Indian criminal law | General explanations
IPC Section 35: Criminal Knowledge or Intention - BNS Section 3(6)
Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 explains when several persons participating in the same act can each be held responsible because they individually possess the criminal knowledge or intention that makes the act an offence. The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is Section 3(6).
IPC Section 35 - statutory wording
Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.
The original provision makes the mental element personal: participation in a group does not, without more, establish that every person possessed the required knowledge or intention.
BNS Section 3(6) - corresponding current provision
Section 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries forward the rule concerning acts that become criminal because they are performed with criminal knowledge or intention. A person who joins such an act with the necessary mental state is liable as if that person had performed it alone with that state of mind.
This is a general rule of attribution of criminal responsibility, not a standalone offence or a provision prescribing an independent sentence.
Essential ingredients
- Several participants: The relevant act is performed by more than one person.
- Knowledge or intention is essential: The underlying offence requires a particular criminal mental state.
- Individual participation: The person concerned must have joined in doing the act.
- Individual mental state: That person must have had the criminal knowledge or intention required for the offence.
- Liability for the act: Where those conditions are met, liability attaches as though the participant acted alone with the requisite mental state.
Criminal knowledge and criminal intention
Intention concerns a person's purpose or conscious objective in performing the conduct. Knowledge concerns awareness of relevant facts or consequences. Which mental state must be proved depends on the wording of the particular offence; these terms are not interchangeable in every context.
Courts assess intention or knowledge from the evidence as a whole, including conduct, communications, circumstances and the nature of participation. A person's association with an accused individual, or mere presence at the scene, does not by itself establish the elements of Section 35.
Illustrative situations
Example 1: Participants sharing the required intention
Two persons knowingly cooperate in conduct that constitutes an offence only when performed with a specified criminal intention. If evidence proves that both participated with that intention, each may be liable under the applicable substantive offence read with the general rule.
Example 2: Different knowledge among participants
Several people participate in a transaction, but only one knows a legally significant fact that makes the conduct criminal. Liability under this principle must be examined separately for each participant; the other participants are not automatically deemed to possess the same knowledge.
Example 3: Mere presence
A bystander witnesses an offence without joining in the relevant act. Presence alone does not satisfy the requirement of participation with criminal knowledge or intention. Other facts and other legal provisions may still need consideration.
IPC Section 35 and BNS Section 3(6) compared
| Point | IPC Section 35 | BNS Section 3(6) |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Participation in an act criminal by reason of knowledge or intention | Corresponding rule of joint liability |
| Key requirement | Each participant joins with the required knowledge or intention | Each participant joins with the required knowledge or intention |
| Nature | General principle, not a separate offence | General principle, not a separate offence |
| Application | Relevant to IPC-era offences and saved proceedings | Applicable under the BNS framework from 1 July 2024, subject to transitional law |
How it differs from common intention
IPC Section 34, corresponding to BNS Section 3(5), addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention. Section 35, by contrast, focuses on whether each participant personally has the criminal knowledge or intention required to make the act criminal. The provisions are related but not identical, and their application depends on the charge and evidence.
For the meaning of an act and omission, see IPC Section 33. For offences caused partly by acts and partly by omissions, see IPC Section 36.
Frequently asked questions
What is IPC Section 35?
It is a rule of joint criminal liability for an act that is criminal because of particular knowledge or intention. Each participant must personally have the requisite knowledge or intention.
What is the corresponding provision in the BNS?
Section 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries forward this rule.
Does being present at the scene establish liability?
No. Presence alone does not prove joining in the act with the criminal knowledge or intention required by the provision.
Is Section 35 a separate offence with its own punishment?
No. It is a principle for determining liability; the punishment depends on the substantive offence established.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - official India Code PDF (see Section 3(6)).
- Ministry of Home Affairs - New Criminal Laws.
- India Code - Central Acts database (consult the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
This article provides general legal information. Liability in a particular case depends on the elements of the substantive offence, admissible evidence and applicable law.