Difference between section 34 and section149 of Bangladesh Penal Code

Both the sections deal with liability for constructive criminality, i.e., liability for an offence not committed by the person charged.
but theirs have some clear distinctions which as follows -

As to section ;
Section 34 deals with joint liability on common intention.
whereas, Section 149 deals with joint liability on common object.

As To Offence:
Section 34 expounds a doctrine of criminal liability and every criminal act in furtherance of common
intention is made liable.
whereas, Section 149 applies to an offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly whose common object is one mentioned in Sec 141.

As to Preparation ;

Common intention under Section 34 requires prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan, i.e. all the accused persons must meet together before the actual attack participated by all takes place.
whereas,  Under Section 149, prior meeting of minds is not necessary.

Presence or Participation:

Under Section 34 some active
participation is necessary, especially in a crime involving physical violence to constitute common intention.

whereas, under Section 149 does not require active participation and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common object
at the time of occurrence of offence is sufficient.

As to Number Of Persons:
Sec.34 may apply to a case where the culprits are more than one. that's means,  does not lay down any limit to the number of persons combining.
whereas, Sec.149 can apply only to cases in which culprits are five or more to form an unlawful assembly.

As to Development:
Common intention can be
developed even at the spur of
the moment.
whereas, Common object cannot develop at the spur of the moment.

As to Applicable
Section 34 is a substantive a rule of evidence and other sections like 302 murder has to be clubbed with it.
whereas, Section 149 is a constructive crime in itself.

Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say that both section 34 and 149 making a person vicariously liable for the acts of his companions. Both
section 34 and 149 cannot always be proved by direct evidence facts and circumstances of the case.

By ;
M.R.Wazed Chowdhury (Raihan)
Studying LL.B ( Hon's) at
International Islamic University Chittagong