Difference Between Common Intention & Common Objections: Common intention and common object are two of the most fundamental concepts in the Indian criminal justice system. As much as these words may sound identical, they consist of a different legal doctrine altogether. These are both essential to defining liability in cases involving multiple offenders while ensuring that everyone acting on a common intent is liable for their actions. This article explains the difference between common intention and common object in thorough detail—meaning, elements, differences, and relevant case laws.
Meaning of Common Intention and Common Object:
The court faces the problem of apportionment of liability whenever several people commit a crime. There are two acts: common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and common object under Section 149. While the two terms relate to group actions, they are clearly distinguished from each other based on the requirements of mental state, aims, and consequences.
Common Intention
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) treats common intention. It may be defined as the previous concurrence of the minds of the offenders, which means that the contributors all agreed to commit the same crime. It requires no express agreement; it is only necessary that each person acts in pursuance of the common intention.
Common Object
Section 149, IPC, prescribes procedures in cases of the common object. It applies whenever there is an unlawful assembly of five or more persons having a common object, either forming such object at the time when they assemble or afterward developing such object. All members of that group are liable vicariously for the acts done in pursuance of the common object, even though they did not themselves join in the particular act.
Are you interested in pursuing a career in Law? The Legal School in collaboration with IndusLaw has created a unique 4-month program for a Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions for fresh law graduates as well as professionals looking to advance in their careers! Enquire now for details!
Ingredients of Common Intention and Common Object
Understanding of common intention and common object is quite pertinent in the sense that it forms the basis for attributing collective liability to participants in crimes committed in groups. These doctrines of the Indian Penal Code lay down principles to deal with situations where two or more persons act in concert with common intention. The doctrine is then put into action to attribute liability collectively among all such participants. However, the mental state, degree of participation, and type of collective behavior differ. It is in this context that we consider the typical characteristics of common intention under Section 34 and the common object under Section 149 of the IPC hereunder.
Ingredients of Common Intention (Section 34 IPC)
Involvement of more than one person: There has to be at least two persons.
Prearranged plan or meeting of minds prior to it: The group of offenders has to have a common intention, which can even be made instantaneously before committing the crime.
Act done in pursuance of the common intention: All offenders act with the same intention. Even passive involvement in a few instances can lead to liability.
Equal liability: Equal liability attaches to each member, irrespective of who the actual offender is.
Ingredients of Common Object (Section 149 IPC)
Unlawful assembly: At least five people must be involved in forming the group.
Common object: Members must share the same aim which might include causing an offence or impeding any lawful authority.
Membership: Liability can accrue by virtue of membership alone of the group. The member does not necessarily have to commit the act itself.
Knowledge of the thing: Persons do not need to be actively involved but should be aware of the aim and probable results of the thing.
Important Differences between Common Intention and Common Object
Although both doctrines entail vicarious liability, they vary in several very important respects. The following are the major differences:
1. Number of Accomplices
Common Intention (Section 34): requires a minimum of two accomplices.
Common Object (Section 149): requires a minimum of five accomplices.
2. Kind of Consistency
Common Intent: It implies an agreement beforehand or a previous meeting of minds among the participants.
Common Object: There is no need for a prior agreement; the object could evolve in the course of the assembly.
3. Mental Element (Mens Rea)
Common Intent: requires the concurrence of the shared intent of all the participants to act. This would mean that all the participants share the same mental state.
Common Object: A member can also be made liable even though they do not possess that particular mental element but have knowledge about the objects of the common intention of the group.
4. Extent of Liability
Common Intent: All members are equally liable for acts done in pursuance of the common intent.
Common Object: A member can also be held liable even though the act is committed by a different member, as long as it is within the common object.
5. Active Participation
Common Intention: It calls upon each person to play an active role to achieve the intention.
Common Object: Passivists can also be prosecuted when they form part of an illegal assembly.
6. Examples of Crimes
Common Intention: Relatively common in those types of robberies, murders, or assaults that are the result of common deliberation amongst two or more persons.
Example of Common Intent: A and B decide to loot a jeweler's shop. In the process of looting, A detains the owner at gunpoint while B collects the goods. Though A did not commit any actual snatching, A, and B are both equally responsible for the act as they abetted with the common intent to do robbery.
Common Object: Relatively common in riots or political violence in which persons combine to attain an unlawful goal.
Example of Common Object: An unlawful assembly of seven people intends to obstruct police officers from dispersing a protest. If one member beats up an officer, all seven may come under Section 149 for beating up a public servant because it was done in furtherance of their common object.
CriteriaCommon Intention Common ObjectLegal ProvisionSection 34 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 149 of the Indian Penal CodeMinimum Number of PersonsAt least two personsAt least five personsAgreement/PlanInvolves a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of mindsNo prior agreement is needed; the object can develop spontaneouslyMental Element (Mens Rea)It requires a shared intention among participantsRequires knowledge of the common object but not necessarily shared intentParticipation RequirementEach person must actively participate in some wayMere membership in the unlawful assembly suffices for liabilityNature of OffenceAn offense committed must be in furtherance of the common intentionAn offense committed must align with or be related to the common objectLiability ScopeAll participants are equally liable for the act done in furtherance of common intentionAll members of the unlawful assembly are liable even if they did not directly participate in the actExamples of CrimesPlanned robbery, assault, murderRioting, mob violence, political unrestApplicabilityApplies only to those directly involved in the actThis applies to all members of the unlawful assembly, even passive participantsFormation of Intent/ObjectIntent must exist before or at the time of the crimeCommon object can arise during the eventAct RequirementThe act must be done by one participant on behalf of all, in furtherance of common intentionLiability extends to all members for acts committed by anyone in furtherance of the common object
Crime is never going to stop. Hence, this wide field of law has a consistent scope. Find out the top criminal lawyers in India. Check criminal lawyer salary.
Case Laws on Common Intention and Common Object
Landmark Cases on Common Intention
1. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1964 AIR 122)
On the question of the common intention, held all men need not do the act themselves, it being enough if they each act in pursuance of the common intention.
2. Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1976 SC 2027)
It was held that where the parties enter into an act, the existence of any prior agreement can be implied irrespective of whether an express agreement is proved or not.
Landmark cases on Common Object
1. Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 174)
The Supreme Court ruled that active participation in an unlawful assembly can also invite liability under Section 149, even though the person may not have known what the precise act it was doing.
2. State of U.P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747
It reaffirmed again that the object of the unlawful assembly need not be preconceived; it could emerge spontaneously also, and all the members would be liable.
Conclusion
Common intention under Section 34 and the common object under Section 149 of the IPC share the same concept of collective criminal liability but differ on essential aspects like several participants, mental elements, and participation. Common intention dwells on the prior agreement of the very same offenders; it emphasized membership in an unlawful assembly. Understanding those differences is crucial for legal practitioners and the law in enforcing such provisions because it will help them apply those provisions correctly when holding people liable for collective actions. The decisions mentioned above also shed light on how these legal doctrines are construed and used in courts.
Difference Between Common Intention and Common Object FAQs
1. What is the difference between a common intention and common object?
The key difference lies in the state of mind and number of actors.
Common intention (Section 34 IPC): It is related to common intention when at least two people agree in their minds to commit a crime as defined under Section 34 IPC.
Common object (Section 149 IPC): It refers to a common object when the same is agreed upon by at least two persons to commit an offence that comes within Section 34 IPC.
2. Can common intention arise suddenly?
Yes, common intention can arise right before or at the time of the commission of the crime. Such a long-term plan or formal agreement doesn't need to be present; however, all members must act towards achieving a common goal.
3. How many members are required for common intention and common object?
Common intention involves at least two persons.
A common object is available in case of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons.
4. Can Section 34 and Section 149 be used simultaneously?
No, Section 34 (common intention) and Section 149 (common object) are mutually exclusive. Where the number of persons involved in the offence exceeds five, generally Section 149 applies, not Section 34.
5. Give some examples of common intention and common object crimes.
Common Intention: Two or more people plan a robbery, and one steals while the others assist, even providing cover for one another.
Common Object: Riots, mob violence, group attacks by five or more with a common object to perpetrate the unlawful act.
