COMMON INTENTION VERSU’S COMMON

OBJECT
A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE CRIMINAL LAW - I FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE B.A. LLB (HONS) DURING THE
ACADEMIC SESSION 2019 – 2020

SUBMITTED BY

ASHISH VIDYARTHI

ROLL NO – 1919

SUBMITTED TO

DR. FR. PETER LADIS F

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

AUGUST, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA (800001)

1
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

The researcher takes this opportunity to express his profound gratitude and deep regards to
his guide DR.FR.PETER LADIS F for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of this thesis. The blessings, help and guidance given
by him time to time shall carry the researcher a long way in the journey of life on which the
researcher is about to embark.

The researcher is obliged to staff members of Chanakya National Law University Patna,
for the valuable information provided by them in their respective fields. The researcher is
grateful for their co-operation during the period of his assignment.

Lastly, the researcher would like to thank almighty, his parents, brother, sister and friends for
their constant encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible.

THANK YOU
ASHISH VIDYARTHI

2
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LLB (HONS) project report entitled

“COMMON INTENTION VERSU’S COMMON OBJECT” submitted at Chanakya

National Law University Patna, is an authentic record of my work carried under the

supervision of DR. FR. PETER LADIS F. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for

any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my project report.

ASHISH VIDYARTHI

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

3
Contents
ACKNOWLEGEMENT..............................................................................................................................2
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................................3
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................6
2.COMMON INTENTION : MEANING AND DEFINITION..........................................................................7
Common Object:- Section 149, like Section 34, is the other instance of constructive joint liability.
Section 149 creates a specific offence. It runs as under:.....................................................................11
Section 141. Unlawful assembly..........................................................................................................14
DACOITY..............................................................................................................................................16
Conclusion and suggestion..................................................................................................................17
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................19

4
ELABORATE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The researcher has objective to find out about the common intention or common
objective in detail.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher has formulated the following hypothesis, the validity of which has been tested
in the course of the research project:

1. The punishment for common intention and common object is same.

2. Mere intention is not punishable.

RESEARCH METHEDOLOGY
For the project research, researcher will rely upon doctrinal method of research.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher has adopted both primary as well as secondary source for the completion of
the project.

PRIMARY SOURCES – Indian penal code 1860, general clauses act 1897

5
SECONDARY SOURCES – book, website, NEWS PAPER, JOUNRALS ETC

LIMITATION

The researcher has time and territorial limitation in completing the project.

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher will follow BLUE BOOK (9TH) edition.

1 INTRODUCTION

Principles of criminal liability is based on the legal maxim –actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea or actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea it means that the act does not makes a person
guilty unless his mind is also guilty. A guilty mind act together with a guilty mind constituted
a crime. Criminal intention is the highest form of blameworthiness of mind of mens rea.
Intention occupies a symbolic place in criminal law. As the highest form of mental element it
applies to murder and the gravest form of crime in the criminal justice system. the term
intention is not define in the Indian penal code but section 34 of Indian penal code deals with
the common intention. The intention made among several people to do something wrong and
act done in that manner in which it was formulated comes under the sanction of section 34 of
Indian penal code 1860.section 34 of the Indian penal code states that when a criminal act is

6
done by a 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 alone1.

2.COMMON INTENTION : MEANING AND DEFINITION

Through the section 34 of the Indian penal code an attempt has been made to compare the
concept of common intention and common object under the IPC, 1860 in a very lucid manner
by taking into consideration the relevant provisions and the case laws on the point. The
distinction between common intention and common object has been pointed out in details.

The comparative analysis between the common intention and common object under the
Indian penal code,1860.

1. section 34 : Act done by several person in furtherance of common intention –

According to section 34,when a criminal act is done by a several persons in
furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the
same manner as if it were done by him alone.
2. Object of section 34: section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create
a substantive offence. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be
difficult to distinguish between the act of the individual members of the parties or to
prove exactly what part was taken by each of them that if two or more persons
intentionally do a thing jointly ,it is just the same as if each of them has done it
individually. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence

1
Criminal manual, page no 08, time 11:30 pm

7
 of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually
committing an act.
3. Ingredients of section 34 : To attract the application of section 34,the following
conditions must be satisfied:-

Some criminal act :- criminal act define in the section 34 does not the refer to the
individual act where a crime is committed by a group of people or persons, where a
crime is committees by a several person in furtherance of common intention of all
them, each of them doing some act, similar or diverse, big or small shall be liable for
that act. ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ used in section 34 which means the
unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would
be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence.

Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: - The criminal act in question must have been
done by several persons i.e. by more than one person. The number of wrong doers
should be at least two. Most importantly, if the criminal act was fresh and independent
act springing wholly from the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely
because when it was done they were intending to be partakers with the doer in a
different criminal act.

Common Intention:- The words “in furtherance of the common intention of all” were
added to section 34 after words ‘persons’ in 1870 the idea for which, possibly, was
derived from the following passage of the Privy Council’s judgment:

“Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common intention, each and
everyone becomes responsible for the acts of each and every other in execution and
furtherance of their common purpose, as the purpose is common so must be the
responsibility2.”
The expression ‘common intention’ means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan; it
has been given various meanings which are as follows-

2
Ref. Ganesh Singh v. Ram Raja, (1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45]

8
· Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds, prior
consultation in between all the persons constituting the group [Ref. Mahboob Shah v.
Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118].

· Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has
been committed [Ref. As per DAS, J., in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal.
339].

· It also means evil intent to commit some criminal act, but not necessarily the same
offence which is committed [Ref. As per WANCHOO, J, in Saidu Khan v. The State,
AIR 1951 All 21 (F.B.)].

Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan. Pre-arranged plan means prior concert
or prior meeting of minds. Criminal act must be done in concert pursuant to the pre-
arranged plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act
in point of time.

· Where there is no indication of premeditation or of a pre-arranged plan, the mere

fact that the two accused were seen at the spot or that the two accused fired as a result
of which one person died and two others received simple injuries could not be held
sufficient to infer common intention [Ref. Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, 1970
Cr.L.J. 653].

· However, common intention may develop on the spot as between a number of

persons and this has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused, and facts
and circumstances of the case [Ref. Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706].

Participation In The Criminal Act:- The participation in a criminal act of a group is a

condition precedent in order to fix joint liability and there must be some overt act

9
 indicative of a common intention to commit an offence. The law requires that the
accused must be present on the spot during the occurrence 3 of the crime and take part
in its commission; it is enough if he is present somewhere nearby.

The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must
be physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in
the actual room; he can for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his
companions about any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to
facilitate their escape, but he must be physically present at the scene of the occurrence
and must actually participate in the commission of the offence some way or other at
the time crime is actually being committed.

The first leading case on the point is (also known as Shankari Tola Post Office
Murder Case). In this case several persons appeared before the sub-post master who
was counting the money on the table and demanded the money. In the mean time they
opened fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money.
Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed over
to the police4.

The accused was tried under sections 302/34 as according to the prosecution he was
one of the three men who fired at the sub-post master. The accused denied his charge
on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased.
The trial court, on being satisfied that the sub-post master was killed in furtherance of
the common intention of all, convicted the accused even if he had not fired the fatal
shot.

The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings of the
trial court and held the accused guilty of murder. Giving his judgment LORD
SUMNER quoting a line from Milton’s famous poem, “ON HIS BLINDNESS” said.
“even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered
that in crimes as in other things they also serve who only stand and wait….. Section
34 deals with doing of separate act, similar or diverse by several persons; if all are
3
Complicity Law & Legal Definition"
4
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1
10
 done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them
all as if he had done them himself”.

Common Object:- Section 149, like Section 34, is the other instance of
constructive joint liability. Section 149 creates a specific offence. It
runs as under:
“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly, or such as the members 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 assembly, is guilty of that
offence.”

V. Elements Of Section 149:- The essence of offence under Section 149 is assembly
of several (five or more) persons having one or more of the common objects
mentioned in Section 141 and it could be gathered from the nature of the assembly,
arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of
occurrence5. Section 149 creates joint liability of all members of an unlawful
assembly for criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the common object
of the said assembly. So the essential ingredients of Section 149 are:

1. There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141;

2. Criminal act must be done by any member of such assembly;

3. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such which
was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object;

4. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and knew the common
object of the assembly.

4. Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a person liable
for the offence committed even if he had no intention to commit that offence.

5
Prof. S.N.Mishra; Indian Penal Code; Central Law Publications, Allahabad, Tenth Edition (September) 2001.

11
Scope Of Section 149:- The Section is divided into two parts-

1.In Prosecution Of The Common Object:- The words “in prosecution of the common
object” show that the offence committed was immediately connected with the
common object of the unlawful assembly of which accused were members. The act
must have been done with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful
assembly.

In Queen v. Sabid Ali, 11 BLR 347 the words “in prosecution of the common object”
were construed as meaning “with a view to achievement of the common object”.

2. Members Knew To Be Likely:- The second part relates to a situation where the
members of the assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object. A thing is likely to happen only when the situation
is like “it will probably happen” or “may very well happen”. The word ‘knew’
indicates a state of mind at the time of commission of an offence, knowledge in this
regard must be proved. The word ‘likely’ means some clear evidence that the
unlawful assembly had such a knowledge.

VII. Difference Between Common Intention And Common Object:- The difference
between common intention and common object may be stated as under:

Under Section 34 number of persons must be more than one. Under Section 149
number of persons must be five or more.

2. Section 34 does not create any specific offence but only states a rule of evidence.
Section 149 creates a specific offence.

3. Common intention required under Section 34 may be of any type. Common object
under Section 149 must be one of the objects mentioned in Section 141.

12
 4. Common intention under Section 34 requires prior meeting of minds or pre-
arranged plan, i.e. all the accused persons must meet together before the actual attack
participated by all takes place. Under Section 149, prior meeting of minds is not
necessary. Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of
the offence is sufficient.

5. Under Section 34 some active participation is necessary, especially in a crime

involving physical violence. Section 149 does not require active participation and the
liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a
common object.

VIII. Common Intention May Also Develop On The Spot: Exception To The General
Rule- Generally, it is said that, “a common object may develop on the spot but a
common intention cannot”. But, in certain circumstances common intention also may
develop suddenly on the spot and such common intention may be inferred from the
facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused persons. Following
cases are illustrative on this point-

In the Supreme Court held that a common intention may develop on the spot after the
offenders have gathered there. A previous plan is not necessary. Common intention
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case6.

In Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 331; ‘A’ and ‘B’ two brothers
were seen standing near the cot of the victim who was sleeping. One of them was
armed with a ‘gandasa’ and another with a ‘lathi’, when a hue and cry was raised by
the two brothers ran together, and both of them were seen running from the bed room
of the victim. The victim died of an incised wound on the neck, which according to
medical evidence was necessarily fatal. The court found that the two brothers shared
the common intention to cause death. It was held that common intention may develop
on the spot also.

In Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 546; several persons attacked a man
with lathis when he was passing through a field. The man eluded them and they gave
6
Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706;
13
 chase, on overtaking him they once again attacked him. It was held that, these facts
were sufficient to prove that the accused persons had been actuated with the common
intention to assault the victim. Conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 was
sustained.

In Sheoram Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 2555; the Supreme Court held that
common intention may develop suddenly during the course of an occurrence, but still
unless there is cogent evidence and clear proof of such common intention.

Section 141. Unlawful assembly —

An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly“, if the
common object of the persons composing that assembly is—
First – To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any
State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant
in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second – To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
Third – To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to
take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment
of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in
possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person
to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to
do.
Explanation – An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
From this section we can say that, to constitute an unlawful assembly the following
ingredients is necessary –
1. There should be an assembly of five or more persons.
2. There must be a common object for them.
3. Common object must be one of the five ingredients, specified in the above section.
When the number of the persons reduces from five for trial for the reason that some
were acquitted for the charges then the s. 141 will become inapplicable. But if there is

14
clear indication that some other unidentified persons are involved in the crime then
this section can be applied. In Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar[ix], Supreme Court
held that:
“it is competent to a court to come to the conclusion that there was an unlawful
assembly of five or more persons, even if less than that number have been convicted
by it if: (i) the charge states that apart from the persons named, several other
unidentified persons were also members of the unlawful assembly whose common
object was to commit an unlawful act …..(ii) or that the first information report and
evidence shows such to be the case even though the charge does not state so. (iii) or
that though the charge and prosecution witnesses named only the acquitted and the
convicted accused persons there is other evidence which discloses the existence of
named or other persons”
The other ingredient of this section is a common object. Object means the purpose,
and it will be common when it is shared by the members of the unlawful assembly. A
common object may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly.
The explanation of this section shows it clearly. However common object is
entertained in the human mind so there can be no evidence to prove directly about
this.
It is a question of the fact and can be culled out on the basis of facts and
circumstances of each case. It can be determined from the nature of the assembly, the
kinds of arms and their uses by it, behavior and the language of the members of the
assembly used before and after the incident. If only four out of the five assembled
person have a common object and not fifth, then that assembly is not an unlawful
assembly. Simple onlooker or family of the parties cannot become a member of the
unlawful assembly unless they actively participated or encouraged the violence.

In Moti Das v. Bihar, the Supreme Court held that pre-concert is not necessary. An
assembly may be lawful in beginning but may turn into unlawful later.
Being a member of Unlawful assembly is itself a crime and s.143 prescribes the
punishment of six months, or fine, or both for being a member of that assembly.
The section which imposes the liability on each person of the offense committed by
the members of the assembly is section 149 of IPC. Section 149 of IPC is:

15
Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of common object — If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as
the members 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.
In Bhudeo Mandal v. State of Bihar[xi], the Apex Court held that before convicting
any person with the aid of s.149, the evidence must clearly establish not only the
common object, but also show that the common object was unlawful. In Ram Dhani
v. State[xii], there was a dispute over land and the complainant party resorted to
cutting crop grown by the accused party. The latter were more than five in number
and assembled to prevent the cutting. The court held that – the persons acting in self-
defence of the property cannot be members of an unlawful assembly. And so they
could not be said to form an unlawful assembly.
The word ‘knew’ is used in the second part of the S. 149, which implies more than a
possibility but less than might have known. An offence committed in prosecution of
common object would generally be offence which the members of the assembly knew
was likely to be committed[xiii]. This phrase means that the offence committed was
immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly, of which
the accused were members. The word ‘in prosecution of common object’ means that
the offence committed was immediately connected with the common object of the
assembly or in order to attain a common object.

DACOITY

Introduction :- Dacoity is the one of the oldest forms of crimes in India

and it committed purely for the purpose of looting or extorting. Every
dacoity is robbery. There is only slight difference between robbery and
dacoity.
16
 Section 391 of Indian penal code says “when five and more person
conjointly commit or attempt to robbery or where the whole number of
persons conjointly committing or attempting to commits a robbery and
persons present and aiding such commission or attempt amount to five or
more every so committing attempting or aiding is said to commit
dacoity”.

It is punishable under 396 of the Indian penal code ir says whoever commits
dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous
imprisonment for the term which may extended to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine

Conclusion and suggestion

Common Intention is known as a prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to

the plan. It must be proved that the Criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the
pre-arranged plan. It comes into being prior to the Commission of the act in point of
time, yet it need not be a long gap. The gap need not be long sometimes common
intention can be developed on the spot. The fundamental factor is a pre-arranged plan
to execute the plan for the desired result. Each of such person will be liable in an act
done in furtherance of common intention as if the act was done by one person.
Common Intention does not mean the similar intention of several person. To
constitute common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be
known to the rest of them and shared by them

Basic Intention And Specific Intention:

In some states, a distinction is made between an offense of basic intent and an offense
of specific intent.

17
Offenses requiring basic intent specify a mens rea element that is no more than the
intentional or reckless commission of the actus reus. The actor either knew (intended)
or deliberately closed his mind to the risk (recklessness) that his action (actus reus)
would result in the harm suffered by the victim. The crime of battery, for example,
only requires the basic intent that the actor knew or should have known that his action
would lead to harmful contact with the victim.

A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to

basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two
classes of such offences:
(a) Some legislature decide that particular criminal offenses are sufficiently serious
that the mens rea requirement must be drafted to demonstrate more precisely where
the fault lies. Thus, in addition to the conventional mens rea of intention or
recklessness, a further or additional element is required. For example, in English law,
s18 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 defines the actus reus as causing grievous
bodily harm but requires that this be performed:
1. unlawfully and maliciously – the modern interpretation of "malice" for these
purposes is either intention or recklessness, "unlawfully" means without some lawful
excuse (such as self-defence); and with.

Fixing vicarious liability under s.34 or s.149 depends on their method adopted to
furnish the crime. There are two sections dealing with ‘common intention’ and
‘common object’ under two chapters of IPC ‘General Explanation’ and ‘Of Offences
Against Public Tranquillity’ respectively. Sometimes there arises difficulty in proving
with evidence that whether they shared common intention or not. And also how many
people were the members of Unlawful Assembly with their common object same.
However, these ambiguities were removed by the Supreme Court in different cases,
after determining its facts and situation of each case.
To clear and better understanding, Law Commission of India also gave many
suggestions to Legislature for amendment of some part of the statute.
Even after so much effort, there arise problems of which law will be applicable
amongst the two in some crucial cases, and investigators and charge sheet filers make
mistakes in this regard.
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY

P.S.A PILLAR’s – criminal law -11th edition

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal – THE INDIAN PENAL CODE -33th edition
Criminal law cases and materials – sixth edition –K.D GAUR.

WEBSITES

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1124/Common-Intention.html

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1124/Common-Intention.html

indiankanoon.org – CASES

19