Common Intention-The BNS, in Section 3(5), incorporates the principle of common
intention, which is similar to Section 34 of the IPC. It states:"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 in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Key Elements of Common Intention-Criminal Act by Several Persons: The act must be
committed by more than one individual.Common Intention: There must be a shared
intention among all the individuals to commit the crime. This intention can be formed
prior to the act or during the course of it.Participation: Each person involved must
participate in some way in the commission of the act.
Liability-When a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a
common intention, each of those persons is held liable as if they had committed the act
alone. This means that even if a person did not directly commit the act, they can still be
held liable if they shared the common intention and participated in the crime.
Distinction from Similar Concepts-Common Intention vs. Common Object: Common
intention requires a pre-arranged plan, while common object does not. In common
object, the intention develops on the spot. For instance For instance, if a group of
individuals gathers with the common intention of robbing a bank, it would be a case of
common intention. However, if a crowd, initially gathered for a peaceful protest,
suddenly turns violent and starts vandalizing property, it would be a case of common
object. The key difference lies in the premeditation and pre-planning present in common
intention but absent in common object. Common Intention vs. Abetment: Abetment, as
defined in the BNS, involves instigating or intentionally aiding a person to commit an
offense. While both common intention and abetment can lead to shared liability, they
are distinct concepts. Abetment focuses on the act of instigating or aiding, whereas
common intention focuses on the shared criminal objective. A person can be an abettor
without sharing the common intention, and vice-versa. For example, if A instigates B to
commit a murder, A is liable for abetment. If A and B, with a pre-arranged plan, commit
the murder, both are liable under common intention. The crucial distinction lies in the
nature of the participation and the presence of a pre-concerted plan.
Important Considerations-Proof: The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that there was a common intention among the accused persons. This can be
challenging as it requires demonstrating a meeting of minds.Court's Role: The court will
examine the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether there was a
common intention. This includes looking at the actions of each individual, their
relationship with each other, and any evidence of planning.
Case laws-1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (AIR 1925 Cal 503)-Facts: A person
was convicted under Section 34 of the IPC for his involvement in a dacoity where he did
not actually commit the robbery but stood outside to warn his accomplices.Held: This
case established that it is not necessary for each person to do the actual criminal act.
Even those who participate in the furtherance of the common intention by their actions or
presence can be held liable. This is crucial for understanding how the BNS, like the IPC,
can hold individuals accountable even if they weren't the "main actors" in the crime.
2. Mahboob Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 118)-Facts: The accused were charged
with murder. The Privy Council had to consider whether the common intention to commit
the murder existed.Held: This case emphasized the importance of proving a pre-
arranged plan or a meeting of minds. It highlighted that common intention implies a pre-
concerted plan and not just a similar intention. This distinction is vital in the BNS as well,
ensuring that mere similarity of intention without a pre-arranged plan isn't enough for
liability under common intention.
3. Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana (1999 Cr LJ 1634 (SC))-Facts: The Supreme Court
dealt with a case involving multiple accused persons where the issue of common
intention was crucial.Held: This case reiterated that to apply Section 34 (and by
extension, the BNS equivalent), there must be two or more accused persons, and two
factors must be established: (i) common intention, and (ii) participation in the criminal
act. It stressed that common intention must be common to two or more persons, and
those persons must have done the act or participated in it.
4. Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State (MANU/SC/0546/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 1748)-Facts:
Police officials killed innocent victims believing they were hard-core criminals.Held: The
Supreme Court held that even though the police officers might have had an intention to
kill criminals, the common intention to kill these particular individuals was not
established. This case illustrates the importance of precisely defining the scope of the
common intention and its application to the specific act committed.
These cases, while decided under the IPC, provide valuable guidance for interpreting
the corresponding provision in the BNS. Courts are likely to rely on these precedents
when dealing with cases of common intention under the new code.
In Conclusion-The concept of common intention in the BNS is a crucial aspect of
criminal law. It ensures that all individuals who share a common intention to commit a
crime are held liable for their actions, even if they did not directly commit the act. This
provision is designed to deter group criminality and ensure that everyone involved in a
planned crime is held accountable.
