IPC Notes- Forms of Intention under the IPC [Redirects to CLATalogue]

Introduction

The IPC recognizes two forms of intention, namely common intention and similar intention, which have important implications in determining the criminal liability of an accused person. This post will provide a brief introduction to the concepts of common intention and similar intention under the IPC and explain the differences between them.

“Common Intention” and “Common Object” 

“Common intention” and “common object” are two distinct concepts in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that play important roles in determining criminal liability. While both terms refer to the collective nature of a crime, they are not interchangeable, and they differ significantly.

While they are related in some ways, they are not interchangeable, and understanding the distinctions between them is critical for determining individual criminal liability in group crimes.

Common Intention

Section 34 of the IPC states that when several people commit a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable for the act in the same way as if he did it alone. Therefore, common intention refers to the shared intention of two or more persons to commit a criminal act.

Common intention, unlike common object, does not require the presence of an unlawful assembly. It can exist between any two or more people who have a common desire to commit a crime, whether or not they have gathered together. The common intention can be formed at any point during the commission of the offence and can be inferred from the accused’s behaviour.

For example, if two people plan to rob a bank and one of them shoots a security guard during the robbery, both of them will be held responsible for the guard’s murder because their shared intention was to commit the robbery and the murder was committed in furtherance of that intention.

Common Object

Section 149 of the IPC states that if any member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence, every other member of that assembly is guilty of the same offence if it is committed in pursuit of the assembly’s common object or in furtherance of a common intention. As a result, a common object is the goal that members of an unlawful assembly have in mind when they gather.

Section 141 of the IPC defines an unlawful assembly as a gathering of five or more people with the common goal of committing an offence or performing any illegal act through legal means. The common object can be either illegal or legal, but if it is illegal, the members of the assembly will be held liable for any crime committed in furtherance of that object, whether they personally committed the crime or not.

For example, if a group of people gather with the common goal of beating up someone, and one of them kills that person in the process, all of the group members will be held liable for the murder, even if they did not directly participate in the killing.

Difference between Common Object and Common Intention

The main distinction between common object and common intention is that common object refers to the goal that members of an unlawful assembly have in mind when they gather together, whereas common intention refers to the shared intention of two or more people to commit a criminal act regardless of whether they have gathered together.

A common object also necessitates the presence of an unlawful assembly, whereas common intention does not. Furthermore, common intention can be formed at any stage of the offence’s commission, whereas a common object must be present from the start.

“Common Intention” and “Similar Intention”

In Indian criminal law, “common intention” and “similar intention” are two distinct concepts with important implications in determining an accused person’s guilt. While both concepts involve the accused’s mental state at the time of the offense, there are some key differences between them. Let’s take a closer look at these two ideas:

Common Intention

According to Section 34 of the IPC, when several people commit a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable for the act in the same way as if he did it alone. The key component of common intention is that all participants in the criminal act must share a common intention or purpose.

For example, if a group of people plan to rob a bank and one of them shoots and kills a security guard during the robbery, all members of the group will be liable for murder because they had a common intention to commit the robbery and the murder was committed in furtherance of that intention.

In the case of Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, it was held that when there is no evidence of premeditation or a pre-planned plan, the mere presence of the two accused on the scene or the firing of the two accused, as a result of which one person died and two others received minor injuries, cannot be held to be sufficient to infer common intention. 

However, in Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., it was upheld that common intention can emerge on the spot between a number of people, and this must be inferred from the accused’s actions and conduct, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. 

Similar Intention

In contrast to common intention, “similar intention” is not explicitly defined in the IPC. It is a legal concept that has evolved through case law. A similar intention occurs when two or more people act with a similar intention but without a pre-arranged plan or a shared understanding.

For example, if two people decide to rob a shop together without any prior planning, but one of them shoots and kills the shopkeeper during the robbery, both of them may be charged with murder. They did not have a common intention to commit the murder in this case, but their similar intention to rob the shop led to the murder.

The presence of a pre-arranged plan or shared understanding distinguishes common intention from similar intention. In the case of common intention, there is a clear plan or agreement between the participants, while in the case of similar intention, there may not be any prior agreement or understanding.

Conclusion

To summarize, the distinction between common and similar intent is critical in determining the liability of the accused in criminal cases. While both concepts are concerned with the accused’s mental state, the presence or absence of a pre-arranged plan or shared understanding can have a significant impact on the legal consequences.

Source: Lawctopus