The doctrine of common intention plays a pivotal role in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
under Section 34, as well as under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section
3(5). This article delves into the legal framework and jurisprudence surrounding
common intention, where multiple individuals act in furtherance of a shared
criminal goal.
The discussion includes the historical context, a comparative
analysis of Section 34 IPC and Section 3(5) BNS, and an in-depth exploration of
relevant case laws that have shaped the doctrine's interpretation by courts. By
focusing on leading judgments, the article offers a comprehensive understanding
of how liability is determined when a criminal act is executed by several
persons under a common plan.
Introduction
The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(5) of
the BNS creates vicarious liability, holding every individual in a group equally
responsible for a criminal act done in furtherance of their shared intention.
Unlike conspiracy, common intention does not require prior agreement but merely
the presence of a shared intention at the time of the crime. This principle is
crucial in scenarios where direct involvement in the crime may not be evident,
yet liability is attributed to all participants based on their collective
intent.
The courts have consistently applied this doctrine to hold each member
of a group responsible as if the act were committed solely by them. This article
will explore the key elements of common intention and how they have evolved
under Indian jurisprudence, supported by authoritative case laws and statutes.
Statutory Framework
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 IPC reads: "When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." The provision does
not create a substantive offence but attributes joint liability when a crime is
committed in furtherance of a shared intention.
The essential elements of
Section 34 include:
- The criminal act must be committed by several persons.
- There must be a common intention among the participants.
- The act must be done in furtherance of that common intention.
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 3(5) of the BNS incorporates similar principles: "When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone." While the language mirrors IPC Section 34, the BNS offers a more
structured and refined understanding, emphasizing the evolving needs of modern
criminal jurisprudence in India. Section 3(5) maintains the same liability
mechanism but within the broader framework of reformed criminal law under the
BNS.
Judicial Interpretation
Case Law: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925 SCC OnLine PC 1)
One of the earliest cases interpreting Section 34 was Barendra Kumar Ghosh v.
King Emperor, where the Privy Council upheld the doctrine of common intention.
In this case, the accused stood outside the post office while his accomplices
entered and shot the postmaster. Although Barendra did not fire the fatal shot,
the Privy Council held that he was equally liable under Section 34 as the act
was done in furtherance of a common intention to rob the post office. This case
laid the foundation for understanding that physical presence or participation in
the overt act is not always necessary; the shared intention suffices to attract
liability.
Case Law: R. v. Mahbub Shah (1945 SCC OnLine PC 6)
The decision in R. v. Mahbub Shah provided further clarity on the principle of
common intention, highlighting that the prosecution must prove a pre-arranged
plan or shared intention between the accused. It clarified that mere presence or
association at the scene of the crime does not suffice to hold an individual
liable under Section 34 unless there is clear evidence of common intention.
Case Law: Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2001) 3 SCC 673
The Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh expanded upon the concept
of "in furtherance of the common intention." It held that for the application of
Section 34, it is not necessary that all participants in a crime perform the
same role. Each participant's role may vary, yet all are equally liable as long
as the act is committed to further their shared intention. In this case, one of
the accused was held liable under Section 34 despite not physically assaulting
the victim, as he had actively participated in the plan that led to the murder.
Case Law: Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 311
In Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated that
the essence of common intention is a prior meeting of minds, which can be
inferred from the conduct and circumstances surrounding the crime. The case
emphasized that common intention could be developed even at the spur of the
moment and need not be premeditated.
Case Law: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955) 1 SCR 1083
The Supreme Court, in
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, underscored the
requirement of active participation or involvement in the criminal act for
Section 34 to apply. The court held that if one of the accused merely stands by
without participating or aiding the act, Section 34 cannot be invoked. This case
helped in drawing a distinction between active and passive involvement in crimes
committed under common intention.
Comparative Analysis: IPC Section 34 and BNS Section 3(5)
Although the language of IPC Section 34 and BNS Section 3(5) is almost
identical, the application under the BNS reflects the recent developments in
criminal law reform, particularly focusing on the accountability of individuals
in a group context. BNS Section 3(5) maintains the essence of the doctrine of
common intention but within a modernized legal framework that accounts for
digital crimes, organized crime syndicates, and other complex criminal
enterprises. The inclusion of specific guidelines on how common intention is
inferred from evidence also strengthens the prosecutorial approach under the BNS.
Liability Under Common Intention
The doctrine of common intention ensures that each participant in a crime,
regardless of their role, bears equal responsibility for the outcome. This
principle prevents individuals from evading liability by claiming lesser
involvement in the actual commission of the crime. The courts have consistently
upheld the need for the prosecution to establish the existence of a common
intention, either through direct evidence or circumstantial inferences.
Conclusion
The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(5) of
the BNS plays a crucial role in ensuring that all participants in a crime are
held equally accountable for their collective actions. While the doctrine has
been a part of Indian criminal law for over a century, its interpretation has
evolved through landmark judgments that have clarified the scope and
application.
The concept of common intention remains a powerful tool in the
prosecution of group crimes, ensuring that justice is served irrespective of
individual roles. As criminal law continues to develop, particularly under the
newly enacted BNS, the doctrine of common intention will likely adapt to address
emerging challenges in criminal accountability.
References:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 3(5))
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925 SCC OnLine PC 1
- R. v. Mahbub Shah, 1945 SCC OnLine PC 6
- Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2001) 3 SCC 673
- Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 311
- Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, (1955) 1 SCR 1083
Please Drop Your Comments