Common Intention And Common Object Cases

24 Sep 2025 --
0 Comments

Common Intention and Common Object: Overview

1. Common Intention (Section 34, IPC)

When two or more persons share the same intention to commit a criminal act, and act together in furtherance of that intention, each is liable as if they committed the offence themselves.

Key: It requires a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds.

Liability is joint and several.

2. Common Object (Section 149, IPC)

Applies to an unlawful assembly where the members have a common object to commit a crime.

The act committed by any member in pursuance of the common object is attributed to all members.

Key: It does not require prior meeting of minds or pre-planning; the common object develops from association and purpose of assembly.

Liability arises when an offence is committed in furtherance of the common object.

Case Laws on Common Intention and Common Object

1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)

Facts: The accused was charged with murder along with others.

Principle: The Supreme Court held that common intention requires prior meeting of minds to commit the crime.

Significance: Established that mere presence at the crime scene or participation is not enough; there must be a shared intention to commit the crime.

2. R. v. Jogee (2016) - UK Case but Influential

Facts: The case redefined the doctrine of joint enterprise (akin to common intention).

Principle: Mere foresight that a crime might be committed by an associate is not enough to attribute guilt. There must be intent to assist or encourage.

Significance: Clarified the mens rea (mental element) required for common intention.

(Note: Though a UK case, it influences the understanding of common intention globally.)

3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)

Facts: Several accused were part of an unlawful assembly, which committed murder.

Principle: The Court differentiated common object from common intention. Common object arises from unlawful assembly; common intention arises from concerted plan.

Significance: Emphasized that members of an unlawful assembly are liable under Section 149 IPC for acts committed in pursuance of common object, even if they don’t share common intention.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1976)

Facts: Members of a mob assaulted and killed a person.

Principle: Court held that where an unlawful assembly is present, the common object principle applies and all members are responsible for the act done in furtherance of the object.

Significance: Affirmed wide liability under Section 149 for acts committed by any member of the unlawful assembly.

5. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)

Facts: The accused was convicted for acts committed by a mob.

Principle: The Court distinguished between common intention and common object, stating that common intention requires prior meeting of minds while common object is the purpose of unlawful assembly.

Significance: Reinforced that acts done in pursuance of common object are attributable to all members of unlawful assembly under Section 149.

Summary Table

Case	Key Principle	Contribution
K. M. Nanavati v. Maharashtra	Common intention requires prior meeting of minds	Clarified that joint intention is essential for Section 34
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. Maharashtra	Differentiated common intention and common object	Explained liability under Sections 34 and 149
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa	Liability of unlawful assembly members	Affirmed wide liability under Section 149
Chandrappa v. Karnataka	Clear distinction between common intention and common object	Emphasized different mens rea and scope of Sections 34 and 149
R. v. Jogee (UK)	Intent to assist or encourage needed for joint liability	Influential in mens rea understanding of common intention