Question

Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention? (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.

Common Intention and Similar Intention

Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….” The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of ‗several persons‘ be known to each other for constituting common intention.

Option A: The intention of the accused and co-accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.

Option B: Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.

Option C: Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.

Option D: All of the above.

Correct Answer

Option: d

Explanation

Chapter II, Section 34 IPC describes Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention whereas “similar intention” is not explicitly defined in the IPC. A similar intention occurs when two or more people act with a similar intention but without a pre-arranged plan or a shared understanding. In Indian criminal law, “common intention” and “similar intention” are two distinct concepts with important implications in determining an accused person’s guilt.

Sample Mock Tests for Practice

NLU 2015

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 386 TO 420)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 401 TO 440)

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 35)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 03 Q. NO. 81 TO 120)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 20 Q. NO. 761 TO 800)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 281 TO 315)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 15 Q. NO. 561 TO 600)

THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (PAPER 06 Q.NO. 201 TO 240)

THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 8)

UTTARAKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018

AIBE-XV-2021-I (BCI-JAN-2021-SET-C) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2021-I)

THE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 29)

THE MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 03 Q. NO. 81 TO 120)

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Paper 01: Q. 1 to 25)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 421 TO 455)

THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 39)

THE MADHYA PRASESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 44)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE HIMACHAL PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 2011 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 16)

GUJRAT LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 05 Q. NO. 161 TO 200)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2008

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2013)

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 19)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 08 Q. NO. 281 TO 320)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2021

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 18 Q. NO. 596 TO 623)

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 65)