Judicial Interpretation Of Common Intention And Common Object
🔹 1. Common Intention – Section 34 of IPC
Definition:
Section 34 of IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It is not a substantive offence, but a rule of evidence, meaning that it makes all participants equally liable for the criminal act done in furtherance of the common intention.
Text of Section 34 IPC:
"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."
✅ Essential Ingredients:
Criminal act done by several persons.
The act must be done in furtherance of the common intention of all.
Participation of all in the act (actual presence not always necessary).
🔹 2. Common Object – Section 149 of IPC
Definition:
Section 149 makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
Text of Section 149 IPC:
"If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
✅ Essential Ingredients:
There must be an unlawful assembly (minimum 5 persons).
The offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object.
The person must be a member at the time of offence.
📚 Case Laws and Judicial Interpretation
✅ 1. Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (1945 AIR PC 118)
Court: Privy Council
Relevance: Landmark case on Common Intention (Section 34)
Facts:
Two groups clashed. Mahbub Shah and his relatives were charged with murder. The issue was whether they had a pre-arranged plan to commit murder.
Held:
The Privy Council held that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, and participation in the crime is essential.
Mere presence at the scene is not sufficient.
Principle:
To invoke Section 34, there must be:
A prior meeting of minds
Participation in the act
✅ 2. Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 407
Court: Supreme Court
Relevance: Common Intention – can develop even on the spot
Facts:
The accused came to the scene of the crime and started attacking the victim without any prior planning. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that common intention can develop at the spur of the moment, provided there is clear indication of concerted action.
Principle:
Common intention doesn't require a long-standing plan. It can arise spontaneously during the course of the incident.
✅ 3. Kripal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965 AIR 712)
Court: Supreme Court
Relevance: Clarifies distinction between Section 34 and Section 149
Facts:
In a group attack involving more than five people, some were armed and others were not. The trial court invoked Section 149 IPC.
Held:
Court held that:
Section 34 requires active participation
Section 149 requires membership in unlawful assembly, not necessarily participation in the act
Principle:
A person may be liable under Section 149 even without doing any overt act, as long as:
He is part of the unlawful assembly
The offence is committed in prosecution of the common object
✅ 4. Mizaji v. State of U.P. (1959 AIR 572)
Court: Supreme Court
Relevance: Scope of Common Object (Section 149)
Facts:
A group of people formed an unlawful assembly with the object of committing grievous hurt, but ended up committing murder.
Held:
The court held that if the common object was to commit grievous hurt, but murder was committed, members may still be liable under Section 149 if the act was a probable consequence of the common object.
Principle:
Even if murder was not specifically intended, liability under Section 149 can still arise if the act was a probable consequence of the common object.
✅ 5. State of U.P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747
Court: Supreme Court
Relevance: Participation in Unlawful Assembly – Section 149
Facts:
Dan Singh was part of an armed group that killed a person. It was argued he did not strike any blow.
Held:
The court ruled that physical participation in the crime is not essential under Section 149, as long as the accused was part of the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object.
Principle:
Even passive members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable under Section 149.
🔍 Comparison Between Common Intention and Common Object
| Feature | Section 34 | Section 149 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Rule of Evidence | Substantive Offence |
| Minimum Persons | 2 or more | 5 or more |
| Participation | Active participation essential | Not essential |
| Pre-planning | Common intention (may be spontaneous) | Common object (may be general or specific) |
| Liability | Equal liability for all acts done in furtherance of intention | Liability only for acts in prosecution of common object |
✅ Conclusion
Both Section 34 and Section 149 are tools used by courts to establish collective liability, but they differ significantly in scope, requirements, and application.
Section 34 requires a shared intention and active participation.
Section 149 holds even non-participating members liable if they are part of an unlawful assembly.
These provisions help tackle group crimes effectively, ensuring that all those involved – directly or indirectly – are brought to justice depending on their role and the collective aim of the group.
Let me know if you’d like a diagram or flowchart to visually represent the differences.
You're now using our basic model.
To access more intelligence, create an account or log in.
Log in
RELATED Blog
0 comments