Common Intention is governed by Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which corresponds to Section 34 of the IPC. Common Object is governed by Section 189 BNS, which corresponds to Section 149 IPC dealing with unlawful assemblies.

Meaning and Distinction

Both provisions impose joint criminal liability when offences are committed by more than one person. However, the basis of liability is different. Common intention requires a shared intention among the accused to commit a particular criminal act. Common object, on the other hand, is based on membership in an unlawful assembly pursuing a common purpose.

Important Differences

1. Number of persons: Common intention can apply to two or more persons, whereas common object requires an unlawful assembly of at least five persons.

2. Prior meeting of minds: Common intention generally requires a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds, which may develop even on the spot. Common object does not require prior planning.

3. Participation: Under common intention, active participation is usually necessary. Under common object, mere membership of the unlawful assembly may be sufficient.

4. Scope: Common object is wider because liability may arise even when a specific overt act is not attributed to every member.

Also Read – Key Changes Introduced Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Landmark Judgments and Observations

In Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), the Supreme Court held that every member of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for offences committed in furtherance of the common object even if an individual act is not proved against each member. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the assembly and surrounding circumstances are relevant for determining the common object.

In Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2011), the Supreme Court clarified that common intention requires a shared mental element and participation, whereas common object may arise spontaneously and does not require proof of prior consensus.

Practical Example

If three persons jointly plan a robbery and execute it, liability may arise under Section 3(5) BNS because they acted with a common intention. In contrast, if six persons form a group to attack a rival faction and one member causes grievous hurt while pursuing the group’s purpose, all members may be liable under Section 189 BNS based on the common object of the assembly.

Conclusion

For law students, aspirants, and legal professionals, understanding this distinction is essential because courts frequently rely on these doctrines to determine collective criminal liability. Common intention focuses on a shared state of mind, while common object focuses on participation in an unlawful assembly. The distinction often determines the extent of criminal responsibility of each accused person.

This article has been researched and prepared by Akansha Shrivastava, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here ) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.