To draw distinction between Common intention and Common Object it is essential to understand the meaning of the two terms
Common intention :- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. According to it " 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."
Ingredients :- Click on the following link to read -
Ingredients and principles of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Also read - Landmark Judgements on Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Common object :- Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides that If an offence 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 offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Ingredients :- Click on the following link to read -
Ingredients of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Also read - Landmark Judgements on Section 141 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
9 major differences between common intention and common object are -
1. The basis of liability under section 34 is the existence of common intention animating the accused person.
Liability under section 149 is based on the existence of common object or knowledge of the probability of the commission of the offence i.e., natural consequences as the accused kenw to be likely to be committed.
2. Criminal act under section 34 must be done in furtherance of common intention .
Criminal act under section 149 must be done in prosecution of the common object or it would be sufficient if the members of the unlawful assembly knew that offence was likely to be committed.
3. Some act howsoever small or insignificant must be done by every person accused of the commission of an offence i.e.,active partcipation in commission of crime is necessary for application of section 34 .
Merely being a member of the unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of crime would be sufficient for application of section 149 . Active participation in commission of crime is not necessary .
4. For application of section 34 the offence must be committed by two or more than two persons .
For application of section 149 the offence must be committed by five or more persons because then only they can form an unlawful assembly.
5. Common intention within the meaning of section 34 is undefined and unlimited.
Common object is defined and is limited to the five unlawful objects stated in section 141 of the Code .
6. Under section 34 the individual offender is associated with the criminal act both physically and mentally. He is a sharer both in criminal act and the common intention in furtherance of which the criminal act done .
Under section 149 an individual is punishable only because of his being a member of the unlawful assembly at time of commission of the offence by any member of the unlawful assembly He may not have committed the offence .
7. Section 34 enunciates the principle of joint liability but creates no specific offence. It is of interpretative character.
Section 149 creates specific offence. It is merely declaratory of the principle of joint liability.
8. Under section 34 the emphasis in respect of the physical act and mental state ( i.e., the state of mind at the time of commission of crime) is divided and is placed both on the group committing the offence as well as upon the individuals constituting that group.
Under section 149 the entire emphasis both in respect of physical act as well as mental state is placed on the unlawful assembly.
9. It was held by the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 274 , that the community of intention required by section 34 is replaced in Section 149 by community of object, which is quite a different element. Common intention presupposes prior concert and meeting of minds , whereas a common object may be formed without that. There may be cases where the object of group is one , but the intention of the participants differ.
References -
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal- THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-33rd Edition
Criminal Law: Cases and Materials - Sixth Edition - K.D.Gaur
Prof. S.N.Misra - INDIAN PENAL CODE- 15th Edition
Like this post? Want more posts like this? Suggest our next post via comments below…
