COMMON
OBJECT AND
COMMON
INTENTION
INDEX
Introduction
Common intention
Common object
Difference
Summary
INTRODUCTION 3
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides for several offences
which determine the liability of a person when he commits
an act in combination with others. In such cases, a joint
liability is created against all of the offenders, since the
intention or objective of the offenders was one and the
same. The Indian Penal Code lays emphasis on the manner
in which one person becomes connected to the other
offenders, in order to determine liability. Generally, a person
may become a participant in the commission of a crime in
the following ways:
•If he commits the crime himself
•If he commits the crime with someone else
•If he, in order to commit the crime, puts a third agency at
work, which would commit the crime on his behalf
•If he helps or aids the offender once the offender commits the
crime, in screening him from justice
Sections 34 to 38, and 149, of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 talk about joint criminal liability. Where section 34
states the common intention of the offenders, 149 states
the common object of the offenders. It is important to note
Common 4
intention
Section 34 is enacted on the basis of joint liability arising out of a
common intention of the offenders. An important feature of this section is
the participation in action by the offender
Section 34 states that when an offence is committed by several persons
in furtherance of a common intention, i.e. the intention of all of them,
every such person is liable for the offence in the same way as if he had
committed the offence alone. The language does not say “common
intention of all”, or “an intention common to all”, but that the intention
animated to the accused leading them to commit the offence in
furtherance of a common intention.
To put this section into play, the following requirements must be
met:
1.A criminal act must be done
[Link] criminal act must be done by more than one person
[Link] criminal act must be done in furtherance of a common intention of
such persons
[Link] common intention must exist due to a pre-arranged plan between
5
Case laws
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor’s case was one of the earliest instances in which
another individual was sentenced by the tribunal for the act of another in support of common
intention. The facts of the case are, on August 3, 1923, a group of armed people entered the
police station. They asked the postmaster for cash where he counted the cash. They shot at the
postmaster from the pistol, causing the postmaster to die on the spot. Without taking cash, all the
accused ran away. The police were able to capture as a guard Barendra Kumar Ghosh who stood
outside the post office. Barendra contended that he was merely standing as a guard but the court
convicted him for murder under 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860. After that his appeal was rejected
when he appealed to Privy Council.
COMMON OBJECT
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is another section giving rise to joint
liability, but with the element of a common object. This section is stated in two parts –
offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the
common object of that assembly, and an offence which the members of the unlawful
assembly knew to be likely committed in pursuance of a common object. In simple
words, the application of this section is depended upon two main facts:
•An offence was committed by a member of an unlawful assembly
•Such offence was committed in furtherance of a common object of that unlawful
assembly, or the members of the assembly knew that such offence would likely be
committed, implying knowledge.
Under Section 149, the presence of a person in an unlawful assembly, being actuated
by a common object, is sufficient for [Link] physical presence of an unlawful
assembly cannot lead to conviction, unless there exists a common object among the
members of the assembly, the object being one of those listed in Section 141 of the
Penal Code. But if it is proved that the accused was a member of an unlawful
assembly, there is no need to establish the existence of any overt act in order to strict
the liability of 149
A common object, as mentioned in the section, can come into existence at any time,
either through expression or implication, after mutual consultation. Common object
COMMON OBJECT
Since the section speaks of unlawful assembly, the common object of
the assembly can be gathered from several facts, such as nature of
the assembly, weapons used, behaviour of the members etc. What
needs to be understood is that every member of the assembly had
knowledge of the assembly being unlawful, and chose to be a part of
it.
The meaning of the word “object” is the purpose or design for which
the assembly is [Link], for the application of this section, it
is necessary to prove that there were at least 5 persons who shared
the common object, if not more. An unlawful assembly is a group of
five or more people, and in order to attract section 149, it is
important to prove that 5 or more people acted in pursuance of a
common object.
Case law
In State of Karnataka v. Chikkahottappa, it was viewed that
section 149 consists of two parts, the first one where the offence is
directly connected to the common object, with a view to accomplish
that common object, and the second one being the knowledge of the
members that the offence was likely to be committed and the
common object would fall under section 141 of the Code, even if the
Difference between common intention and common 8
object
Common intention Common object
A pre-existing agreement between two or more
The objective or goal of the crime that the
individuals to commit a crime. This means that
before the commission of the crime, the individuals individuals have agreed to commit. This refers to the
had a prior understanding and agreement to end result or the main purpose of committing the
commit the crime together crime. It is the objective or goal that the accused
Established before the commission of the crime: had in mind when committing the crime
Established during commission of the crime:
Common intention is established before the
commission of the crime, as it refers to a pre- Common object is established during the
existing agreement between individuals. commission of the crime, as it refers to the objective
Need not be the same as the actual intention of the or goal of the crime that is being committed
Must be the same as the actual intention of the
accused: Common intention does not have to be
the same as the actual intention of the accused, as accused: Common object must be the same as the
it refers to a pre-existing agreement between actual intention of the accused, as it refers to the
individuals. objective or goal that the accused had in mind when
Can be inferred from the actions and statements of committing the crime
Must be proven through evidence: Common object
the accused: Common intention can be inferred
from the actions and statements of the accused, as must be proven through evidence, as it refers to the
it refers to a pre-existing agreement between objective or goal that the accused had in mind when
individuals. committing the crime.
Examples: murder, theft, rioting: Common object is
Punishment: Same as the punishment for the
intended crime: The punishment for common often used in cases involving crimes such as murder,
intention is the same as the punishment for the theft, and rioting, as it refers to the objective or goal
intended crime, as it refers to a pre-existing of the crime that is being committed.
Punishment: Same as the punishment for the
Presentation title 9
Thank you
Sankalp.c
[Link].,L.L.B.,
(Hons)
IV semester
