The 'doctrine of joint liability' as envisaged by Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is based on the decision of the following-

Solution (By Examveda Team)

Definition of Doctrine of Joint Liability:
The **doctrine of joint liability** is established under **Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860**. It states that **when a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is equally liable as if the entire act were done by him alone**. This doctrine ensures that all individuals involved in a preplanned crime are held accountable, even if only one person physically executed the act.

Correct Answer:
The correct answer is **Option A: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor**.

Explanation:
The landmark case **Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (1925)** laid down the principles of **joint liability** under **Section 34 IPC**. In this case, **Barendra Kumar Ghosh and his accomplices attempted a robbery at a post office, during which the postmaster was shot dead**. Although Barendra did not fire the fatal shot, the court held that he was equally guilty because the act was committed **in furtherance of their common intention**. The Privy Council upheld this ruling, reinforcing the concept that **participation in a common plan makes all participants equally liable**.

Other Options:
Option B: Mulcahy v. R. – This case relates to **conspiracy law** under English jurisprudence, not **joint liability under Section 34 IPC**.
Option C: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad – This case clarified that **mere presence at the crime scene does not amount to joint liability unless a common intention is proven**.
Option D: Reg. v. Cruise – This is an English case that is **not directly related to the doctrine of joint liability under IPC**.

Thus, the **Barendra Kumar Ghosh case** serves as the **foundation for interpreting Section 34 IPC** and establishes that **all individuals sharing a common intention to commit a crime are equally responsible**.