Difference between common intention and common object under ipc. Difference between "common object" and "common intention" (Section 34 and 449 of IPC) 2022-10-30

Difference between common intention and common object under ipc Rating: 5,9/10 1856 reviews

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the terms "common intention" and "common object" refer to the shared intent and goal of a group of individuals who are accused of committing a crime together. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings and legal implications.

Common intention refers to the shared intent of a group of individuals to commit a crime. This means that all members of the group must have the same goal in mind, and must have acted with the intention of achieving that goal. In order for common intention to be established, it must be shown that the individuals involved had a pre-existing agreement to commit the crime, and that they acted in furtherance of that agreement.

Common object, on the other hand, refers to the shared goal or objective of a group of individuals. This means that all members of the group must have the same objective in mind, even if they do not necessarily have a pre-existing agreement to commit a crime. In order for common object to be established, it must be shown that the individuals involved had a shared goal or objective, and that they acted with the intention of achieving that goal.

One key difference between common intention and common object is the level of pre-planning required. Common intention requires a pre-existing agreement to commit a crime, while common object does not. This means that common object can be established even if the individuals involved did not plan or discuss the crime beforehand.

Another difference between common intention and common object is the level of involvement required. In cases of common intention, all members of the group must have played an active role in furthering the shared goal or intent. In cases of common object, however, it is sufficient for an individual to have acted with the intention of furthering the shared goal or objective, even if they did not directly participate in the commission of the crime.

In conclusion, while common intention and common object may seem similar at first glance, they are distinct legal concepts with important differences. Common intention refers to the shared intent of a group of individuals to commit a crime, while common object refers to the shared goal or objective of a group of individuals. Understanding the distinction between these two concepts is crucial for accurately interpreting and applying the provisions of the IPC.

Common intention and Common object under IPC

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

To constitution common intention it is very necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to rest of them and shared by them. A preconcert in the sense of a separate prior plan is not required to be proven under this clause. As a result, a prior agreement existed before the demonstration that was filed. A criminal defendant may claim that he or she had no intention of committing the offence. This section states that a notion of joint liability, which is present in both civil and criminal law. Section 149 creates a specific offence while Section 34 is merely explanatory and does not create any specific offence.

Next

A Comparative Outlook on Common intention and common object under IPC

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

Following are some case laws that can be helpful for a proper understanding of the concept. Some of them are listed below. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The term unlawful assembly is defined under section 141 of IPC. Common intention needs a preliminary meeting of mind and unity of purpose, and open action has been taken to promote the common intention of all.

Next

Difference between Common object and Common intention under ipc

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

If two or more individuals conduct a crime in furtherance of a common intention, they might be held jointly responsible for an IPC offence. State of Kerala, 1996, the Court stated that the required element under this clause is the criminal conduct committed in furtherance of a common intention, and Section 34 did not require anything else to be attracted. At the time of the committing the offence, is the member of the assembly, it is also necessary condition person should be the part of the assembly, unlike the case of common intention, wherein person on the telephonic communication also help in the pursuance of the common intention, thereby being guilty of the offence with the aid of 34. When something is most likely to happen, it may happen, or it will most likely occur. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased. Where a crime is committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all of them, each of them doing some act, similar or diverse, big or small shall be liable for that act. Ten days later, the deceased died in the hospital.

Next

Common Intention And Common Object Under The Indian Penal Code 1860

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

His legal responsibility is the same. The law requires that the accused must be present on the spot during the occurrence of the crime and take part in its commission; it is enough if he is present somewhere nearby. Section 34 of the IPC is a constructive responsibility concept, with the core of the culpability being the presence of shared intention in the minds of the accused. Section 149 does not deal with the common intention to commit an offence. The demonstration should show how the goal attributed to the members of the illegal meeting was achieved.


Next

Difference Between Common Object And Common Intention

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such which was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object; 4. Further, in the case of Suresh Sankharam Nangare v. Most importantly, if the criminal act was fresh and independent act springing wholly from the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely because when it was done they were intending to be partakers with the doer in a different criminal act. Whether Sections 34 or 149 apply to determine vicarious culpability depends on the manner used to commit the offence. In the mean time they opened fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money.

Next

Common Intention And Common Object Under The IPC (Discussion and Comparison)

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

But on the other hand, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with the substantive offence in itself. A common object is different from common intention in that it does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack, and an unlawful object can develop after the people get there. Several people, in this case, appeared before the sub- post master who counted the cash on the table and demanded the money. These are the following: A criminal act committed by multiple people The most significant need is that criminal conduct be committed and that it be done by numerous people. Members Knew To Be Likely:- The second part relates to a situation where the members of the assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings of the trial court and held the accused guilty of murder.

Next

Common Intention and Common Object

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

This is because the common object of the assembly was to cause any injury to any person who obstructs them from doing their work. He was found guilty and condemned to death by the Session tribunal. Section 34 is an evidentiary regulation that does not generate a substantive offence. The lack of such discoveries, along with any clear follow-up on the part of the accused, and the mere fact that the accused were dressed would not be sufficient to show the typical item. One such section is Section 34 of the IPC.

Next

Answers of ipc previous year question papers

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

Assuming someone participates in or continues to be a member of an unlawful meeting while being aware of the circumstances that render it unlawful. In the mean time they opened fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money. When the police party reached, the mob fled from the spot. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act. In Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of UP 2001 The main question that arose, in this case, is that whether a person standing outside a crime scene is also liable under section 34 or not? Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a person liable for the offence committed even if he had no intention to commit that offence. Thus, the chapter on General Exceptions acknowledges the common law doctrine of mens rea, although indirectly.

Next

Common Intention v/s Common Object

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

In the end, Chapter IV on General Exceptions enumerates the situations that appear irreconcilable with the existence of the needed guilty mentality or mens rea, therefore absolving the perpetrators of criminal liability. Before convicting anyone under section 149, the Apex Court stated in the matter of It is important to make a clear determination on the concept of the typical item and the fact that such an article is illegal before charging the accused under Section 149. This section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it individually. 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. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. In Bhudeo Mandal v.

Next

Section 34 of IPC, 1860

difference between common intention and common object under ipc

When five or more than five persons in continuation of a common object, conduct an illegal act, then each and every person is equally liable, no matter if there is a prior meeting of minds among the co-accuseds or not. The activities performed by various members of that group may range in degree and type, but they must all be motivated by the same common objective. Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a person liable for the offence committed even if he had no intention to commit that offence. Negligence Negligence is a legal term that refers to a lack of care and caution that a rational person would have done in the given circumstances. A intends to exact revenge on B. Under Section 149, prior meeting of minds is not necessary.

Next