only for what they intentionally or knowingly did, not for what others did unless they shared the intent or knowledge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments