A Comparative Study of Common Intention and Common Object under Criminal Law

Introduction

Criminal responsibility increases from single acts to group acts performed by groups with a common motive or common objectives. Two notions that frequently come under Criminal law are the regulatory group liability, such as Common intention defined under Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and Common Object defined under Section 189 of BNS 2023. Though both analyse the complicity of individuals indulging in group crimes, their essence differs in scope, applicability, and juridicial effects. The comparative analysis examines the nature, its components, judicial meaning, and the functional differences between the two judicial doctrines, and clarifies their use in criminal jurisprudence.

 

Meaning

1. What is Common Intention?

 According to Section 3(5) of BNS 2024, it says that when several persons do a criminal act 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. This provision points out the principle of joint liability for acts committed with a common intention. 

 

2. What is a Common Object?

The word everyday object defined under Section 189 of the BNS 2023, an assembly (meeting) of five or more individuals becomes illegal when they gather with a common aim to commit any of the following:

(a) Employ criminal force (or threaten to do so) with intent to intimidate the Central or State Government, Parliament, State Legislature, or a public servant acting in discharge of his duty.

(b) Obstruct the application of the law or any legal order (such as a warrant or court order).

(c) Commit any offence, mischief, or criminal trespass.

(d) Threaten or apply criminal force to, steal someone’s property. Prevent someone from exercising their lawful rights (such as a right of way, water, or other non-tangible rights). Enforce a claim or right (even falsely thought).

(e) Make someone do what they’re not legally obliged to do, or prevent them from doing what they’re legally authorised to do with criminal force or its threat.

 

3. What is the Punishment for Being a Part of an Unlawful Assembly?

(2) If you voluntarily join or remain in an unlawful assembly:

Incarceration for up to 6 months, a fine, or both.

(3) If the assembly was directed to be disbanded by the authorities, but you persist:

Up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both.

(4) If you are found in possession of a lethal weapon while you form part of such a group:

Up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both.

(5) If you form a group of 5 or more persons likely to cause disturbance of the public peace, after having been ordered to disperse:

Up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both.

 

Other Related Offences

(6) If one Hires, incites, or assists a person to join an unlawful assembly. They will be punished as if they were members of the illegal assembly and even for any offence committed by that individual as part of that assembly.

(7) If someone houses or conceals people who know they are engaged or will be engaged in an illegal assembly for up to 6 months, a fine or both.

(8) You offer, attempt, or agree to get employed to help commit any of the acts specified in sub-section (1)  Up to 6 months, a fine, or both.

(9) You are hired as in (8), and proceed armed with a deadly weapon or a dangerous article—a maximum of one year’s imprisonment or fine, or both.

 

Ingredients of Common Intention (Section 3(5) BNS):

Participation of more than one person: There must be at least two persons.

Prearranged plan or meeting of minds before it: The gang of wrongdoers must have a common intention, which may even be formed immediately before committing the offense.

Act committed in furtherance of the common intention: All the offenders have the same intention. Even passive participation in a few cases can give rise to liability.

Equal liability: Equal liability is fastened on every member, regardless of the actual offender being who.

 

Ingredients of Common Object (Section 189 BNS):

Unlawful assembly: There should be at least five persons involved in creating the group.

Aim in common: Members should have the same purpose which may comprise giving rise to an offence or obstruction of any lawful authority.

Membership: The liability may arise by virtue of membership only of the group. The member need not necessarily do the act himself.

Knowledge of the thing: Individuals need not be actively participating but must know the purpose and likely consequences of the thing.

 

Differences between Common Intention and Common Object

While both doctrines involve vicarious liability, they differ in a number of very significant ways. The chief differences are as follows:

1. Minimum Number of Accomplices

Common Intention (Section 34): at least two accomplices.

Common Object (Section 149): at least five accomplices.

2. Type of Consistency

Common Intent: It involves pre-planning agreement or a prior meeting of minds amongst the participants.

Common Object: There need not be any previous agreement; the object may develop during the assembly.

3. Mental Element (Mens Rea)

Common Intent: involves the concurrence of the collective intent of all the participants to perform an action. This would imply that all the participants have the same state of mind.

Common Object: Liability can also be made against a member even if they lack that specific mental element but are aware of the objects of the common intention of the group.

4. Extent of Liability

Common Intent: All members are jointly and severally liable for acts done in furtherance of the common intent.

Common Object: Even if the act is done by a different member, the member can be made responsible as long as it falls within the common object.

5. Active Participation

Common Intention: It invokes every individual to take an active part to fulfill the intention.

Common Object: Passivists can also be charged when they are part of an illegal assembly.

 

Case Study

Landmark Cases on Common Intention

1. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1964 AIR 122)

In regard to the question of the common intention, decided all men need not themselves do the act, but it is sufficient if they each perform the act in pursuance of the common intention.

 

2. Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1976 SC 2027)

It was established that where parties enter into an act, the existence of any pre-existing agreement can be inferred regardless of whether or not an express agreement is established.

Landmark cases on Common Object

1. Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 174)

The Supreme Court held that active participation in an illegal assembly can also call for liability under Section 149 even when the individual did not know what the specific act it was committing.

2. State of U.P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747

It reiterated once again that the object of the illegal assembly may not be preplanned; it may also arise spontaneously and all the members will be liable.

 

Conclusion

Common intention under Section 34 and common object under Section 149 of the IPC have the same idea of collective criminal liability but are different on significant points such as various participants, mental states, and involvement. Common intention focuses upon the mutual agreement of the same offenders; it focused on membership in an illegal assembly. Grasping those distinctions is necessary for legal professionals and the law in enforcing such provisions because it will enable them to apply those provisions appropriately when charging individuals with collective actions. Those decisions above also illuminate how those legal doctrines are interpreted and applied in courts.