Judicial Precedents On Common Intention And Common Object
⚖️ Introduction
Common Intention (Section 34 IPC): When two or more persons act with a pre-arranged plan or a shared intention to commit a crime, each is liable as if the act was done individually.
Common Object (Section 149 IPC): When an unlawful assembly acts with a shared object, all members can be held liable for actions done in pursuance of that object, even if some members didn’t directly participate.
Key difference:
Intention focuses on planned action by specific persons.
Object focuses on group liability of an assembly, regardless of who physically committed the act.
🧾 1. K. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Distinction between common intention and common object.
Facts:
Accused attacked a victim in a group fight. Some participants claimed they were not directly involved.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 34 IPC requires prior meeting of minds and planning, whereas Section 149 IPC holds all members of an unlawful assembly liable if the act is committed in pursuance of the common object.
Significance:
Established the legal distinction between joint intention and group liability.
🧾 2. Manohar v. State of Rajasthan (2000)
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Issue: Liability under Section 149 IPC for mob violence.
Facts:
A mob of 15 assaulted a person during a protest. Not all actively hit the victim.
Judgment:
Court held all members liable because the act fell within the common object of the assembly. Section 149 extends liability to passive participants if the act is a probable consequence.
Significance:
Confirmed that mere presence in an unlawful assembly with a common object is enough for criminal liability.
🧾 3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Application of common intention in multiple murders.
Facts:
Several accused conspired to commit multiple murders for financial gain.
Judgment:
The Court held that if the act is committed in furtherance of a common intention, all conspirators are equally liable. Even if some didn’t directly inflict harm, liability attaches because of shared plan.
Significance:
Clarified principles for joint liability in murder cases under Section 34 IPC.
🧾 4. K. Girish v. State of Kerala (2010)
Court: Kerala High Court
Issue: Common object in unlawful assembly for robbery.
Facts:
A group of 8 men planned a robbery; 2 entered the house and committed theft.
Judgment:
The Court ruled all members of the group liable under Section 149 IPC, as the act was committed in pursuance of the common object, even though some didn’t physically participate.
Significance:
Affirmed that common object liability covers all members of the assembly, reinforcing deterrence in group crimes.
🧾 5. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Distinction between conspiracy, common intention, and common object.
Facts:
Accused planned and executed a bomb blast in Mumbai.
Judgment:
The Court distinguished conspiracy (prior agreement) from common intention (shared plan executed jointly) and common object (liability of all members of unlawful assembly). Liability under Section 34 IPC requires meeting of minds, while Section 149 IPC covers all members of a group even without prior planning.
Significance:
A landmark case defining threefold distinction: conspiracy, common intention, and common object in criminal law.
🧾 6. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Common intention in culpable homicide.
Facts:
Two men attacked the victim during a dispute, resulting in death. One argued he didn’t intend to kill.
Judgment:
Court held both guilty because the fatal act was in furtherance of the shared intention to cause harm.
Significance:
Established that common intention imputes equal liability, even if the degree of participation differs.
🧾 7. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959)
Court: Bombay High Court
Issue: Application of Section 34 in homicide.
Facts:
Accused, with help from friends, planned to confront the victim, leading to death.
Judgment:
Court observed that if the act is done in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan, all participants are equally liable under Section 34 IPC.
Significance:
Illustrated judicial reliance on evidence of prior meeting of minds to establish common intention.
🧩 Key Principles from Judicial Precedents
Section 34 IPC (Common Intention)
Requires prior meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan.
Liability applies equally to all participants, even if the act is committed by one.
Section 149 IPC (Common Object)
Applies to unlawful assemblies (5 or more persons).
Liability arises if the act committed is in pursuance of the common object, irrespective of direct participation.
Distinction Between Intention and Object
Intention: Specific plan among particular persons.
Object: Liability of all members of a group, even for probable consequences of the assembly.
Degree of Participation is Irrelevant in Common Object
Passive members are liable if the act falls within the assembly’s common object.
Crucial Evidence
For common intention: evidence of prior meeting of minds or planning.
For common object: proof of assembly and object of group.
⚖️ Conclusion
Judicial precedents on common intention and common object clarify group liability in criminal law:
Section 34 IPC targets pre-arranged, joint acts.
Section 149 IPC targets unlawful assemblies and probable consequences of their common object.
Courts consistently emphasize the degree of participation is irrelevant in common object, but prior planning is essential for common intention, ensuring fair but firm accountability in group crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments