IPC 34 vs BNS 3(5): Common Intention Changes Explained (2026)

In India, Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The words are unchanged: each person who does a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention of all is liable as if he had done it alone. Only its place in the statute changed.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Rule	Punishment	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
34	3(5)	Criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all: each liable as if he did it alone	None of its own — that of the offence committed	No entry; follows the offence charged	Identical (relocated into Section 3)
35	3(6)	Act criminal only by reason of knowledge or intention: each who joins with that knowledge or intention is liable	—	—	Identical
36	3(7)	Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission is the same offence	—	—	Minor edit (Illustration: "party" → "partly")
37	3(8)	Intentional co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence	—	—	Minor edit ("co-operates" → "cooperates")
38	3(9)	Persons concerned in one criminal act may be guilty of different offences	—	—	Identical

Section 3 BNS, "General explanations", also absorbs Sections 6, 7, 27 and 32 IPC as sub-sections (1) to (4): the General Exceptions apply to every offence, an expression explained once keeps that meaning, possession by a spouse, clerk or servant is the principal's possession, and words referring to acts include illegal omissions.

What changed

Identical — the operative words (Section 3(5), IPC 34). "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." Not a word, comma or cross-reference differs. The IPC text of Section 34 was itself substituted in 1870 (footnote 1 in the India Code text: "Subs. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 1, for section 34").
Minor edit — no separate section or heading. Section 34 IPC stood alone under the heading "Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention". In the BNS the rule is sub-section (5) of Section 3, whose marginal heading is "General explanations". A charge for conduct on or after 1 July 2024 therefore cites the offence "read with Section 3(5)".
Identical — Sections 3(6) and 3(9) (IPC 35 and 38). Word for word the same, including the Illustration to Section 38 (provocation reduces A's liability to culpable homicide while B, who assisted with intent to kill, is guilty of murder).
Minor edit — Section 3(7) (IPC 36). The operative words are unchanged. The Illustration reads "partly by beating Z"; the India Code IPC text prints "party by beating Z".
Minor edit — Section 3(8) (IPC 37). "co-operates", "co-operate" and "co-operation" become "cooperates", "cooperate" and "cooperation", and Illustration (b) drops the comma in "Both A and B, are guilty".
Minor edit — compounding (cross-references renumbered). Section 359(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) lets a compoundable offence be compounded "in like manner" where the accused is liable under "sub-section (5) of section 3 or section 190" BNS, as Section 320(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) did for Sections 34 and 149 IPC.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 34 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Extract, Section 3(5) and (8) BNS:

(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

(8) When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.

How it works — the elements

Section 3(5) has three parts. Each must be shown before one person is held liable for what another did.

A criminal act. Under Section 2(1) BNS, "act" denotes "as well a series of acts as a single act", and under Section 3(4) words referring to acts extend to illegal omissions. The "criminal act" can therefore be the whole course of conduct that makes up the offence.
Done by several persons. The act must be done by more than one person. How much each must do, and whether each must be present, is the question the judgments below address.
In furtherance of the common intention of all. The intention must be common to all of them, not merely the same in each. Pandurang (below) holds this requires a meeting of minds, which may be formed on the spot.

The consequence is liability "in the same manner as if it were done by him alone". Section 3(5) adds no punishment; the court applies the punishment for the substantive offence.

The neighbouring rules, with the Act's own examples

Section 3(6) covers acts criminal only because of the knowledge or intention with which they are done: each person who joins "with such knowledge or intention" is liable as if acting alone with it.
Section 3(7), Illustration: A causes Z's death partly by illegally omitting to give Z food and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.
Section 3(8), Illustration (a): A and B agree to kill Z with small doses of poison given separately; both are guilty of murder "though their acts are separate". Illustration (c): jailor A starves Z but is replaced by B, who, without collusion, continues; Z dies. B is guilty of murder, but A, who did not cooperate with B, is guilty only of attempt.
Section 3(9) means joint participation does not force one verdict on all: participants in one act may be guilty of different offences.

Related but different provisions

Abetment — Section 45 BNS (formerly Section 107 IPC) and the punishment in Section 49 BNS (formerly Section 109 IPC).
Criminal conspiracy — Section 61 BNS (formerly Sections 120A and 120B IPC): the agreement itself is the offence.
Common object — Section 190 BNS (formerly Section 149 IPC): liability of every member of an unlawful assembly of five or more.
Gang rape — Section 70(1) and (2) BNS build "acting in furtherance of a common intention" into the offence itself.

What this means in practice

For the investigating officer and prosecutor

The charge should name the substantive offence "read with Section 3(5) BNS" for conduct on or after 1 July 2024. Evidence must go beyond presence to the shared intention: words or conduct before or during the act, arrival and departure together, weapons carried, the part each played.
Where the evidence shows planning but no part in the commission, consider abetment (Section 49 BNS) or conspiracy (Section 61 BNS) instead. Shreekantiah and Suresh (below) both point to these alternatives.

For the accused and defence advocate

The key question is whether the intention was common, or merely the same in each person acting independently. Pandurang (below) addresses that distinction directly.
Bail, the trial court and compounding all follow the substantive offence. Section 3(5) has no entry of its own in the BNSS First Schedule.
Section 3(9) allows different verdicts for participants in one act. A lesser mental state proved for one accused, such as provocation, need not be imputed to all.

For the victim

A compromise is possible only if the substantive offence is compoundable under Section 359(1) or (2) BNSS. Section 359(3) then extends it to an accused liable under Section 3(5).

Judgments that still matter

Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. The State of Hyderabad, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1083 (1954 INSC 120) — 3 December 1954. Vivian Bose J., for a Bench with Mukherjea and S.R. Das JJ., held that "a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan", so there must be "a prior meeting of minds". Several persons may simultaneously attack a man, each with the intention to kill, and still not share a common intention. The Court added that the plan "need not be elaborate" and can be formed suddenly, for instance when bystanders join an assault at one man's call. Finding no evidence of prior meeting against Pandurang, the Court set aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted him under Section 326 IPC for his own blow. The report shows no paragraph numbers.

Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay — Supreme Court, 22 December 1954. In a jury trial of public servants charged under Section 409 IPC read with Section 34, the same three-Judge Bench, again speaking through Vivian Bose J., held it a misdirection to tell the jury that a person could be convicted with Section 34 though not present when the offence was committed. The Court said: "It is essential that they join in the actual doing of the act and not merely in planning its perpetration." It contrasted the planning stage, covered by abetment (Section 109 IPC), with the stage of commission, which Section 34 addresses. Participation may be passive, such as standing by a door. The convictions were quashed and the appellants discharged. The report shows no paragraph numbers.

Suresh and Anr. v. State of U.P., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 263 (2001 INSC 131) — 2 March 2001. A three-Judge Bench dismissed the appeals of a husband and his brother-in-law convicted of killing members of the husband's brother's family over a land dispute, and upheld the acquittal of the wife, who had remained "passively on the road". K.T. Thomas J., in the first opinion, said that "participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention is sine qua non for Section 34 IPC". In his view the act may be overt or covert, and even guarding the scene or exhortation can be enough, but a person who "only keeps the common intention in his mind" cannot be convicted with its aid. R.P. Sethi J., for himself and B.N. Agrawal J., agreed with the conclusions but wrote separately. He said no overt act is necessary for a co-accused proved to share the common intention, that the common intention may be formed on the spot, and that Section 34 "is a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence". The report shows no paragraph numbers.

All three judgments construe words that Section 3(5) BNS repeats without change, so on a reading of the text their reasoning remains relevant to the new provision. Where the opinions differ, for example on presence at the scene, the difference is carried forward with the words.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect penalties incurred or proceedings in respect of offences under it, which may be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed". On a reading of that text, a joint offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC offence read with Section 34 IPC, and pending investigations and trials continue under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Because the rule of joint liability is word for word the same, the choice of Code matters for the substantive offence and its punishment, not for common intention. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 34 IPC? Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from 1 July 2024. The words are identical: when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable for that act as if he had done it alone.

Did the BNS change the law of common intention? Not in its words. Section 3(5) BNS reproduces Section 34 IPC exactly; the only change is placement, as sub-section (5) of Section 3 ('General explanations') instead of a separate section with its own heading. Sections 35 to 38 IPC are carried into Section 3(6) to (9), with only spelling and punctuation changes in Section 3(7) and Section 3(8) and their Illustrations.

Is Section 3(5) BNS an offence in itself? No. Section 3(5) BNS prescribes no punishment and has no entry in the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It makes each person liable for the criminal act as if done by him alone, so the punishment, bail and trial court follow the substantive offence charged with it, for example Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) BNS. In Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001 INSC 131), Sethi J. described Section 34 IPC as a rule of evidence that does not create a substantive offence.

Does common intention need a prior plan? In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954 INSC 120), the Supreme Court held that common intention presupposes prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, but that the plan may be formed suddenly, however hastily. Several persons with the same intention who each strike independently do not share a common intention. The words construed are repeated in Section 3(5) BNS.

Must every accused be present at the scene for Section 3(5) BNS to apply? The section itself does not say. In Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay (22 December 1954) the Supreme Court held that a person must be physically present and participate in the commission of the offence. In Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001 INSC 131), Thomas J. said presence at the scene is not always necessary, for example where a co-accused supplies weapons from a distance, while Sethi J. (for himself and Agrawal J.) referred to physical presence. The facts of each case govern.

What is the difference between common intention and common object? Section 3(5) BNS needs a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. Section 190 BNS (formerly Section 149 IPC) makes every member of an unlawful assembly, defined in Section 189 BNS as five or more persons, guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or which members knew was likely to be committed.

Can an offence charged with Section 3(5) BNS be compounded? Yes, if the substantive offence is compoundable. Section 359(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allows a compoundable offence to be compounded in like manner where the accused is liable under sub-section (5) of Section 3 or Section 190 BNS. Section 320(3) CrPC said the same of Sections 34 and 149 IPC.

Which law applies to a joint offence committed before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS keeps alive penalties and proceedings under the IPC as if it had not been repealed, so on a reading of that text an offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC section read with Section 34 IPC. Because Section 3(5) BNS is word for word the same, the rule of joint liability does not differ between the two.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(1), 3 (all sub-sections and Illustrations), 45, 49, 70(1)-(2) and 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 6, 7, 27, 32 to 38 (with the footnote to Section 34), 107 and 109.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 359(3) and 531(2)(a); First Schedule (no entry for Section 3; entry for Section 190).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320(3).
Judgments read in full text: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955_1_1083_1097_EN.md); Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay (1955_1_1177_1191_EN.md); Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001_2_263_286_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 34 IPC vs Section 3(5) BNS — Common Intention