send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
The difference between Section 34 and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is
That whereas in Section 34 there must at least be five persons, Section 149 requires only two persons
That Section 149 is only a rule of evidence whereas Section 34 creates a specific offence and provides for its punishment
That Section 34 requires active participation in action whereas Section 149 requires mere passive membership of the unlawful assembly
That Section 34 need not be joined with the principle offence, whereas Section 149 must be combined with the principle offence.
he principle element in section 34 I.PC is the common intention to commit a crime. In furtherance of the common intention several acts may be done by several persons resulting in the commission of that crime. In such a situation Section 34 provides that each one of them would be liable for that crime in the same manner as if all the acts resulting in that crime had been done by him alone. There is no question of common intention in Section 149 as offence may be committed by members of unlawful assembly and the other members will he liable for that offence although there was no common intention between that person and other members of the unlawful assembly to commit that offence provided that condition laid down in the section are fulfilled. Thus if the offence is committed' by that person isin persecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in persecution of the common object, every member of that unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence, although there may be no common intention and no participation by the other members in the actual commission of that offence. (Nanak Chand v. State of Punjabj
By: Abhipedia ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses