Common Intention Versus Common Object Doctrine
📌 Common Intention vs. Common Object: Detailed Explanation
Both Common Intention and Common Object are principles of constructive liability in criminal law, meaning that individuals can be held liable for acts committed by others if certain mental elements are shared. They are codified in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
🔹 Common Intention – Section 34 IPC
Definition: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of such persons is liable for that act as if it were done by him alone.
Essentials:
Criminal act by multiple persons
Common intention (pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds)
Participation in the act (active or passive)
Key Point: No specific overt act needs to be proved against every accused if common intention is proved.
🔸 Common Object – Section 149 IPC
Definition: If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly (5 or more people) in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every member is guilty of that offence.
Essentials:
Unlawful Assembly (defined in Sec. 141 IPC)
Common object, which could be:
To overawe the government
To resist execution of law
To commit mischief/criminal trespass
To obtain possession of property by force
To compel someone by criminal force
Key Point: Mere membership in the assembly is sufficient to attract liability under Section 149, even if no overt act is committed.
✅ Key Differences
| Criteria | Section 34 (Common Intention) | Section 149 (Common Object) |
|---|---|---|
| Number of persons | Minimum 2 | Minimum 5 |
| Pre-planning | Required | Not necessarily |
| Participation | Must participate in the act | Mere membership is enough |
| Legal Basis | Joint liability | Vicarious liability |
| Flexibility | Narrower in scope | Broader and wider application |
📚 Detailed Case Laws
1. Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (1945)
Citation: AIR 1945 PC 118 (Privy Council)
Facts: The accused was part of a group that caused the death of the victim. It was unclear if the accused intended the death.
Held: Common intention requires prior meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan. Simultaneous presence is not enough.
Significance: Landmark case laying the foundation of common intention doctrine in India.
2. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1964)
Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1413
Facts: The accused was part of a group where only one person caused the fatal injury. It was unclear whether others shared the intention.
Held: Common intention must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Merely being present is not enough unless it can be shown the accused shared the same intention.
Significance: Strengthened requirement for proving a meeting of minds in Section 34 cases.
3. State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1467
Facts: Accused were part of a group of 8 who committed dacoity and murder.
Held: Because more than 5 people were involved, the court applied Section 149 IPC. Even if all did not commit the act, they were liable for sharing the common object of committing violence.
Significance: Classic case on common object—emphasized membership + knowledge of object is enough.
4. Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar (2003)
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 3496
Facts: The accused was part of an unlawful assembly during a violent incident. He did not personally attack the deceased.
Held: Under Section 149, he was held guilty due to membership in the unlawful assembly and common object to kill.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that overt act is not essential under Section 149, unlike Section 34.
5. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2011)
Citation: AIR 2011 SC 3581
Facts: Dispute over land led to assault and murder. Accused were found to have pre-planned the attack.
Held: Section 34 IPC was invoked due to proven pre-arranged plan and shared intention, even though all did not strike the fatal blow.
Significance: Showed how intention can be inferred from conduct and circumstances.
6. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) (Relevance: Common Intention)
Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605
Facts: Though primarily a case on provocation and murder, the court discussed joint liability and held that mere presence or knowledge does not constitute common intention.
Significance: Clarified mental elements required to invoke Section 34 IPC.
7. Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1960)
Citation: AIR 1960 SC 725
Facts: Several people were accused of murder. Some were proven to have no role in planning or execution.
Held: Section 149 IPC was not applied to those without proof of common object. Assembly alone is not enough; knowledge of object is also required.
Significance: Cautioned against blanket liability under Section 149.
✅ Conclusion
| Section 34 | Section 149 |
|---|---|
| Requires fewer people | Requires 5 or more persons |
| Needs prior meeting of minds | Needs common object, not necessarily pre-planned |
| Liability through active participation | Liability through group membership |
| Harder to prove | Easier to apply in group offences |
Courts have consistently held that the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 is narrower, requiring proof of shared intent and planning, whereas Section 149 casts a wider net, holding individuals liable by virtue of being in a group with a common object.
RELATED Blog
0 comments