Common Intention v/s Common Object – IPC

[leaglesamiksha]

The words ‘intention’ and ‘object’ are often used synonymously in the day-to-day parlance. Under the Indian Penal Code, both of these terms have been employed under different sections, with different connotations and understanding. Sec 34 uses the phrase ‘common intention’. On the other hand, while defining unlawful assembly, Sec 149 used the phrase ‘common object’.
Ques: What are the differences between Sec 34 (Common Intention) and Sec 149 (Common Object)?

• This topic was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by leaglesamiksha.

Topic

[Intern]

As per section 34 of Indian Penal code, 1860, following things need to be considered-
(1) There sholud be a criminal act.
(2) The number is not being fixed but it should be more than one. Here, the word several is used which shows that the person can be two or many.
(3) The act should be done in furtherance of common intention which means that the intention is being communicated to all the person whoc are being involved in the commission of the same act and the intenion needs to be fulfilled in any way. For the fulfilment of the intention, one may do any act which may be similar to the others or distinct from the others.
(4) The word ‘common intention of all’ is being used in the provision which makes it clear that the intention of all the persons should be one. All should do the act in the furtherance of that intention which implies acting in concert.
(5) Each person shall be held liable for the act done in the same manner as it it were done by him alone.
In the cases of common intention, the intention could be predetermined and it can be developed on the spot also. For making person liable under this section, it is much needed that the act must be done in the furtherance of the common intention who join in commiting the crime. For liabilty, the physical presence of such persons is necessary.
Section 149 deals with the common object. For the purpose of this section, there must be an unlawful assembly and if any member of such unlawful assembly commit any office in prosecution of the common object of that assembly then every persons who are the members of that assembly during the commission the crime is held to be guilty of that offence.
Thus, the person committing the offence in furtherance of common object is not only be held liable under this section but all the persons who are the members of that unlawful assembly. Here, physical presence is not necessary but mere member of the assembly is enough to held person liable. All the persons need to do the offence but commission of the offence by a single person is enough. The offence must be done in pursuance of the common object or knowledge. The common object can’t be developed instantaneouly or on the spot. It needs to be circulated among the members of the group.

[Intern]

Sec 34 of Indian Penal Code states, when criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, then each of the persons would be liable for that act as if it was done by him alone. The elements of Sec 34 are:-
• Some Criminal Act
• Criminal Act done by several persons
• Common Intention
• Participation in Criminal Act
• Common Object
In the case of KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF UP, Supreme Court held that common intention may develop on spot. A previous plan is not necessary.
In case of Roy Fernandez Vs State of Goa, Supreme Court held that court is required to see both the circumstances, in which the incident has taken place to determine existence of common object,
Common intention may be of any type but common object under sec 149 must be one of objects under sec 141. Burden of Proof shall be on prosecution to prove :-
• Actual participation of more than 1 person for commission of Criminal Act
• Such act done for the motive of common intention
Therefore, existence of common object is vital ingredient while determining offences under chapter 8 of IPC .For the application of common intention {Sec 34} ,the meeting of minds (pre-arranged plans) between accused persons is necessary but in case of common object { Sec !49} it is sufficient that accused was a member of unlawful assembly while offence was committed. Sec 34 applies when two or more persons including the accused do a criminal act and must therefore be present while act is done but in Sec 149 it applies only when there is an unlawful assembly of five or more persons.
Therefore, concept of common intention is different from common object under the provision of Indian Penal Code.

[Intern]

Section 34 and Section 149 should never be mixed.

Section 34 of IPC, 1860 is defined as: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.”
Meaning – If two or more people commit any criminal offense and with the intent of committing that offense, then each of them will be liable for that act as if they committed the act individually.
This section states that a notion of joint liability, which is present in both civil and criminal law. It addresses a scenario where an offense involves a specific criminal intention or understanding and is committed by multiple persons. Each of those who join the act with such understanding or purpose shall be responsible in the same manner as he/she accomplishes that intention.
Ingredients of Section 34:
• Criminal Act Done By Several Persons
• Common intention
• Participation in The Criminal Act

Section 149 of IPC, 1860 is defined as: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.”
Meaning – where an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common purpose of that assembly, or as the members of that assembly knew likely to be committed in the prosecution of that purpose, any person who is a member of the same assembly at the time of the commission of that offense shall be guilty of that offense.
Ingredients of Section 149:
• An offense committed by members of an unlawful assembly
• In prosecution of the common object
• Members knew to be likely
• Five or more persons

Conclusion:
Section 34 merely defines joint liability and does not impose any penalties for the same. Section 34 must be implemented together with some other section in order to make an individual jointly liable for the offense.
Finally, it can be said that both Sections 34 and 149 make an individual vicariously responsible for his companions’ actions. Both sections cannot always be provided by direct proof and shall be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case.

[Intern]

Section 34 of the IPC says that when a criminal act is done by many people in view of an common intention for all, then each of them will be liable for that act done in the same manner has it been done with one person alone. Whereas, the section 149 deals with the act of unlawful assembly which says that if any offence is committed by the members of an unlawful assembly in view of the common aim of that assembly, or such members knew to be likely associated in persecution of that aim, every member who at the time of committing of that offence is member of unlawful assembly, is guilty and punishable for that offence. Section 34 talks in general while section 149 specifically talks about the members of an unlawful assembly.

[Intern]

Basically the both common intention and common object are joint liability. The basic difference in section 34 makes everybody liable for the offence committed. However, In section 34 (common intention) two or more person are required for the offence.
Section 34 tells that each member should have participated in the act and attending prior meetings together is not necessary.
Section 34,in itsef is not a specific crime and needs active participation whereas section 149 talks about in “common object ” where at least five person are necessary.
Section 149 is a specific crime and makes every member of unlawful assembly liable for being a member of lawful assembly. It makes anybody liable even for being a member and doesn’t require active participation.

[Intern]

Aren’t you baffled between Common or Similar?

In common parlance we fail to see and make differences between the words like common and similar, objects and intention. It is Interesting to know that legal parlance not only differentiates but also provide different punishments for slightly distinct offences. The concerned sections are section 34 and section 149. The difference between common intention and common object can be understood with a famous case case study.

Mahbub shah v. Emperor
This case commonly known as Indus river valley case. A person “A” and his friends went up to the stream of river in order to collect reeds. When they were on their way they were warned by M to not proceed to collect reeds from his land. M was father of W. A and his friends ignored the warning and proceed on their way, on their return journey they were blocked by M’s nephew G. He pushed A. To save himself A took the wooden pole whish is used for rowing the boat in his hand. W and M came to help G they were armed with guns. W fired at A and killed him. M fired on A’s friend H. The high court held him guilty for committing murder of A under section 302 and 34 of IPC. The privy council held that the case was in the nature of similar intention and not common intention. Both M and W rushed to save G but their was no meeting of minds.

Meeting of minds is an important factor to differentiate between the two.
Similar intention implies that more than one person thinks same but they have not discussed it and are not doing it collectively. Whereas common intention requires the person to prior meeting of minds and then committing the act.

[Intern]

The term ‘intention’ is not defined in Indian Penal Code but section 34 of IPC deals with common intention. By the words like “Acts done by several persons” the section refers to “Joint Liability” of individuals. Such acts done with a criminal intention or knowledge despite its commission of several people, will be regarded as if the complete act is done individually. Common intention implies a pre planned and joint ‘acting in concert’(identical actions to accomplish the same goal) to pursue their plan. Though the act was jointly committed but each person would be individually liable for the injury he caused but none would be vicariously liable for the acts of other liable individuals present.
This section does not talk about “Similar intention” as it is different from Common intention. The prior is about absence of pre-planning whereas the Common intention is vis-a-versa. Section 34 can be invoked only when the accused shares common intention and not one the similar intention.
Common object is addressed in Section 149 of IPC creating specific offence of unlawful assembly which is itself a crime under Section 143 comprising five or more members. On the other hand Section 34 does not create any specific offence but lays down the principle of joint criminal liability with minimum two individuals. Similarly, S. 34 is participation and prior meeting of mind is required whereas there is no need of prior consensus ad idem and active participation in S.149 of IPC.

[Intern]

The distinction between common Intention and Common Object.
The question is related to two different sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely Section 34 and Section 149. Section 34 says “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.” While Section 149 says “If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.”
The distinction between the sections can be drawn as:
(i) Section 34 does not constitute a concrete crime; it rather establishes the concept of mutual criminal liability. Whereas a separate crime is created by Section 149 and being a part of an illegal assembly is a criminal offense itself punishable by Section 143, where Section 143 is “Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
(ii) ‘Common purpose’ used in S.34 has not been specified elsewhere in the IPC, although one of the five ingredients defined in Section 141 of the IPC must be ‘common object.’ Section 141 is “An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly” if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—
(a) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(b) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(c) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offense; or
(d) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or another incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(e) By means of criminal force or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
-PREYANSI ANAND DESAI

[Intern]

Section 34 and Section 149 deals with the common intention and common object under IPC impose vicarious liability on each individual for acts that are not necessarily done by them. However, there are some differences in the scope and nature of the operation of both offenses.
Section 34 lays down the principle of joint liability, which means the act done by several persons, and the act which are intentional and preplanned. There should be a common intention between the persons committing the act, participation of the person act should lead to an offense under the Indian penal code.
‘Common intent’ in Section 34 has not been clearly defined in the IPC, whereas’ common object’ must be one of the five ingredients defined in Section 141 of the IPC.
‘Participation’ is the main factor in Section 34, but active involvement is not required in section 149 of the IPC. Section 34 requires the common intention of any kind.
If the intention is proved but if there is no action done then this case deals with section 34 vicarious liabilities, but if the person has done the act but he/she has no intention then section 34 cannot be invoked

Under Section 149, If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the assembly, is guilty of that offense.
The offense under section 149 is an assembly of five or more members having one objective and there must be an unlawful assembly and acts are taken under for any member of the assembly.
Members of the unlawful assembly should join voluntarily with knowledge of the common object.
The charge is replaced by Section 34 of the IPC, particularly when some of the accused are acquitted and the number of the accused drops below 5.
Section 34 does not constitute a particular offense but sets out only the principle of joint criminal culpability. Whereas Section 149 generates a particular offense and being a member of an unlawful assembly is itself a criminal offense punishable under Section 143.

Section 34 requires some active involvement, particularly in the case of a crime involving physical abuse. Section 149 does not involve active involvement and also the responsibility comes from the mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common objective

[Intern]

Both Common object and Intention are phenomenal term used in the situation where many people are involved in the unlawful act. In Indian penal Code, section 34 defines common intention and in section 149 common object is defined. The difference is that in common intention every member should be the part of act and everyone’s responsibility is like to manner expectation is essential and at the point when a criminal act is finished by a few people in facilitation of the basic expectation of all, every one of such people is obligated for that act in a similar way as though it were finished by him alone and in common object at least five people is necessary and unlawful assembly is important and liability is vicarious.
Under Common intention under needs prior meeting of minds all the accused persons must meet together before the actual participation in unlawful act. Under common object , prior meeting of minds is not necessary. Mere importance of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the offence is needed.
Section 34 Participation of individuals in wrongdoing is a significant way, in any event, standing individuals who in a roundabout way help in appointing of wrongdoing are likewise indicted and in Section 149 simple enrollment of the people of an unlawful get together is adequate enough for indictment.
Both Section 149 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code manage an individual’s affiliation that gets answerable for discipline for the demonstration they submit. It isn’t fundamental to demonstrate that all of them was occupied with the clear demonstration to consider an individual vicariously liability under IPC Section 34 or Section 149.
Section 34 requires some dynamic inclusion, especially on account of a wrongdoing including actual maltreatment. Section149 doesn’t include dynamic contribution and the obligation comes from the simple enrollment of the unlawful get together with a typical target.

[Intern]

Section 34 – acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Section 149 – every member of the unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
1. Existence of common intention of accused persons is basis of liability under section 34. Under section 149 existence of common object or mere knowledge that an offence can be committed is basis of liability.
2. Under section 34 common intention is undefined and unlimited. But under section 149 common object is defined and is limited to the five unlawful objects.
3. In common intention, there must be a prior meeting of mind as well as there is an obvious act which must be performed as common intention is there. But common object may not require a prior meeting of minds and it is possible that common object of unlawful assembly may be one and the intention is different.
(Other points of differentiation in section 34 and 149)
4. The criminal act done as per section 34 requires two or more persons with a pre-arranged plan but as per section 149 five or more persons are required and it is not a result of pre-arrange plan.
5. Active participation in crime is necessary for application of section 34. Merely membership of unlawful assembly would be sufficient for the application of section 149.
6. All the persons involved in a crime are equally liable in section 34 but in section 149 all persons may or may not be liable.

[Intern]

Intention can be explained as something which is planned prior to performance of a particular act. Intention involves aspiring about what is ought to be done by an individual before executing it. It needs an advance thinking process leading to a future act by one or more than one individual. Object means the aim or the effort in order to make an act possible. In order to formulate an objective for doing a particular act it is not necessary to have a prior thinking before execution.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 states that the criminal act done by more than two persons requires criminal intention of all the members committing a crime in order to be liable to commit that act. The crime committed by bunch of such members is liable under the act as if done by an individual alone. In order to establish a crime under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1870, some criminal act, several persons and common intention is essential.
Criminal act committed by several persons must have collective and similar state of mind where each of them is performing an act and are therefore liable possessing common intention. This depicts the unity of criminal intent in the minds of the individuals similar to a single person punishable for committing a crime. The act specifies the fact that if there is a presence of common intention, that will certainly lead to the presence of common responsibility and thus all the individuals are liable for committing a crime collectively.
Section 149 of the Indian Penal code 1860 on the other hand states that any criminal act done by an individual being a part of an unlawful assembly is liable for the crime committed or likely to commit with the same objective of the assembly.
This creates a joint liability for all the members when a criminal act is committed by any member of the assembly. The nature of the assembly can be determined by the plans and discussions done prior to the act performed. It is essential to have the members to join the assembly voluntarily prosecution of the common object.
Section 34 requires presence of more than two members while section 149 requires more than five. In order to constitute common intention, intention can be of any nature. While a single object is required to constitute a criminal act under section 149. Active participation of all the members makes an act crime under section 34 while in an unlawful assembly if some members are not directly involved in doing an act, it still constitutes a crime under section 149. Advance preparation must be done before committing an offence under 34 but no prior planning is necessary for having a common objective under section 149.

[Author]

Replies