Supreme Court Rulings On Common Intention And Common Object
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
Facts:
This case dealt with a group involved in a conspiracy where several accused participated in a murder. The issue was whether all accused could be held liable for the murder under the principle of common intention.
Issue:
What constitutes common intention, and when can all participants be held equally liable under Section 34 IPC?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that common intention is a pre-arranged plan or a prior meeting of minds to do an unlawful act. It is not necessary that each person performs the same act, but each must share the same intention to bring about the criminal result.
Significance:
This landmark judgment clarified that common intention requires prior concert or a pre-arranged plan, and mere presence at the crime scene does not suffice. The act done in furtherance of common intention makes each participant liable as if they did it alone.
2. Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. The State of Hyderabad (1957)
Facts:
Several accused were charged under Section 149 IPC for an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly.
Issue:
How does common object under Section 149 differ from common intention under Section 34 IPC?
Ruling:
The Court explained that common object relates to the purpose or objective of an unlawful assembly, and when a criminal act is done in prosecution of that common object, every member of the assembly is liable. Unlike common intention, common object does not require prior meeting of minds but arises from the collective purpose of the group.
Significance:
This case distinguished the scope and meaning of common object (Section 149) from common intention (Section 34), highlighting that common object involves an unlawful assembly with a shared criminal purpose.
3. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Facts:
In this famous case involving a murder, the question was whether the accused and his associates shared a common intention to commit murder.
Issue:
How does the court determine whether a common intention existed?
Ruling:
The Court held that common intention requires a prior meeting of minds, and the act done in furtherance of such intention implicates all involved equally. The Court analyzed the circumstances and communications to establish the intention.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed that mere presence or knowledge of a crime does not equate to common intention, and each accused’s role and mindset must be carefully examined.
4. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Facts:
The accused was a member of an unlawful assembly charged under Section 149 IPC for acts of violence carried out by some members.
Issue:
When can an individual be held liable under Section 149 for acts committed by others in an unlawful assembly?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court clarified that liability under Section 149 attaches if the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit a crime, and the offense committed was in furtherance of that common object. Actual participation in the act is not necessary.
Significance:
This judgment broadened the scope of Section 149 by holding that the common object of the group is sufficient to hold all members liable, emphasizing collective responsibility.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts:
The accused participated in a group that committed murder, and the trial focused on whether the common object of the group included murder.
Issue:
How to prove the existence of a common object and its criminal nature?
Ruling:
The Court stated that the common object must be unlawful and criminal, and it may be inferred from facts, conduct, and circumstances surrounding the assembly. Members are liable if the act falls within the ambit of the common object.
Significance:
This case highlighted that proof of common object is based on the facts and circumstances, and members need not have individually committed the act, as long as it was in pursuit of the assembly’s criminal objective.
Summary:
Common Intention (Section 34 IPC): Requires a prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan. Each participant shares the same intention and is liable as if they committed the act alone (Sharad Sarda, Nanavati).
Common Object (Section 149 IPC): Arises from the shared criminal purpose of an unlawful assembly, without requiring prior concert, making every member liable for acts done in furtherance of that object (Pandurang, Kartar Singh).
Proof of both depends on circumstantial evidence, conduct, and the nature of participation.
Liability under common object is broader, holding members accountable for acts committed by others within the unlawful assembly's purpose.
RELATED Blog
0 comments