A 'Different' Series By Sushmita #6: Common Intention Vs Common Object

Coverage of this Article

Difference between Common Intention and Common Object

-Common Intention implies a meeting of mind of the persons charged with the crime, requiring a preliminary unity.

Common Intention case laws

-The Honourable Supreme Court declared inVirendra Singh v. the State of MPthat the person's physical presence shall be an essential of this clause whether the person commits a crime or stands at the door.

Conclusion

-A common object varies from a common intention in that it does not need a prior consent before the crime is committed

Difference between Common Intention and Common Object

Common Intention case laws

• The Honourable Supreme Court declared inVirendra Singh v. the State of MPthat the person's physical presence shall be an essential of this clause whether the person commits a crime or stands at the door.
• InShankar Lal v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1260, the accused and his associates planned to murder a person. Still, a guard was stationed outside that person's home, therefore, to kill that person, one of the accused killed the guard, which also falls within the common aim because the act is carried out in support of a predetermined goal.
• Common object case laws
• In the case ofRam Dhani v. State, there was a land dispute, and the complaint party resorted to cutting the accused party's crop. The latter were in groups of more than five and were put together to prevent the cutting. The court ruled that those who defend their property in self-defence cannot be part of an unlawful assembly. As a result, they cannot be claimed to have formed an illegal gathering.
• The Supreme Court declared inBhudeo Mandal v. the State of Biharthat the evidence must indicate the common object and that the common object was unlawful before convicting someone under section 149.

Conclusion

A common object varies from a common intention in that it does not need a prior consent before the crime is committed. When numerous people do the same act, the ideas of shared purpose and common object are drawn to them. The statement of shared intention is defined in Section 34 of the IPC, while the concept of a common object is defined in Section 149 of the IPC.

When two or more persons commit crime it is said to be having common intention whereas when five or more persons commit crime it is said to be having common object. Participation is one of the crucial aspects as far as the common intention is concerned whereas in common object there is no need of active participation. Every person involved in committing crime having same intention is held liable but in common object every person involved in committing the crime may or may not be held liable.

Common-law nations across the world do not rely on illegal assembly prosecution to define common objects. This is a fault in the judicial system, and a lack of understanding of the process has resulted in a system that does not follow the trend. Common object and common intention must be determined from their evidential portions rather than substantive offences.