Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to
the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the
act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-
concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as
between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and
circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only
B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre
concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court
emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very
much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the
spot, on the spur of the moment. Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To
constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of
them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of
Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common
intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the
similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction
between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is
nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….”
The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared
the common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the
intention of each one of ‗several persons‘ be known to each other for
constituting common intention.
96. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a
heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth
member) waited outside the bank to alert them on any threat. During the heist
one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result he died.
All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most
appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.
(a) Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no
common intention.
(b) Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as
there was common intention.
(c) Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.
(d) Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.
97. Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, suddenly
Aman (another biker) bumped into their bike. A heated argument started
between the three of them. While Raghav started abusing Aman, Raman hit
Aman with an iron rod lying on the road and as a consequence he died. Now,
chose the correct option.
(a) Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common
intention developed on the spot.
(b) Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill
Aman.
(c) No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself and he started the fight.
(d) Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.
98. After reading the passage which of the following is not correct in relation to
the difference between Common and Similar intention?
(a) Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the
common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence.
(b) Under Common intention each of the offender is equally liable for the
offence but under similar intention each of the offender is differently liable.
(c) In order to determine the existence of Similar or Common intention, one
must analyse the fact and circumstances of each case.
(d) The boundary between Similar and Common intention is very fine and it
may sometime overlap.
99. Mr. X and Mr. Y entered into a house at night to commit theft, while
committing theft Mr. Y committed sexual assault on a minor girl of aged 11
years. Identify for which of the following offences Mr. X is liable for.
(a) Both Theft and Sexual Assault as there was a Common intention.
(b) Only Theft as there was a Similar intention.
(c) Only Theft as Mr. X had a different intention from Y.
(d) He would not be liable for any offence.
100. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference
between common intention and similar intention?
(a) The intention of the accused and co-accused can be inferred from the facts
and circumstances of each case.
(b) Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly
committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.
(c) Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the
common intention cannot be proved.
(d) All of the above.
