Common Intention and Common Object | 25 Sep 2023

Introduction

In criminal law, ‘intention’ has a significant place. With regard to the supreme form of
the mental element, it is applicable to heinous crimes. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
does not define the word ‘Intention’, however, Section 34 is concerned with ‘common
intention’.
In common intention, there must be a prior meeting of mind and unity, as well as
there is an obvious act that must be performed in the progression of the common
intention of all.
On the other hand, the common object may be developed without a preliminary
meeting of mind. It is possible that the common object of the unlawful assembly is one
however, the intention is different.

Common Intention

Section 34 of IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 34 makes no mention of any specific offence. It establishes the rule of evidence
that if two or more people commit a crime for the same purpose, they will be found
jointly accountable.
The section can be explained as if two or more people commit any criminal offence
and with the intent of committing that offence, then each of them will be liable for that
act as if the act was committed by them individually.

Joint Liability under Section 34

All the persons who share common intention and are all involved in the act are jointly
liable for the crime. It is immaterial what amount of participation they have in the act,
but their liability is equal to that of the main offender.

Example

Suppose persons A, B, C, and D plan to murder Z. A and B provide security, C provides

weapons and D murders Z. So here all 4 persons are liable for the act as per the provision
of Section 34 of IPC.

Essentials of Common Intention

There must be some act which is criminal in nature.

The act must be done by two or more persons.
The act done by persons must be with the common intention of all.
Every person who is involved in that act is liable for such act.
Every person shall be liable as if he has done that act alone.

Barendra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor (1925)

Barendra Kumar Ghosh with 3 other members went for post office robbery and
demanded money. In the meantime, they open their firearms, killed the postmaster and
 start running but somehow Barendra Kumar Ghosh was caught with the gun in his hand
and handover to the police.
Later on, he was tried with Section 302/34 of the IPC, and the session court and the High
Court passed the death sentence. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he
was simply standing outside the door and had not fired the deceased.
The Calcutta High Court held that they also serve those who stand and wait. It is not
necessary that the participation of all persons should be equal. One may do more,
and one may do less. But that doesn’t mean that the person who did less shall be free
from liability. His liability is the same.

Section 149 of IPC

Chapter VIII of the IPC deals with the offence against public tranquility (Section 141-
160). Section 149 of the IPC deals with the ‘common object’ as if an offence is
committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common
object of the assembly or such as the member 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.
The Supreme Court has held that this section doesn’t create a separate offence but
only declares the vicarious liability of all the members of the unlawful assembly.

Common Object

The offence must be committed in accordance with the common object of unlawful
assembly. It must be seen that common objects are fulfilled by unlawful assembly.
The Supreme Court in Yunis v. Madhya Pradesh State (2002) held that the presence of
the accused as part of an unlawful assembly was sufficient for the conviction to be
held. The fact that the accused was a participant of the unlawful assembly and his
presence on the spot of the event is adequate to hold him liable even if he is not accused
of any overt act. However, mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot make an
individual responsible unless he is acting by common object and that object is one of the
objects set out in Section 141.

Essentials of Section 149

An offence that is committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

The offence committed must be in the prosecution of the common object.
The members must know that the offence is likely to be committed.
The offence must be committed by five or more persons.

Difference between Section 34 and Section149 of IPC

Definition: Common intention refers to the agreement among a group of people to

commit a criminal act, while common object refers to the goal or objective that the
group collectively aims to achieve through their actions.
Nature: Common intention is an agreement or understanding among the group
members, while common object is the purpose or objective of their actions.
Evidence: Common intention is typically inferred from the actions and statements of
the group members, while common object can be inferred from the nature of the group's
actions and the circumstances surrounding them.
 Prosecution: Proving common intention is necessary to hold all members of the group
liable for the criminal act, while proving common object is necessary to establish the
group's liability for certain types of offenses.
Example: Common intention would be if a group of people planning a robbery together,
while common object would be the goal of committing robbery.
Section: Common intention is defined under Section 34 of IPC and Common object is
defined under Section 149 of IPC.
Liability: All members of the group can be held liable for the criminal act if common
intention is proved, while only certain members of the group may be held liable if
common object is proved.

Conclusion

Section 34 and Section 149 make an individual vicariously responsible for his companions’
actions.

Both sections cannot always be provided with direct proof, and it should be inferred from the
facts and conditions of the case.

A common object differs from a common intention in the sense that it doesn’t need a
preliminary concert and consensus before the offence takes place.

Further, in the cases of joint liability, the co-accused who was involved in a crime, under
common intention and common object, is entitled to equal criminal liability subject to certain
exceptions.