Does Common Intention mean ‘same’ intention?
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by .
- Topic
- Replies
Section 34 IPC can be summed up as: if an act is done by more than 1 person, that too in furtherance of a common intention, every such person involved would be liable as if the act was done by him/her alone. The section specifically mentions the presence of a common intention of all involved in the act, for the criminal act to fall under section 34 IPC. Here, arises a need to differentiate between common intention & same intention, and to keep in mind the 2 terms cannot be used interchangeably. Common intention implies that there has to be a pre-arranged plan, there has to be a prior meeting of mind of all participating in the act. This is not the case with Same intention. Similar intention does not necessarily mean that there is a pre-decided plan that is to be executed. There also does not exist any prior meeting of mind.
Let us understand this with an example, Sherlock & Watson have a feeling of animosity towards a guy called Ford who runs a bar named Hitchhiker’s Galaxy down the street. One fine day Sherlock goes with a sickle, down to the bar and runs the sickle across the throat of Ford. Watson on the other hand had no idea of the same. The above crime scene involves Sherlock alone, whereas Watson shares only a similar feeling of animosity with Sherlock towards Ford. There is no prior arrangement of the plan to kill Ford between Sherlock & Watson. So we can say Watson & Sherlock have a similar intention towards Ford, but they have no common intention of the same. There is no prior meeting of mind before Sherlock carried out the killing, in fact Watson had no idea of the same. Thus assuming the situation takes place in India, section 34 will not be attracted as there is no act done in furtherance of a common intention. Sherlock alone will be liable for killing Ford. Now here is a situation where Section 34 is attracted, here, Sherlock & Watson had a pre-decided and arranged plan to kill Ford. Sherlock goes inside the bar kills Ford, & Watson is sitting in the Security room looking and informing Sherlock of the happenings around the bar. Now, because there is prior meeting of mind and the act is done in furtherance of a common intention section 34 is applied. The fact that Watson is not present at the crime scene is of no significance and does not affect the attraction of section 34.
Thus, common intention & similar intention are different terms. To the answer the question specifically, No, the element of common intention does not require the presence of similar intention, as similar intention is not enough to attract section 34. Something more than same intention is required. Therefore, common intention is a step ahead of similar intention.Jagan gope and others Vs State of West Bengal
In this case, Abodh Gope, who was headmaster of Sirkadih Primary School was murder by Jagan Gope, Bhadru Gope, Jishi Gope, and Ajit Gope in the school in the afternoon. The incident was witnessed by Mathur Gope and he informed Abodh Gope’s brother and son about it. After they went to school and found Abodh Gope dead. Manoj Kumar Gope(son) and his uncle were going towards the police station but in between Sasthi Gope and Ashadhan Gope had threatened them. Written complaints were filed at the local police station. Based on the evidence Ld. Additional session judge convicted all six accused in the murder of Abodh Gope. But Hon’ble High court of Calcutta upheld the conviction and sentence and says that common intention cannot be confused with a similar intention. Although accused persons may have similar intention to commit a crime, say murder, until and unless the pre-requisites of (a) pre-consent, (b) presence, and (c) participation in respect of each accused are established, it cannot be said that they shared common intention and be culpable for the crime committed by any of them in furtherance to such intention. Sasthi Gope and Ashadhana Gope may have similar intentions as they also had issues with Abodh Gope but they had just tried to be hurdle while Manoj Kumar Gope (son) and his uncle were going to file the case. There is no evidence on record that they were present in school while Abodh Gope’s murder was done by Jagan Gope, Bhadru Gope, Jishi Gope, and Ajit Gope. They may have a similar intention but not a common intention. So when the intention is known and shared is called common intention i.e., A and B had planned and murdered C with common intention, and when the intention is same but not known and shared by anyone is called same intention or similar intention i.e., A and B want to kill C and B murdered C they share same intention, not the common intention.In the case of Mohan Singh versus State of Punjab AIR 1963, SC 174 observed that the common intention required by Section 34 of IPC is different from the same intention or similar intention.
To constitute common intention it is necessary that, the intention of each one of them has to be known to the rest of the others and shared by them, whereas in the case of the same or similar intention their intentions are not shared.
Common intention presupposes the prior concert and also implies pre-arranged plans where the act is done in furtherance of the common intention but in case of the same intention it is not the result of the preconcerted plans and the people having similar intention cannot be held guilty for criminal act with aid of section 34.
LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 34:
Section 34 of IPC imposes criminal liability in doing the act with the common intention and the persons who are actually involved in committing a criminal act and who facilitated do such act are equally liable under section 34 whereas in the similar intention the persons having a similar intention and have committed the criminal act are not liable equally but are punished according to the nature of the act.
When an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention then are each
of them liable?
Section 34 of IPC reads as, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
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”.
The word ‘Common Intention’ means unity of purpose or meeting of minds or evil intent to
commit a criminal act.
According to section 34 of IPC, it actually means that if two or more persons are intentionally
involved in doing a criminal act jointly, the liability is just the same as if each of them has doneit individually. When a criminal act is done in furtherance of Common Intention of the person
who join in committing the crime, each one of them will be liable under section 34 of IPC.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
