Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT
LIABILITY: The state of being legally responsible for something.
JOINT LIABILITY: Where 2 or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability.
Reg. vs Cruise (1838)
The principle of joint liability was propounded by the Court, where it was held that
all three persons were responsible for the assault of a police officer, irrespective of
the fact that the blow was given by one of them. The focal point on which the
conviction is held under the joint liability is the ‘common intention’ of the members
of such group.
CONSTRUCTIVE LIABILITY: When the person/persons may not be directly
involved in the commission of the actual act constituting the offence, but are
sharing common intention or common object with the persons who have
committed the offence.
Section 3(5) – Common Intention
When several persons are engaged in a criminal act with a common
intention, each person is made liable as if he alone did the act.
Section 190 – Common Object
Every member of an unlawful assembly is held liable for any criminal act
done in furtherance of a common object.
COMMON INTENTION
The term ‘intention’ is not defined in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita but Section 3(5) deals with
the Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Common intention means that there was a pre-arranged plan, and all of the individuals are acting
in furtherance of that plan. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by
him alone. Common intention can only be proved by facts and circumstances of the case.
‘Acts’ also includes ‘omissions’ (Section 3(4))
‘Acts’ and ‘omission’ include ‘series of acts’ or ‘series of omissions’ (Section 2(1) and 2(25))
Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor (Post master Case) (1925)
Barendra Kumar went with 3 other people in a post office for robbery, Barendra
Kumar was keeping guard at the gate while his partners killed the post master. He
claimed that he was just on guard and wasn’t involved in the act of murder but the
court said that when you go to do such an act with other people and have common
intention of doing that act then each member of such association shall be liable for all
consequences of such act, so Barendra Kumar was held liable even if he was not
involved in the actual act of Murder.
Famous Quote: ‘They also serve who stand and wait’
YG LAW 1
Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
Presence isn’t always required for Common Intention
JM Desai v State (1960)
“The essence of liability under S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is the existence of a
common intention animating the offenders and the participation in a criminal act in
furtherance of the common intention. The physical presence at the scene of the
offence of the offender sought to be rendered liable under S. 34 is not, on the words
of the statute, one of the conditions of its applicability in every case.”
Act Done in Furtherance of Common Intention
Shankar Lal Vs. State of Gujarat. (1965)
The question is what is the meaning of the expression "in furtherance, of the
common intention". The dictionary meaning of the word "furtherance" is
"advancement or promotion". If four persons have a common intention to kill A,
they will have to do many acts in promotion or prosecution of that design in order to
fulfill it and each of them would be liable for all the acts they did in furtherance of
the common intention.
Conclusion: The liability would be there also for the Act done in furtherance for the
decided Act (Common Intention)
Similar Intention: The intention could be similar, but it is not common intention under Section
3(5) if pre meeting of minds can’t be proved. Premeditation of minds is necessary.
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (1945) (Indus Valley Case)
The key difference between "common intention" and "similar intention" highlighted
in this case is that common intention involves a shared intention to commit a
particular crime, which is a product of prior concert or planning among the
individuals involved. On the other hand, similar intention refers to situations where
two or more individuals act with similar objectives in mind but without any prior
agreement or plan to act together.
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955)
Pandurang with 2 other people together killed a person but common intention of
killing the person couldn’t be proved, only similar intention was proved, which
means there was no pre-arranged plan, so they were held liable for their own acts
only and not for the acts of all three.
Common Intention may develop on the Spot
Rishideo v. State of UP (1955)
The case involved Rishideo Pandey, his brother Ram Lochan Pandey, and another
accused, observed near the victim Sheomurat, who was fatally attacked by Ram
Lochan with a 'gandasa'. Despite only Ram Lochan delivering the fatal blow, their
collective presence and actions indicated a shared intent to kill, making all three
liable under Section 34 IPC for murder, despite the common intention forming
suddenly.
YG LAW 2
Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
Pointers for understanding common intention:
1. Premeditation of minds is necessary.
2. The common intention may develop at the spur of the moment but should be shared
among each other.
3. Common intention can only be proved by facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Common intention is not similar intention.
5. Benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. And if common intention is not proved
then Section 3(9) shall apply.
Section 3(9) : Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different
offences. —Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission
of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
Conceptual Clarity Question:
Q. To establish section 3(5) of BNS:
a) Common intention must be proved but overt act must not be proved
b) Common intention and overt act both must be proved
c) Common intention need not be proved but overt act be proved
d) Presence at the crime scene must be proved
Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana (1999)
To apply section 34, apart from the fact that there should be two or more
accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention, and (ii)
participation of accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is
proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 will be
attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the
accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, section 34
cannot be invoked.
YG LAW 3
Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
COMMON OBJECT
Chapter XI of BNS – Offences Against Public Tranquillity – Sections 189-197
Section 189(1) defines Unlawful Assembly = 5 or more people plus common object of:
First – To overawe by criminal force, or show criminal force, the Central or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in
the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second – To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
Third – To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take
or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a
right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in
possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person
to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled
to do.
Explanation: An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently
become unlawful, pre-concert of minds not required.
Section 190. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of common object.
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew
to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the
time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty
of that offence.
Vijay Pandurang Thackre v. State of Maharashtra (2017)
The expression 'in prosecution of the common object' occurring in this Section
postulates that the act must be one which have been done with a view to accomplish
the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. This
expression is to be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain common
object. It must be immediately connected with common object by virtue of nature of
object.
Emperor v. Kabil (1869)
2 large factions of men were fighting, those who got injured and retired were not
held liable for subsequent murders, so if at the relevant time you are not part of the
prosecution of common object then you can’t be held liable
YG LAW 4
Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
Presence must be actuated by common object
Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)
A heated exchange of words was taking place between appellant and the deceased during
which an attack by a group of people took place, and eventually the deceased died. The
appellant also sustained injuries during the attack and challenged before the court that he
was unarmed during the attack and he was not a part of the unlawful assembly. The court
acquitted the accused.
Merely a person being part of an assembly that has indulged in an unlawful act is not
enough, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the act, the people
indulged also had the same object.
Madan Singh v. State of Bihar (2004) – Mere Presence is not sufficient to charge a person,
the presence must be actuated by common object.
Ingredients Of Unlawful Assembly
1. Assembly of five or more persons
2. Common object for them (Can form at any stage)
3. Common object must be out of the five mentioned in section 189(1) (ORMPC)
4. Acts which are only done in ‘prosecution’ of the common object would be considered for
the collective liability of all.
Difference - Common Intention and Common Object
Common Intention Common Object
Section 3(5) does not create offence in itself, only Section 190 creates an offence in itself i.e. Being a
lays down principle of joint liability, it is just a rule member of the unlawful assembly which is
of evidence punishable under Section 189(2)
Common Intention under Section 3(5) not defined Common Object must be one of the five defined
anywhere in IPC under Section 189(1)
Prior meeting of minds necessary for Common Common Object may be formed without prior
Intention meeting of mind, easier to prove than common
intention
Applicable when two or more persons are Applicable when 5 or more persons are involved
involved
Participation is a crucial aspect No need for active participation, mere
membership suffices
YG LAW 5
Criminal Law YG Law CI and CO
Disclaimer: All YG Law Notes are made in Concert with the provided Video, the notes
are not supposed to be functional on their own, for the optimum retention and
comprehension of the information given, always watch the video provided in the
purchased course before reading the notes.
Social Media hyperlinks for all out accounts:
YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in
Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in
Linkedin: YG Law;
Click here to view our courses
YG LAW 6
n-gl.com
