Common Intention Versus Common Object Under Indian Law
Common Intention vs. Common Object Under Indian Law
Introduction
Both common intention and common object are legal doctrines used to determine liability in cases involving multiple accused persons. They clarify the mental element (mens rea) required for holding each participant criminally responsible for acts committed in furtherance of a criminal plan or conspiracy.
Though related, they have distinct meanings, applications, and implications under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and criminal jurisprudence.
Common Intention (Section 34, IPC)
Definition: Common intention means a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds between two or more persons to do a criminal act together.
Legal Provision: Section 34, IPC 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 as if it were done by him alone.
Key Features:
There must be a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds.
The act must be done in furtherance of that common intention.
It requires joint liability for acts committed in pursuance of the plan.
Nature: It is a doctrine of joint liability and implies unity of intention.
Common Object (Section 149, IPC)
Definition: Common object refers to the shared purpose or goal of an unlawful assembly.
Legal Provision: Section 149, IPC makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for the criminal acts committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
Key Features:
The assembly must be an unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141, IPC.
There must be a common object that the members intend to achieve.
The act committed must be in prosecution of the common object.
Liability attaches to all members of the unlawful assembly for acts done by any member in furtherance of the common object.
Nature: It is liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object.
Distinctions Between Common Intention and Common Object
| Aspect | Common Intention | Common Object |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Section 34 IPC | Section 149 IPC |
| Nature | Pre-arranged plan, meeting of minds | Shared purpose of unlawful assembly |
| Requirement | Prior meeting of minds and joint act | Presence of unlawful assembly with common object |
| Liability | Joint liability for acts done in furtherance | Liability of all members for acts done by any member in prosecution of object |
| Mens Rea | Specific intention to commit the act | Common purpose but not necessarily prior plan |
| Application | When multiple persons act together | When acts done by members of unlawful assembly |
Important Case Laws
1. Pandurang, Tukia, and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad (1955) AIR 196
Facts: The accused were charged under Section 34 IPC.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that common intention requires a prior concert or meeting of minds to do an illegal act.
Principle: Mere presence or aiding without pre-arranged plan is insufficient; the act must be in furtherance of common intention.
Significance: Established that common intention requires prior meeting of minds.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Facts: This case involved the concept of common intention in the context of murder committed by multiple accused.
Ruling: The court held that the mental element (intention) of each accused must be gathered from the facts and circumstances. Common intention can be inferred from conduct and participation.
Principle: Common intention is a species of joint liability and does not require explicit agreement.
Significance: Clarified that common intention can be inferred and is not limited to express prior agreement.
3. K.K Verma v. Union of India (1955) SCR 635
Facts: The accused were members of an unlawful assembly charged under Section 149.
Ruling: The Court explained that common object is the object which the members intend to promote by their assembly.
Principle: Liability arises from membership in unlawful assembly with common object, even if the individual did not personally commit the act.
Significance: Explained the scope of Section 149 IPC and the concept of common object.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) AIR 722
Facts: Members of an unlawful assembly charged for acts committed by one of them.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the liability under Section 149 extends to all members for acts committed in prosecution of common object.
Principle: Members of unlawful assembly are criminally liable for acts done in pursuit of common object.
Significance: Reinforced the doctrine of common object.
5. Lallu @ Lalit v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) AIR 2325
Facts: The court examined whether the accused had common intention or was merely a member of an unlawful assembly.
Ruling: The court distinguished between common intention and common object, emphasizing that common intention requires a prior concert, whereas common object requires mere membership.
Principle: Clarified the distinction in mens rea and liability under Sections 34 and 149.
Significance: Landmark case clarifying concepts.
6. Suryanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1966) AIR 1822
Facts: Accused were held liable under Section 149 IPC as members of unlawful assembly.
Ruling: Court held that every member of unlawful assembly is liable for any offence committed in prosecution of the common object.
Principle: Emphasized the collective liability arising from common object.
Significance: Illustrated broad scope of Section 149.
Summary Table
| Feature | Common Intention (Sec 34 IPC) | Common Object (Sec 149 IPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Requires Prior Meeting | Yes | No |
| Requires Joint Action | Yes | No (may be done by any member) |
| Liability Scope | Those who share intention and act jointly | All members of unlawful assembly |
| Mental Element | Specific intention to commit offence | Shared object or purpose |
| Type of Offence | Applied in any joint offence | Applied when members form unlawful assembly |
Conclusion
Common Intention is a stricter concept requiring prior concert and joint action, leading to joint liability under Section 34 IPC.
Common Object is a broader concept relating to unlawful assemblies where every member is liable for acts done to achieve the common purpose under Section 149 IPC.
Courts carefully examine facts, circumstances, and conduct to infer either common intention or common object for imposing liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments