Reforms In Common Intention/Common Object
What is Common Intention and Common Object?
These are two distinct but related concepts under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deal with group criminal liability.
1. Common Intention (Section 34 IPC)
Definition: When two or more persons intentionally do an act together with a pre-arranged plan or design, each is liable for the act done.
Essence: There must be a prior meeting of minds, i.e., a pre-arranged plan to commit a criminal act.
Key Feature: Acts done in furtherance of the common intention are attributed to each participant.
2. Common Object (Section 149 IPC)
Definition: When an unlawful assembly (5 or more persons) has a common object, any member can be held liable for an offence committed by any member if the offence is committed in prosecution of the common object.
Essence: No prior meeting of minds is necessary; liability arises due to participation in an unlawful assembly with a common object.
Key Feature: Liability extends to all members for offences committed by any member if related to the common object.
Why Reforms in Common Intention and Common Object?
Earlier, courts sometimes misused or overstretched these concepts to hold all accused liable irrespective of actual participation.
This led to harassment, injustice, and violation of individual rights.
Recent reforms and judicial clarifications aim to narrow the scope, ensuring individual culpability and protecting innocent members.
Judicial activism and legislature have introduced safeguards to ensure that:
Liability under Section 34 IPC requires clear proof of prior meeting of minds.
Liability under Section 149 IPC requires that the act be done in furtherance of the common object.
Courts have emphasized individual evidence and distinct participation.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Common Intention and Common Object
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984, SC)
Facts:
The case involved interpretation of common intention in multiple accused.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that common intention requires prior concert or pre-arranged plan. It cannot be inferred lightly.
“Common intention is a mental state and must be established with proof of pre-arranged plan.”
Significance:
Established that common intention is not merely acting simultaneously but requires prior consensus.
2. K. Abdul Aziz v. State of Kerala (2008, SC)
Facts:
The accused were part of an unlawful assembly charged under Section 149 IPC for murder committed by one member.
Held:
Court held that liability under Section 149 IPC is strict but requires the act to be done in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.
Significance:
Confirmed that mere membership is not enough; the act must be in furtherance of the common object.
3. V.K. Verma v. State of Punjab (1955, SC)
Facts:
Explored the distinction between common intention and common object.
Held:
Court distinguished the two concepts clearly:
Common intention (Section 34) is individual liability based on prior meeting of minds.
Common object (Section 149) is liability arising from unlawful assembly, no prior plan required.
Significance:
This is a foundational case clarifying conceptual differences.
4. Manish Dhanraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2008, SC)
Facts:
Involved multiple accused charged under Section 149 IPC.
Held:
Court emphasized that to invoke Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove the existence of an unlawful assembly and the common object and that the offence committed was in furtherance of that object.
Significance:
Narrowed down the scope of Section 149 to prevent misuse.
5. Ravindra @ Raviju v. State of Maharashtra (2019, SC)
Facts:
The Court examined the extent of liability for common intention and common object in a murder case.
Held:
Reiterated that common intention requires prior meeting of minds and active participation.
Significance:
Affirmed the necessity of proof of prior plan for Section 34.
6. K. N. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1983, SC)
Facts:
Addressed liability under Section 149 IPC in a communal riot case.
Held:
Court ruled that if an offence committed by a member is not in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, other members cannot be held liable under Section 149.
Significance:
Limited the scope of Section 149 liability, focusing on relation to common object.
7. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011, SC)
Facts:
In a case involving violent protest, Court analyzed Section 149 IPC application.
Held:
Court stressed that every member of unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for all acts unless the acts fall within the common object.
Significance:
Reiterated that liability under Section 149 is not unlimited.
Summary Table of Key Principles and Case Laws
| Case | Key Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) | Common intention requires prior meeting of minds | Defined strict test for Section 34 |
| K. Abdul Aziz (2008) | Act must be in furtherance of common object for Section 149 | Clarified scope of Section 149 liability |
| V.K. Verma (1955) | Clear distinction between common intention and common object | Foundational conceptual clarity |
| Manish Dhanraj Jain (2008) | Proof of unlawful assembly and common object necessary | Narrowed Section 149 application |
| Ravindra v. Maharashtra (2019) | Prior meeting and active participation for common intention | Reaffirmed strictness of Section 34 |
| K. N. Bhatt (1983) | Offence must relate to common object to hold others liable | Limited Section 149 liability |
| Ranjit Singh (2011) | Liability under Section 149 is not absolute for all acts | Reiterated limits on Section 149 |
✍️ Conclusion and Recent Reforms
Courts have progressively tightened the interpretation of common intention and common object to prevent arbitrary or collective punishment.
Common intention requires prior concert and shared plan, making the liability personal and specific.
Common object focuses on the group’s purpose during unlawful assembly; liability applies only for offences committed in furtherance of this object.
Judicial reforms emphasize individual assessment of participation and proof of mental culpability.
These reforms protect innocent members of groups and uphold fair trial rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments