Common intention and common object in law

✅ *COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT*

📌 *Common intention (Section 3(5) BNS / 34 IPC)*
• Requires a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds among the participants. 
• Each participant must actively participate in the criminal act. 
• It is a rule of evidence, attributing joint liability. 
• *Mahboob Shah v. Emperor (1945* ): Highlighted that "common intention" involves a pre-arranged plan, distinct from a mere "similar intention."
• *Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (1924):* The "Post Office Robbery Case" established that active participation, including being present to aid, incurs liability.
• *Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955):* Distinguished common and similar intention, stating that independent actions without a prior plan do not attract Section 34 liability for each other's acts. 
• *Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka (2025):* The Supreme Court held that for liability under Section 34 IPC, the accused must share both the common intention and actively participate in the criminal act. Mere presence or association is not enough to prove common intention.

📌 *Common object (Section 190 BNS / 149 IPC)*
• Applies when two or more persons form an unlawful assembly with a shared object. 
• Prior agreement is not necessary; the object may develop spontaneously. 
• Liability attaches to every member of the assembly if an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, irrespective of active participation. 
• *Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964):* The Supreme Court held that presence in an unlawful assembly can lead to liability if the offense is committed in prosecution of the common object, emphasizing the element of knowledge.
• *Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1963):* Clarified that the common object can be formed spontaneously during the incident.
• *S.R. Ghurey v. State of Delhi (1959):* Affirmed that Section 149 creates a substantive offense where membership in an unlawful assembly triggers liability.

Follow the SN_ADVOCATE channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAMC8E6LwHp99FsM42oFollow👣 us

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GOVT JOB OR PRIVATE JOB

Image
Lokayukta raid in Karnataka , where a former clerk, Kalakappa Nidagundi, from the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) was found to possess assets significantly disproportionate to his known income.  Here's a summary of the findings: Disproportionate Assets: Despite a modest monthly salary of ₹15,000, Nidagundi, a former daily-wage clerk in Koppal, was found to own assets worth over ₹30 crore during a Lokayukta raid. Seized Properties: The raid unearthed a vast amount of property including 24 residential houses, four plots, and 40 acres of agricultural land, registered in his name and those of his wife and brother. Other Valuables: Officials also seized 350 grams of gold, 1.5 kilograms of silver ornaments, and four vehicles (two cars and two two-wheelers) from his residence. Allegations of Fraud: Nidagundi, along with a former KRIDL engineer ZM Chincholkar, is accused of orchestrating a ₹72 crore scam by creating fake documents and bills for 96 incomplete infr...
Read more

That Res-judicata is a mixed question of law & fact and hence it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under order XIV Rule 2 (2) of CPC.

Image
 *Headnotes*  - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 - The plea of res judicata in appropriate cases may be determined as preliminary issue when it is neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact - Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. [Referred to Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors (2006) 5 SCC 638 ] (Para 20, 30) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 , Order XX Rule 5, Order XLI Rules 24 & 25- To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to rec...
Read more

How to become advocate on record complete procedure

Image
How to become advocate on the record complete procedure To become an **Advocate on Record (AOR) at the Supreme Court of India**, one must meet specific qualifications, undergo mandatory training, pass the AOR Examination, and fulfill a set of procedural requirements[1][2][3]. ## Eligibility Criteria - **Enrolment as Advocate:** Must be enrolled with any State Bar Council and be a practicing advocate[1][4][2]. - **Experience:** A minimum of 4 years of continuous practice is required before starting AOR training; total experience should be at least five years before applying for AOR status[1][2]. - **Training:** Must complete 1 year of training under a designated Advocate on Record after completing four years of practice[1][2][3]. ## Training Requirements - The candidate must work under an existing AOR for one year, learning Supreme Court procedures and practices[1][2][3]. - At the end of training, obtain a certificate from the AOR mentor[5]. ## Application and Examination Process - **Ap...
Read more