Explain the provisions under the Indian Penal Code in relation to Common intention, Similar intention and Common object with the help of decided cases.

Hello readers I am Ashish Kumar doing practise as an Advocate in Kapurthala District Courts. If you want to in contact with me to get the new articles and notes on Legal subjects then share with me your e-mail id and if you have any type of doubt then you send me the mail on my email id advashish321@gmail.com. I will try to give the answers of your questions as early as possible. To get the notifications of my videos subscribe my youtube channel and click on bell icon.

Common Intention and Common Object

Section 34 defines “Common Intention”.

Common Intention is also called as “Joint Liability” in Criminal Law.

Section 34 of Chapter II explains the legal provision about the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Chapter VIII contains Sections 141 to 160. Out of them, Section 149 explains the provision about “Common Object”.

Common Object is also called as “Constructive Liability” in Criminal Law.

Section 149 states that every member of an unlawful assembly is the guilty of offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

There is a close resemblance between common intention and common object, though both of them belongs to different categories of the offences in criminal law.

Common Intention

Section 34 to 38 of Chapter-II explains the provisions about “Common Intention”.

Out of them Section 34 is the most important Section.

Section 34 explains the provisions about “Common Intention”.

Common Intention to commit a crime must be shared between the doers, even though the actual crime may be committed by any one of them.

Common Intention could be inferred from facts and circumstances.

Whether actually there was the common intention of the accused or not in a criminal case is a question of fact and subjective.

Basically the common intention of the accused is signifies their pre-arranged plan to do or cause an act done.

Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common Intention :- When 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 the act were done by him alone.

Section 35. When such an act is Criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or criminal intention:- Whenever the causing of a certain effect or attempt to cause that effect by an act or by an omission is an offence, then it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.

ILLUSTRAITON

A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.

Section 37 . Co- operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence:- When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co- operates in the commission of that offence by doing any of those acts, either singly or jointly with other person, commits that offence.

Section 38. 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.

Illustration

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation his killing of z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder, B having ill-will towards Z, and intending to kill him and not having been subject to provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here though A and B are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty of murder and A is guilty only for culpable – homicide.

A . Scope of Section 34 to 38

Section 34 to 38 of IPC are inter-woven ( i.e. connected with each other) which explains the principle of joint- liability in doing of a criminal act.

Out of them Section 34 explains about joint liability of an act done in furtherance of common intention of all.

Section 34 does not create distinctive substantive offence.

In fact, it is only a rule of evidence. Under which if it is proved that there was pre-arranged plain between the accused persons for doing the offence then each accused person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

B. Furtherance of a Common Intention

Section 34 will be invoked only if the act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all persons engaged in the criminal act.

In Tunnu Vs. State of Orissa ( 1998 Cr.LJ 524 Ori) 4 persons attacked the deceased with a pre- arranged plan on a public road. Four other persons blocked the road so that criminal action should be completed successfully.

The police prosecuted the actual offenders who attacked the deceased and also the persons who did not participate in the actual assault but facilitated it by blocking the road. The Orissa High Court held that the persons facilitated by blocking the road were also having the criminal liability because they shared common intention to cause the death of the deceased.

C. Distinction between Common Intention and Same Intention

There is distinction between common intention and same intention.

In order to attract the provision of Section 34, it is not sufficient to prove that the participants in doing the criminal act had the same intention.

The prosecution must prove that each of the wrong doers must have shared the intention with each other.

Sr.No.

Common Intention

Same/Similar Intention

Section 34 imposes the criminal liability on the accused persons in doing a criminal act when they had done the act in furtherance of the common Intention.

Section 34 is not concerned with the same intention.

Common Intention requires pre- arranged plan.

Same Intention or Similar intention does not requires pre- arranged plan.

A, B and C went to kill X. They planned to attack X while he was returning from a meeting in dark night. They will be charged and prosecuted under section 302/ 34 of IPC together.

D and E had rivalry with M on different causes and on different occasions. D and E are coming from the different lanes. They see M at the Centre (Chowk). D attacks and stabbed M with his knife. E also attacks M with his club. Both of D and E stab and beat M to death. Here each of D and E is liable under Section 302 of IPC separately.

There is a “prior meeting of minds’ before act committed.

There is “no prior meeting of minds” before the act committed.

The persons who actually participated in committing an act and the persons who facilitated to commit such act are equally liable under common intention under section 34 of IPC.

The persons who actually participated in committing the criminal act having similar intention are punished.

Common Object

Section 149 of IPC explains the provisions about common object.

If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing a wrongful act and if that wrongful act is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, then all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even one or more, but not all committed the said offence.

Section 149 is wider in scope than Section 34.

Section 149 : Every member of an 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, then every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Important Ingredient of Section 149 IPC

There was an unlawful assembly as contemplated by Section 141 of IPC.

The accused was a member of such assembly.

The accused had intentionally joined or continued in that unlawful assembly.

He knew of the common object of such unlawful assembly.

An offence was committed by one or more members of that assembly.

Such offence was committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.

Each member shall be liable as the members of the assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.

Distinction between Common Intention and Common Object.

Sr.No.

Common Intention (Section 34)

Common Object ( Section 149)

Number of persons must be more than one. But it is not compulsory that the number of members should be 5.

An unlawful assembly must consist at least 5 persons.

It does not create specific and substantive offence, but only states a rule of evidence. It is always read with other substantive Section. Punishment cannot be imposed solely upon this Section.

It creates a specific and substantive offence. Punishment can be imposed solely depending upon Section 149.

Common Intention requires under section 34 may be of any type.

Common Object under section 149 must be one of the objects mentioned u/s 141 i.e. to commit an offence under the objects.

“Prior meeting of minds” is necessary before a wrongful act is done under this section.

“Prior meeting of minds” under this section is not necessary. Mere membership of unlawful assembly at the time of commitment of crime is sufficient.

Common Intention under section 34 is also called as “Joint Liability.”

Common Object under section 149 is also called as “ Constructive Liability”

Barendra Kumar Ghose Vs. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1)

Brief Facts of the Case

On 03/08/1923, the Sub-Postmaster at Sankaritolla Post Office was counting money at his table in the back room.

All of sudden several persons attacked to rob him.

Three persons fired pistols.

Postman died on the spot.

Except the accused Barendra Kumar Ghose remaining persons run away from the spot.

The staff caught the accused.

The State filed criminal case against the accused under section 302,394 read with section 34 of IPC 1860.

The accused stated that he did not fire.

The Trail Court imposed death sentence on the accused.

The High Court also confirmed it.

He appealed to the Privy Council.

Judgment : The Privy Council dismissed the appeal and held that as there was common intention of the group to commit the murder so each will be liable as if he has committed the offence alone although he himself has not fired the deceased.

Mehaboob Shah Vs. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 118)

Brief Facts of the Case

1. Allah Dad, the deceased, along with some others, went to collect the reeds in a boat.

2. Before they entered the bank of River Indus, Mehaboob Shah A-1( Father of A2) saw them and warned not to cut the reeds as the land belonged to him.

3. The deceased did not hear his words and cut 16 bundles of reed and loaded the same in the boat.

4. Ghulam Quasim Shah ( A-3) relative of other accused, saw it and obstructed and also beat the deceased.

5. In turn, Allah Dad also beats A-3.

5. A-1 and A-2 saw it.

6. Wali Shah A-4 ( brother of A-1) came there along with a gun. He fired at Allah Dad, who died on the spot.

7. Wali Shah A-4 absconded from the spot.

8. The accused no.2 and 3 were punished with transportation for life and with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and Mehaboob Shah A-1 was sentenced to death by Session Judge.

9. On appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the punishment of A-2 and confirmed the conviction of A-1 and A-3.

10. Accused-1 appeal.

Judgment of the Privy Council

The Privy Council set aside the death sentence passed against the appellant and held that the trail court has not rightly convicted the accused/appellant under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.

Principles Involved in the Case.

1. Common Intention u/s 34 must be a pre-arranged plan. Criminal Act must be in accordance with that plan.

2. Same Intention is not the common intention.

Gurudatta Mal vs. State of U.P.
(AIR 1965 SC 257)

Brief Facts of the Case

1. There was two rival groups in the Village Azadnagar.

2. There was a dispute on the land situated in Plot No.57.

3. The appellants had cultivated the said land in the year 1960 and it was the time of harvesting.

4. Both the groups planned to harvest the crop.

5. Gurudatta Mal was the leader of one group. Gurcharan Lal was the leader of other group.

6. On 10/04/1960, Gurcharan Lal, along with 25 others went to the Police Station and had reported that Plot No.57 belonged to them and they going to harvest it. He also stated that he apprehended danger from the opposite group and needed Police Protection.

7. Station In charge sent two constables.

8. Gurcharan Singh engaged one photographer also, in case the opposite group would invade to photograph the incident.

9. All of them reached the Plot no. 57 and started to harvest the land.

10. Gurudatta Mal came to know about it.

11. One man of Gurudatta Mal’s party informed the Police Constables that the S.I. was calling them. Then the Police constables left the place.

12. Gurudatta Mal and his supporter reached the spot wearing deadly weapons.

13. Then Gurudatta Mal asked Gurcharan Lal to vacate the field. There was a hot discussion between them.

14. Gurudatta Mal (appellant no.1) shot Gainda Mal to death; Madan Lal (appellant no.4) fired at Nanda Singh to death; Harbans Lal (Appellant No.2) attacked Gurucharan Lal; Pyare Lal( Appellant no.3) fired at Gurucharan Lal to death.

15. The accused pleaded that the deceased attacked their property with 25 persons wearing deadly weapons. They first asked them peacefully to vacate their land. Instead of heeding their words the deceased party attacked them. To protect themselves they fired at deceased.

16. The trail Court believed the version of the accused and acquitted them from the charges under section 302 IPC. But it imposed punishment for having guns without licenses under section 19 of the Arms Act.

17. The State appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld the trail Court’s judgment. The appellants filed appeal against the conviction under section 19 of the Arms Act.

Supreme Court Judgment

• The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellants were not deserved the acquittal because there was a common intention and they fired guns with premeditation. They did more harm than was necessary for the purpose of private defence. The appellants fired at close range. It dismissed the appeal.

Some More Important Points

• Common Intention may develop on the spot. It was laid down in Rishi Deo Panday Vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC331], Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ 1972 Cr.L.J 465], Ram Parshad Vs. State of U.P.[ AIR 1976 SC 199] .

• Physical presence and active participation is necessary for the application of Section 34 of IPC. [ Shree Kantiah Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 287]. If you are present at the time of planning only, you will be liable for abetment but not for the actual offence under section 34.