The short answer is yes and yes.

There are several ways a shell can interact with your tank's armour. If it hits at a sharp angle, it has a higher chance to ricochet. If it hits at a flat angle, then it has a higher chance to actually start penetrating the armour. At this point, one of two things can happen: the shell is destroyed by the impact or successfully penetrates the armour.

Due to the T-34's sloped armour, the odds of an impacting shell ricocheting are increased. Unfortunately, Red Army operational research did not keep track of whether or not a shell ricocheted or partially penetrated the armour, but there was a pretty good chance of taking a hit without a complete penetration. Inspection of knocked out vehicles in the fall of 1942 showed that the T-34's front armour deflected 82% of all shots successfully. The total chance of deflecting a shell for all parts of the tank's armour was 54.1%, so it would be quite possible to go into battle and get hit a number of times without a penetration, especially if the majority of the hits you are taking are from anti-tank rifles or heavy machineguns, which were quite unlikely to penetrate.

In any of these cases, there is quite a bit of kinetic energy from the flying projectile that has to be absorbed by the tank's armour, which is in turn passed onto the crew. The effect would obviously depend on the caliber of the shell you were struck with and the speed at which it impacted the tank's armour. I'm not aware of any war-time research on this topic, but Soviet post-war research explored this effect on a tank's crew. An 85 mm shell bouncing off 90 mm of armour was considered to have enough of an effect to potentially cause hearing damage. A 76 mm shell was considered unlikely to cause permanent damage, but it's doubtful that the crew would not sense the damage at all.

Sources:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/05/research-into-soviet-armour-protection.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/05/soviet-armour-quality.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/03/under-pressure-part-2.html