Common intention
Common Intention creates ‘joint culpability’ for an act, deviating from the basic concept of criminal law, which states that a person is only responsible for crimes committed by himself and not for the actions of others.
The concept of Common intention is enshrined under Section 34 IPC (section 3(5) BNS). It is not a specific offence. It only lays down the rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in order of common intention, each of them will be held jointly liable. Section 34 does not state a specific offence. It only lays down the rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in order of common intention, each of them will be held jointly liable. The punishment for this offence will be consistent with the crime they committed.
For example, if the offence of murder has been committed in furtherance of a common purpose, each one of them will be held liable under Section 103 and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Sec 34 IPC/3(5) BNS: – When a criminal act is done by 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 alone.
Essentials of Common Intention:
- There must be some act which is criminal in nature.
- The act must be done by two or more persons.
- The act done by persons must be with the common intention of all.
- Common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between such persons.
- Physical presence at the time of Commission of crime of all the persons; but physical presence of all is not necessary in some cases.
Landmark Judgement
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925
The Court held that it is not required that all participants participate equally. It is possible to accomplish more or less. However, this does not mean that the individual who did less should be exempt from blame. His legal responsibility is the same. “He who stands with is also liable”
In this case two people demanded money from a postman as he was counting the money, and when they shot from a handgun at the postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the suspects fled without taking any money. In this instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot the gun and was only standing by, but the courts rejected his appeal and found him guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court further held that it is not required that all participants participate equally. It is possible to accomplish more or less. However, this does not mean that the individual who did less should be exempt from blame. His legal responsibility is the same.
Mahboob Shah vs Emperor 1945
Common intention implies a prearranged program of plan previous meeting of minds and discussion in between all the persons forming the group. Therefore, participation in a criminal act of a group is a condition precedent in order to fix joint liability.
In this case Allahdad (the deceased) who was the resident of village Khandakel, on the date 24 Aug.1943, alongwith Hamidullah and few others went to Indus riverbank by boat for collecting reeds.As they reached the bank, Mohammad Hussain Shah (father of Wali Shah) was taking a bath on the riverbank. He warned Allahdad and others against cutting reeds as the land belonged to him. But they did not stop and collected 16 bundles of reeds and started returning.
On the way back, they were stopped by Ghulam Shah (nephew of Hussain Shah) who asked them to return the reeds.But Allahdad and his friends refused to return. On this Ghulam Shah hit Allahdad with a stick but the hit was missed. Then Allahdad hit Ghulam Shah with a bamboo. Ghulam Shah then started to shout for help.
On hearing his shout, Mahboob Shah and Wali Shah rushed there with loaded guns. Allahdad and his friends started running away. While running away, Wali Shah fired at Hamidullah, and he died instantaneously. Mahboob Shah also fired at Allahdad because of which he suffered severe injuries but later on he also died. Wali Shah absconded but Mahboob Shah was apprehended by the police.
Ram Naresh v. State of UP 2023
Supreme court held that prior meetings of minds not a mandate to trigger section 34 of IPC. Common intention can be formed even during commission of offence.
Balram and his brother Ram Kishore (victim/ deceased) were attacked by four accused persons. One of the accused was carrying an iron rod, he was along with other accused persons namely Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh (appellant), who had lathis. The victim shouted for help but in vain. These four accused gave brutal blows to Ram Kishore from lathis and iron rod. The victim got injured and died. Based on the FIR lodged against the accused persons, a case was registered under Section 302 (murder) r.w. Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The Trial Court convicted all four accused persons under Section 302 r.w. 34 of the IPC. An appeal was filed before the High Court, and it affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before the Supreme Court. For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which mean community of purpose and common design.”
It further highlighted that “Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact, and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.”
Conclusion
The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(5) of the BNS plays a crucial role in ensuring that all participants in a crime are held equally accountable for their collective actions. While the doctrine has been a part of Indian criminal law for over a century, its interpretation has evolved through landmark judgments that have clarified the scope and application.
- University of Allahabad PGAT I and PGAT II Admissions 2025 Apply Online Form
- BNSS MCQ [free]| OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS & ANSWER of BNSS- Lawyer Talks
- Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Various Post Recruitment 2025 Apply Online for 69 Post
- Summer Internship Program 2025 by Directorate General of Foreign Trade [Stipend Rs 10K]: Apply by Apr 26
- Law of Contract MCQ [free] | Objective Questions | Lawyer Talks