Explanation:

The correct answer is Option (0): 'each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it has been done by him alone.' This statement is a direct quote from Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with 'Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention'. Section 34 is a crucial provision in criminal law that establishes the principle of joint liability. It states that 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. The essence of Section 34 is the 'common intention' shared by all participants. It does not require prior concert or a long-standing plan; a common intention can develop on the spur of the moment. Once a common intention is established, and a criminal act is done in furtherance of it, all participants are deemed equally responsible for the entire act, irrespective of their individual roles or the extent of their physical participation. This doctrine ensures that individuals who act together with a shared criminal purpose are held fully accountable, even if one person's direct physical contribution to the final act was minimal, as long as it was in furtherance of the common intention. Let's analyze the other options: Option (1) 'only the principal offender shall be liable for the offence.': This statement is incorrect. Section 34 specifically negates this idea. The principle of common intention ensures that all participants, not just a 'principal offender,' are held equally liable. There is no concept of a 'principal' and 'accessory' in the same way as in some other legal systems when common intention is established. All are deemed principals. Option (2) 'each of such person shall be liable according to the extent of his participation in the offence.': This statement is incorrect. This describes a scenario of individual liability based on specific overt acts, or perhaps liability under Section 35 (when an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention). However, Section 34's core principle is that once common intention is proven, the liability is joint and equal, not proportional to individual physical participation. The 'extent of participation' might be relevant in establishing common intention or individual overt acts, but not in determining the quantum of liability once common intention is established for the entire act. Option (3) 'each of such person is liable for his own overt act.': This statement is incorrect. While each person is certainly liable for their own overt act, Section 34 goes beyond this. It imputes the entire criminal act to each person involved, even if their individual overt act was only a small part of the whole, provided it was done in furtherance of the common intention. If liability were only for one's own overt act, Section 34 would be redundant, as that is the general rule of individual criminal responsibility. Section 34 creates a fiction of joint liability for the *entire* act.