Landmark Judgments On Common Intention And Common Object
Background:
Common Intention is defined under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It refers to a pre-arranged plan or design shared by two or more persons to commit a crime together. All are liable for the act done in furtherance of the common intention.
Common Object is defined under Section 149 IPC and applies when a group of persons with a common object commit an offence, making each liable for the acts done in prosecution of the common object.
1. K. Ramachandra Reddy & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1957)
Citation: AIR 1957 SC 478
Facts:
The accused were part of a group that caused injuries resulting in death during a brawl. The question was whether they shared a common intention or common object.
Ruling:
The Court clarified that common intention requires prior meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan.
Common object under Section 149 involves members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object, and the offence committed must be in prosecution of that object.
Mere presence in a group does not establish common intention.
Significance:
Distinguished common intention (Section 34) from common object (Section 149).
Established that common intention requires a prior concert or agreement, while common object arises out of participation in an unlawful assembly.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1622
Facts:
In a large assembly, some accused persons assaulted the victim causing death. The issue was whether all members could be held liable under Section 149 IPC.
Ruling:
The Court held that the offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.
Members sharing the common object are criminally liable even if they did not personally commit the act.
Mere presence in the assembly without sharing the object does not incur liability.
Significance:
Emphasized the necessity of proof of common object to fix liability under Section 149.
Clarified liability of members of unlawful assemblies.
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954)
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 292
Facts:
Several accused attacked the victim, who died. The trial court convicted all under Section 34 IPC for common intention.
Ruling:
The Court held that common intention means a prior concert or plan among accused to commit a criminal act.
All participants must share the same intention, though each may play a different role.
Liability under Section 34 is joint and several.
Significance:
Reinforced the requirement of prior meeting of minds for common intention.
Clarified that once common intention is established, all are liable for the act done.
4. Kishan v. State of Rajasthan (1968)
Citation: AIR 1968 SC 1124
Facts:
Accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly; during a conflict, a murder occurred.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that if the offence committed is one that the unlawful assembly had as its common object, all members are liable.
The common object must be illegal and must be the reason for which the assembly was formed.
Actions in furtherance of the common object attract Section 149 liability.
Significance:
Reiterated the scope of Section 149 in unlawful assemblies.
Explained that criminal acts committed in prosecution of common object are attributable to all members.
5. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala (1990)
Citation: AIR 1990 SC 2116
Facts:
Several accused committed a robbery; the question was whether they shared a common intention or common object.
Ruling:
The Court distinguished between common intention (Section 34) and common object (Section 149) clearly.
Held that common intention requires pre-arranged plan and a meeting of minds, while common object is inferred from participation in an unlawful assembly with an illegal object.
Highlighted that Section 34 requires active participation.
Significance:
Provided clarity on application of Sections 34 and 149 IPC.
Guided courts to carefully analyze evidence regarding participation and agreement.
6. Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2012)
Citation: (2012) 7 SCC 711
Facts:
A group of accused attacked the victim, resulting in death. The prosecution relied on Section 149 IPC.
Ruling:
The Court held that common object must be established beyond doubt.
Mere presence at the scene is insufficient for liability.
Each member must have shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
Significance:
Reinforced stringent proof requirements for Section 149.
Prevented arbitrary conviction of assembly members without proof of common object.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Tukaram Dhanage (1974)
Citation: AIR 1974 SC 1764
Facts:
Accused were charged under Section 34 IPC for causing death during a fight.
Ruling:
The Court held that common intention is a mental process and must be gathered from facts and circumstances.
It is not necessary that the accused explicitly express their intention; it can be inferred.
The act done in furtherance of the common intention makes all liable.
Significance:
Affirmed the inferential nature of common intention.
Helped broaden the scope of Section 34 liability.
Summary Table:
| Case | Concept | Key Principle | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| K. Ramachandra Reddy (1957) | Common Intention vs Common Object | Common intention requires prior concert; common object is shared illegal purpose | Clear distinction between Sections 34 and 149 IPC |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) | Common Object | Liability under Section 149 arises if offence committed in prosecution of common object | Members liable for acts in furtherance of common object |
| Bhagwan Singh (1954) | Common Intention | Prior meeting of minds required; joint liability | All with common intention liable jointly |
| Kishan (1968) | Common Object | Illegal common object must be established | All members liable if offence in prosecution of object |
| Sankaranarayanan (1990) | Both concepts | Common intention requires active participation; common object inferred from unlawful assembly | Clarification of Sections 34 vs 149 |
| Raj Singh (2012) | Common Object | Proof beyond doubt needed to establish common object | Prevents arbitrary conviction of assembly members |
| State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao (1974) | Common Intention | Mental element inferred from circumstances | Expands scope of Section 34 liability |
Conclusion:
These landmark judgments clarify the nuances between common intention (Section 34 IPC) and common object (Section 149 IPC):
Common Intention demands a prior concerted plan or agreement, requiring active participation and shared mental resolve.
Common Object is broader, applying to unlawful assemblies sharing an illegal object; liability arises for all acts committed in furtherance of that object.
Courts have emphasized strict proof of these mental elements, protecting individuals from wrongful liability but ensuring joint offenders are held accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments