Section Overview
Section Number
35
Section Title
Criminal Act Done by Several Persons with Different Intentions
Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Status
Active
Applicability
Applicable throughout India wherever the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is in force.
BNS Section 35 addresses a unique situation in criminal law where multiple persons participate in a criminal act, but each individual may possess a different intention, knowledge, or mental state.
Unlike BNS Section 34, which deals with common intention, Section 35 focuses on cases where the participants are involved in the same criminal act but their respective liabilities differ according to their state of mind.
The section ensures that punishment is individualized and proportionate to the mental element of each accused person.
This provision substantially corresponds to Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section Explanation
Simple Explanation (Plain English / Hinglish)
BNS Section 35 ka matlab hai ki agar kai log milkar koi criminal act karte hain, lekin sabka intention ya knowledge alag-alag hai, to har vyakti ki liability uske apne intention aur knowledge ke hisaab se decide hogi.
Example:
A aur B milkar C ko maarte hain.
-
A ka intention C ko marne ka tha.
-
B ka intention sirf C ko halka injury pahunchane ka tha.
Agar evidence se yeh prove ho jata hai, to A aur B ki criminal liability alag ho sakti hai.
Yaani sab log same offence ke liye equally responsible nahi hote.
Court har accused ki mental state ko separately examine karti hai.
Legal Definition (Original Law Text)
The section provides in substance that:
"Whenever a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone, provided that the act is done with such intention or knowledge as would make him liable if done individually."
The provision emphasizes individual criminal responsibility based upon personal intention or knowledge.
Practical Interpretation
Courts apply Section 35 when:
-
Several persons are involved in one criminal act.
-
Mental states differ among participants.
-
Liability must be determined separately.
-
Different levels of culpability exist.
The section prevents blanket punishment and ensures fairness in criminal trials.
Essential Ingredients of BNS Section 35
Criminal Act by Several Persons
More than one person must participate.
Participation
Each accused must contribute to the act.
Different Mental States
Participants may possess different intentions or knowledge.
Individual Liability
Each person's liability depends upon his own mental state.
Difference Between Section 34 and Section 35
Section 34
-
Common intention required.
-
Shared criminal design.
-
Joint liability.
Section 35
-
Different intentions possible.
-
Individual mental state examined.
-
Liability varies among accused.
Thus, Section 35 focuses more on individualized culpability.
Why This Section Is Important
Without Section 35:
-
Courts might impose identical liability on all participants.
-
Differences in intention could be ignored.
-
Justice may become disproportionate.
The section ensures that punishment corresponds to actual culpability.
Punishment & Legal Classification
Punishment
BNS Section 35 itself does not prescribe punishment.
Punishment depends upon the substantive offence and the mental state of each accused.
Bailable / Non-Bailable
Depends upon the principal offence.
Cognizable / Non-Cognizable
Depends upon the principal offence.
Compoundable
Depends upon the principal offence.
Triable By
Depends upon the principal offence.
Since Section 35 is a rule relating to criminal liability, procedural classifications vary according to the underlying offence.
IPC ↔ BNS Mapping
IPC Section
Section 35 IPC
BNS Equivalent
Section 35 BNS
Status
Replaced with substantially identical provision.
The legal principle remains largely unchanged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Judicial precedents developed under IPC Section 35 continue to provide valuable guidance.
Real-Life Examples
Example 1
A and B assault C.
-
A intends to kill C.
-
B intends only to frighten C.
The court may impose different criminal liability depending on evidence.
Example 2
Several persons participate in unlawful restraint.
One accused knows a deadly weapon will be used while another does not.
Their liability may differ.
Example 3
A group commits property damage.
One participant acts intentionally while another mistakenly believes the act is lawful.
The court may evaluate their mental states separately.
Additional Examples
Group Violence
Participants may possess varying levels of intention.
Financial Fraud
Different individuals may have different knowledge of fraudulent transactions.
Corporate Misconduct
Senior officers and junior employees may have different levels of awareness.
Cybercrime
One participant may know the illegal objective while another lacks such knowledge.
Landmark Judgments
Case Name
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Court
Privy Council
Key Takeaway
The case highlighted principles relating to participation and criminal liability.
Case Name
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad
Court
Supreme Court of India
Key Takeaway
The Court emphasized the importance of examining the mental state of each accused.
Case Name
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor
Court
Privy Council
Key Takeaway
Liability must be determined according to evidence of intention and participation.
Legal Insights
When is this Section Applied?
Section 35 is commonly applied in:
-
Group assaults.
-
Joint criminal activities.
-
Organized offences.
-
Property offences.
-
Financial crimes.
-
Cases involving multiple accused with varying levels of knowledge.
Common Misuse Scenarios
Assuming Equal Liability
Not all participants necessarily share the same criminal intention.
Ignoring Individual Mental State
Courts must separately assess each accused.
Over-Reliance on Presence
Mere presence at the scene is insufficient.
Treating Participation as Common Intention
Participation alone does not automatically establish common intention.
Failure to Distinguish Roles
Different roles may indicate different levels of liability.
Defenses Available
Lack of Knowledge
The accused lacked awareness of the criminal objective.
No Criminal Intention
The accused did not possess the required mens rea.
Mere Presence
Presence alone does not establish liability.
Good Faith
The act was performed honestly without criminal intent.
Mistake of Fact
The accused acted under a genuine factual misunderstanding.
Importance of BNS Section 35
Section 35 promotes fairness and proportionality in criminal justice.
The provision ensures that:
-
Liability is individualized.
-
Mental state is considered.
-
Punishment reflects culpability.
-
Justice remains balanced.
The section prevents indiscriminate punishment in cases involving multiple accused persons.
Modern Relevance
Modern crimes often involve numerous participants performing different functions.
Examples include:
-
Cybercrime networks.
-
Corporate fraud schemes.
-
Organized financial crimes.
-
Online scams.
-
Data theft operations.
Different participants may possess varying levels of intention and knowledge.
Section 35 allows courts to distinguish between masterminds, active participants, and individuals with limited awareness.