Common intention and common object explained (India) — Hard Concepts in Law

In one breath

Where several persons commit a crime together, each can be liable for the whole if they shared a common intention, which needs a prearranged or on-the-spot plan and some participation, or if they were members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object. The two rules are formerly sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the new criminal code carries them forward under new numbers.

The picture

The rowing crew

In a rowing boat each rower pulls a single oar, yet the boat moves because they pull together to a shared rhythm. The rowers who plan the race, and the one who only steers, all win or lose the same race. A bystander on the bank who did not row is not part of the crew, even if he cheered.

Common intention is the crew with a plan. Several persons must have shared the intention to do the criminal act, formed before the act or on the spot, and each must have taken some part in it, even if only by standing guard (Barendra Kumar Ghosh; Mahbub Shah). The rule is a principle of joint liability and not a separate offence. Common object is the crowd: an unlawful assembly of five or more persons with a shared unlawful aim. Every member is liable for an offence committed by any member in pursuit of that aim, or which the members knew was likely (Mizaji v State of Uttar Pradesh).

Where the picture stops working

A crew has a name and a list, but an unlawful assembly may be a crowd that forms on the day, and the court has to decide who shared the object and who was merely present. The picture also underplays that common intention needs active participation, while mere membership of an assembly is enough for common object, which is why the second rule is the wider one. Courts are careful not to convict by name alone where several accused are charged without evidence of what each did.

How it really works

1For common intention, ask whether two or more persons shared an intention to commit the criminal act, which may be formed before or at the time.
2Ask whether each accused took some part in the act, such as by assault, planning or keeping watch. A meeting of minds without participation is not enough.
3For common object, ask whether there was an unlawful assembly of five or more persons with a shared unlawful object.
4Ask whether the offence was committed in pursuit of that object, or was one the members knew was likely to be committed.
5If the conditions are met, each accused is liable as if they had done the act themselves, but the court must be sure of each person’s role.

Why people get it wrong

Treating common intention as a separate offence. It is a rule on liability that applies with the main offence.
Confusing common intention and common object. The first needs a shared intention and participation, and the second needs membership of an unlawful assembly.
Convicting everyone present without proof of each person’s part or of knowledge of the object.
Forgetting that the shared intention can arise on the spot, so no long advance planning is required.

A worked example

The facts are invented

Four men go to a farm to threaten a landowner. Two carry sticks and one carries a knife. While Jai keeps watch at the gate, the other three beat the landowner, and one of them stabs him fatally.

On common intention, the court asks whether they shared the intention to attack the landowner and took part. Jai took part by keeping watch, and the plan to attack was formed together, so he is liable. Whether he shared the intention to kill depends on the evidence, and if the knife was a surprise, the court may find that the intention to cause death was not common to all. If instead twenty villagers had formed an unlawful assembly to drive the landowner off his land, every member could be liable for an offence that the members knew was likely.

Try it

Which statement best distinguishes common intention from common object?

Landmark authorities

Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v King-Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1
Mahbub Shah v King-Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118
Pandurang v State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
Mizaji v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 572

Where to go next

Courses

Criminal Law

Dictionary

Ask and explore

More hard concepts in India law

The rarest of the rare doctrine (Criminal law)
Circumstantial evidence and the five golden principles (Criminal law and evidence)

This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. India has a written Constitution, central and State legislation, and a unified court system under the Supreme Court. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions, with the citations as they are usually given in the Supreme Court Cases and All India Reporter series. The criminal codes and the law of evidence were replaced by new statutes, so the pages on criminal law state the doctrine and the decisions and mostly leave out section numbers; check the current text of any statute you rely on. Personal laws differ by community. This is a study aid, not legal advice, and an Indian advocate should check anything you need to rely on.