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

THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (PAPER -5 Q. NO. 101 TO 134)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 316 TO 350)

THE MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 49)

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

CLAT 2019

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018-2

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 18 Q. NO. 681 TO 720)

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

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 14 Q. NO. 456 TO 490)

JHARKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

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

CHHATTISGARH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

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

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 280)

SAMPLE PAPER 01

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

PUNJAB LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (PAPER 03 Q.NO. 81 TO 120)

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 106 TO 140)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019-1

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 361 TO 400)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 22 Q. NO. 841 TO 870)

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

NLU 2015

CLAT 2022

THE MADHYA PRASESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 321 TO 360)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 14 Q. NO. 456 TO 490)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 17 Q. NO. 641 TO 680)

UTTARAKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2002

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 05 Q. NO. 161 TO 200)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 35)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 441 TO 480)

KERALA LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2011

RAJASTHAN LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2021

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