COMMON INTENTION v. COMMON OBJECT

Common intention

Common intention refers to a situation where two or more individuals have a shared goal or plan to commit a crime.  Examples: Conspiracy, criminal breach of trust.

• A pre-existing agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. This means that before the commission of the crime, the individuals had a prior understanding and agreement to commit the crime together.
• Common intention is established before the commission of the crime, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals.
• Common intention does not have to be the same as the actual intention of the accused, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals.
• Common intention can be inferred from the actions and statements of the accused, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals.
• Common intention is often used in cases involving conspiracy and criminal breach of trust, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals to commit a crime.
• The punishment for common intention is the same as the punishment for the intended crime, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals to commit a crime.

Common object

Common object refers to a situation where two or more individuals have a shared goal or objective during a riot or unlawful assembly.  Examples: murder, theft, rioting

• The objective or goal of the crime that the individuals have agreed to commit. This refers to the end result or the main purpose of committing the crime. It is the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when committing the crime.
• Common object is established during the commission of the crime, as it refers to the objective or goal of the crime that is being committed.
• Common object must be the same as the actual intention of the accused, as it refers to the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when committing the crime.
• Common object must be proven through evidence, as it refers to the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when committing the crime.
• Common object is often used in cases involving crimes such as murder, theft, and rioting, as it refers to the objective or goal of the crime that is being committed.
• The punishment for common object is the same as the punishment for the committed crime, as it refers to the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when committing the crime.

Differences

In CHITTARMAL AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2003 (1) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between the common intention and common object.  The Supreme Court held that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted.

Case law

In CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH VERSUS STATE OF M.P. - 2023 (10) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT, on 2nd June 1987, Vinod Kumar had taken his brother Munau to village Naugaon by scooter for medical treatment.  Since they did not return, Uma Prasad,  the father of the above both persons deputed two persons, Naval Kishore, nephew of Uma Prasad and Manua Chammer to search his son.  Uma Prasad also searched them.   On reaching the Hanuman temple they saw the accused with weapons.  The accused No. 2 and 16 stopped Uma Prasad, who fell down from his bicycle. Accused No. 1 and 14 cut Uma Prasad into pieces.  They stopped Naval Kishore and Manua from helping Uma Prasad. 

After killing Uma Prasad the accused moved to the bus stand with the intention to kill Vinod Kumar and Munau.  After 15 minutes it was alleged that Vinod Kumar and Munau were killed.  The trial court acquitted all the accused in the murder of Vinod Kumar and Munau.  Accused No. 1, 2 and 16 filed appeal jointly while the other accused filed separate appeals.   The High Court acquitted accused nos. 9,11 and 12.   The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the present appellant and accused nos. 1,14 and 16 by substituting their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short)  with Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The appellant submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• The appellant was not represented by his advocate when the appeal was called out for hearing before the High Court.
• In the cause title of the impugned judgment, the absence of the appellant's advocate has been mentioned.
• The judgment does not refer to any submission made on behalf of any accused.
• The High Court has committed a gross illegality by proceeding with the hearing of the appeal in the absence of his advocate.
• The appellant could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC as there was no evidence of common intention, which was necessary for attracting Section 34 of IPC.
• Prejudice has been caused to the appellant by alteration of the charge apart from the fact that ingredients of Section 34 of IPC were not proved.

Therefore the appellant prayed for his acquittal.  The respondent submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• The High Court has carefully perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
• In an appeal against conviction, under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’) read with Section 216 of Cr.PC, the Appellate Court, has the power to alter or add the charge when no prejudice is shown to the accused.
• There was enough evidence on record to prove the ingredients of Section 34 of IPC.

The Supreme Court considered the submissions.  The Supreme Court observed that the cause title of the judgment clearly mentions that the advocate representing the appellant was absent.  The order sheet dated 23.11.2004 records that the advocate for the appellant was absent. The impugned judgment does not refer to any submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant.  The High Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate. After finding that the advocate appointed by the appellant was absent, the High Court ought to have appointed a lawyer to espouse his cause.

The Supreme Court also observed that only if the accused is put to notice by the Appellate Court that the charge is intended to be altered in a particular manner, his advocate can effectively argue that even the altered charge was also not proved.  In this case the Court can grant a short time to the advocates for both sides to prepare themselves for addressing the Court on the altered or added charge.  The Supreme Court found that Therefore, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant by altering the charge without giving any notice to the appellant or his advocate about the charge.  The High Court has not recorded a finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the four accused who were ultimately convicted had done the criminal act in furtherance of a common intention.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidences of PW1 and PW2. There is no evidence of the presence of common intention. Only the act of stopping the deceased Uma Prasad will not, by itself, bring the case within the purview of Section 34 of IPC.  There is no material to prove the existence of common intention which is the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC.  There is no overlap between a common object and a common intention. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, read with Section 34 will have to be set aside.

The Supreme Court however observed that evidence of two eyewitnesses is very consistent on the role played by the appellant in dragging the dead body of the deceased and throwing the same into a well.   There is hardly any cross examination on this aspect of both PW1 and PW2.  Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 201 of IPC will have to be maintained.

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the appellant's conviction for the   offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was confirmed by the Supreme Court.