Plagiarism Checker X Originality

Report
Similarity Found: 52%

Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Statistics: 1514 words Plagiarized / 2899 Total words
Remarks: High Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Critical Improvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

SR.NO PARTICULAR PAGE NO. 1 Introduction 2 2 Meaning 2 3 Definition of

Common Intention 2 4 Definition of Common Object 3 5 Key Differences Between
Common Intentio n and 5 Common Object 6 Brief Note on Common Intention 6 7
Advantages & Disadvantages of Common I ntention 6 8 Brief Note on Common
Object 7 9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Object 7 10 Similarities
between Common Intention and 8 Common Object 11 Case laws 9 12 Conclusion
10 Introduction Difference Between Common Intention and Common Object In
criminal law, intention absorbs a significant place. With regard to the supreme
from of the Mental element it is applicable to heinous crimes.

The Indian Penal Code does not define the Word Intention, however, section 34 is
concerned with common intention. In common intention, there must be prior
meeting of mind and unity, as well as there is an Obvious act must be performed
in the common intention of all. On the other hand, the common object may be
developed without a preliminary meeting of mind It is possible that the common
object of the unlawful assembly is one however, the intention is Different Here we
are going to discuss the difference between common intention and common
object.

Meaning Common Intention refers to a situation where two or more individuals

have a shared goal or plan to commit a crime. Common object, on the other hand,
refers to a situation where two or more individuals have a shared goal or objective
during a riot or unlawful assembly. Definition of Common Intention Common
Intention refers to the predetermined plan and acting in unison in proceed with
the plan.

Common Intention springs before the crime is committed, but the time gap
between the two Should not be long. It could take place suddenly. When two or
more than two persons give their consent to perform an act, under common
intention, the co-accused are entitled to equal criminal liability, as mentioned in
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a case each and every member is
liable for that act, in a way that they had done the act solely.

Section 34 of the IPC incorporates the principle of joint liability when a criminal act
is performed, and the crux of that liability is the presence of common intention. Its
applicability is due to the involvement in the offence. It is among the provisions of
the Indian Penal Code, which is exercised to extend the liability of other people.

The essence of this section is that the accused must be physically present at the
actual commission of the crime. Definition of Common Object The term object
refers to the purpose and to make it common, it has to be mutual. When five or
more then five persons in continuation of a common object, conduct an illegal act,
then each and every person is equally liable, no matter if there is a prior meeting
of mind among the co-accuseds or not.

However, the consent of all is important as every member of the unlawful

assembly has given their consent to achieve the common object. Further, when
any one of the members of the unlawful assembly has committed an offence to
proceed with the common object of that assembly then every member of that
assembly is guilty of that offence.

As per section 149 of IPC, the liability of other members for the crime committed
during the prosecution lies on the fact that if the other members knew in advance
that the offence committed was expected to be committed in the continuance of
the common object. This can be identified by the nature of the assembly, arms of
behaviour, at or before the scene of action.

Further, if it is found out that the other members are not known about this fact,
then their liability for the offence does not arise. Simply put, the object has to be
common to the members, who constitute the assembly, i.e. they are not just aware
of the purpose, but they also have concurrence in that regard. According to
section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.
An assembly of five or more then five persons is regarded as an unlawful assembly,
if it is formed with an unlawful object. Common Intention • A pre-existing
agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. This means that
before the commission of the crime, the individuals had a prior understanding and
agreement to commit the crime together.

• Established before the commission of the crime. Common Intention is

established before the commission of the crime, as it refers to a pre-existing
agreement between individuals. • Need not be the same as the actual intention of
the accused, intention does not have to be same as the actual intention of the
accused, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between individuals. • Can be
inferred from the actions and statements of the accused.

Common intention can be inferred to be the same, as the actual intention of the
accused, as it refers. To a preexisting agreement individual. • Examples: Conspiracy,
criminal breach of trust: Common intention is often used in cases involving
conspiracy and criminal breach of trust, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement
between individuals to commit a crime • Punishment: Same as the punishment for
the intended crime.

The punishment for common intention is the same as the punishment for the
intended crime, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement individual to commit a
crime. Common object • The objective or goal of the crime that the individuals
have agreed to commit. The refers to be end result or the main purpose of
committing the crime. It is the objective or goal that the accused had in mind
when committing the crime.

• Established during commission of the crime: Common object is established

during the commission of the crime, as it refers to the objective or goal of the
crime that is being committed. • Must be the same as the actual intention of the
accused: Common object must be the same as the actual intention of the accused,
as it refers to the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when committing
the crime.

• Must be proven through evidence: Common object must be proven through

evidence, as it refers to the objective or goal that the accused had the accused
had in mind when committing the crime. • Examples: murder, theft, rioting:
Common object is often used in cases involving crimes such as murder, theft, and
rioting, as it refers to the objective or goal of the crime that is being committed.
• Punishment: Same as the punishment for the committed crime: The punishment
for common object is the same as the punishment for the committed crime, as it
refers to the objective or goal that the accused had in mind when the crime. Key
Differences Between Common Intention and Common Object The difference
between common intention and common object can be drawn clearly on the
following grounds: Common intention is when two or more than two persons
intentionally commit an offence jointly, it is same as if each of them had done it
solely.

On the contrary, each and every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of the
crime taken place in the continuance of the common object, i.e., an object which is
shared by all For common intention, it is very important that there is a prior
concert between the members. On the other hand, for the common object it is
not essential that there is preliminary concert between, i.e.,

on the meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly the common object may
develop at the spot, and it is sufficient that it is adopted and shared by all. The
common intention must have a pre-arranged plan and premediated concert, no
matter if the plan is hastily made and comes up with cruelty. Conversely, for a
common object pre-arranged plan is not required before the commission of the
crime.

Two or more persons have to be involved in invoking common intention. As

against, there have to be five or more persons for imposing intention. Common
intention sets out the principles of constructive liability without the creation of any
substantive offence. On the contrary, the common object creates a specific
substantive offence.

If there is a common intention all the person accused of the commission of the
crime are equally liable. In contrast, if there is common object, all the persons
accused of the commission of the offence may or may not be equally liable. Brief
Note on Common Intention Common intention refers to the mutual agreement
and understanding between two or more individuals to engage in a particular
course of action or conduct.

It is a crucial element in determining liability in criminal cases, as the prosecution

must prove that the accused individuals had a common intention to commit the
crime. In civil cases, common intention is also relevant in determining the rights
and obligations of parties involved in a contract or partnership. Advantages &
Disadvantages of Common Intention Advantages of Common Intention: Increased
accountability: When multiple individuals are involved in a crime, holding all of
them accountable for their actions can serve as a deterrent to future criminal
behavior.

Fairness: Common intention allows for all individuals involved in a crime to be

held equally responsible, regardless of their level of involvement or culpability.
Clarity: The concept of common intention provides clear guidelines for
determining criminal responsibility in cases where multiple individuals are
involved in a crime.

Efficiency: By holding all individuals involved in a crime accountable, common

intention can streamline the criminal justice process and prevent delays or appeals.
Deterrence: The threat of prosecution under common intention can serve as a
deterrent to individuals considering committing crimes with others. Closure:
Holding all individuals involved in a crime accountable can provide closure for
victims and their families.

Justice: Common intention ensures that all individuals involved in a crime are held
accountable for their actions and that justice is served. Disadvantages of Common
Intention: Injustice: Common intention can lead to individuals being held
responsible for crimes they did not commit or were not aware of. Unfairness:
Common intention can result in individuals being held responsible for crimes they
did not commit or were not aware of.

Confusion: The concept of common intention can be difficult to understand and

apply, leading to confusion among defendants and their attorneys. Lack of
evidence: In some cases, there may not be enough evidence to prove common
intention, leading to individuals being acquitted of crimes they may have
committed. Overgeneralization: Common intention can be applied too broadly
and result in individuals being held accountable for crimes they did not commit or
were not aware of.

Burden of proof: Proving common intention can be difficult, and the burden of
proof falls on the prosecution, who may not have enough evidence to support
their case. Limited liability: Common intention can limit the liability of individuals
who played a larger role in a crime, allowing them to escape prosecution or face
lesser charges. Brief Note on Common Object A common object in crime refers to
the shared goal or intention among a group of individuals to commit a criminal
act.
This can include planning and conspiring to commit the crime, as well as actively
participating in its execution. Examples of common object crimes include robbery,
burglary, and drug trafficking. The legal concept of common object is important in
determining the level of criminal liability for all individuals involved in the crime.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Object Advantages of Common

Object: Clear definition: A common object crime, such as theft or burglary, has a
clear and well-defined definition, making it easier for law enforcement and the
courts to identify and prosecute. Recognizable conduct: Common object crimes
are typically characterized by recognizable conduct, such as breaking and entering
or stealing, which makes it easier for witnesses and victims to identify and report
the crime.

Deterrent effect: The existence of laws criminalizing common object crimes may
serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders, as they are aware of the potential
consequences of their actions. Increased safety: Criminalizing common object
crimes helps to increase the overall safety of a community by reducing the
occurrence of these types of crimes.

Easier prosecution: Prosecutions for common object crimes are often easier to
prove than other types of crimes, as there is typically clear and concrete evidence
of the criminal conduct. Greater social acceptance: Common object crimes are
widely recognized and acknowledged as criminal conduct, making it easier for
society to accept and support the prosecution and punishment of these crimes.

Consistency: Laws criminalizing common object crimes are often consistent across
different jurisdictions, making it easier for law enforcement and the courts to
apply and enforce the laws. Disadvantages of Common Object:
Overcriminalization: Criminalizing common object crimes may lead to
overcriminalization, where conduct that is not inherently harmful is made criminal,
resulting in an overburdened criminal justice system.

Unintended consequences: Criminalizing common object crimes may have

unintended consequences, such as disproportionately impacting certain groups
or communities. Over Reliance on punishment: Criminalizing common object
crimes may lead to an overreliance on punishment as the solution to criminal
conduct, without addressing underlying social and economic issues.

Inconsistency: Laws criminalizing common object crimes may be inconsistent

across different jurisdictions, leading to confusion and uneven enforcement.
Limited focus: Criminalizing common object crimes may lead to a limited focus on
addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty and inequality, rather than
simply punishing the conduct.

Disproportionate punishment: Criminalizing common object crimes may result in

disproportionately harsh punishment for lower-level offenses, such as minor theft
or burglary. Stigma: Criminalizing common object crimes may lead to a
stigmatization of individuals who have been convicted of these crimes, making it
difficult for them to reintegrate into society and find employment.

Similarities between Common Intention and Common Object Both common

intention and common object refer to the agreement and understanding between
two or more individuals regarding a specific action or goal. Both concepts are
related to criminal law and are often used in the context of conspiracy or joint
enterprise. In both cases, it is necessary for the individuals involved to have a
shared understanding of the action or goal in question.

The prosecution must prove the existence of a common intention or common

object in order to secure a conviction for a crime committed in furtherance of that
intention or object. The key difference between common intention and common
object is that common intention requires a prior agreement or understanding
between the individuals involved, while common object can be formed during the
course of the crime.

Both require a shared intent or goal among the individuals involved in the crime,
but Common object may be formed during the course of the crime, while
Common intention is formed before the commission of the crime. Common
intention and common object are used to determine the liability of the parties
involved in the crime, and to establish the degree of involvement of each party in
the crime. Case laws 1.

One of the first instances in which a court condemned another person for the
conduct of another person in furtherance of a common intention was Birendra
Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925 in which two people demanded money from
a postman as he was counting the money, and when they shot from a handgun at
the postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the suspects fled without taking any
money.

In this instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot the gun and was
only standing by, but the courts rejected his appeal and found him guilty of
murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further
held that it is not required that all participants participate equally. It is possible to
accomplish more or less. However, this does not mean that the individual who did
less should be exempt from blame.

His legal responsibility is the same. 2. According to tent passed by the Honupreme
Court in Vijy P Thakre v. State of Maharashtra (2017), for application of Section 149,
there must be active participation of the person in the offence with the necessary
criminal intention or share the common object of the unlawful assembly otherwise,
the person cannot be held liable under the said Section.

Conclusion Con object diom a commenti doesn’telinary concert and consensus

before the offence takes place. Further, in the cases of joint liability, the
co-accused who were involved in a crime, under common intention and common
object is entitled to equal criminal liability subject to certain exceptions. .
DECLARATION BY LEARNER I the undersigned Ms.

HIMANSHI RAM UPADHYAY here by, declare that the work embodied in this
project work titled entitled - A STUDY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON
INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT forms my own contribution to the research
work carried out under the guidance of PROF. APARNA SINGH it is a result of my
own research work and has not been previously submitted to any other University
for any other Degree/Diploma to this or any other University. HIMANSHI RAM
UPADHYAY Name and signature of the learner Certified by PROF.

APARNA SINGH Name and signature of the Guiding Teacher Date: / MAY / 2023
Place: Mumbai, Maharashtra .

INTERNET SOURCES:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
1% -
http://sbgimiraj.org/upload/files/IQAC/NAAC%20II/Criterion%20VII/7.2.1/Index%
207.2.pdf
7% -
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-common-intention-and-common
-object.html
22% -
https://testbook.com/key-differences/difference-between-common-intention-an
d-common-object
1% -
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1338/Common-Intention-And-Comm
on-Object-Under-The-Indian-Penal-Code-1860.html
<1% - https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-34-of-ipc-1860/
6% -
https://www.scribd.com/document/520636203/Common-intention-and-common
-object
<1% -
https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-a-private-defence-to-what-extent-one-can-exe
rcise-it/
<1% -
https://www.happyhealthysociety.com/indian-penal-code-sec-34-common-intenti
on/
<1% -
https://www.indianemployees.com/acts-rules/section/every-member-of-unlawful
-assembly-guilty-of-offence-committed-in-prosecution-of-common-object-1651
<1% -
https://edurev.in/question/1520525/Principle-Every-member-of-unlawful-assemb
ly-is-gui
<1% -
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-149-ipc-supreme-court-viramvirma-v-stat
e-of-madhya-pradesh-ocular-testimony-medical-evidence-common-intention-18
7446
<1% - https://www.writinglaw.com/essentials-of-common-object-ipc/
<1% - https://www.legalbites.in/criminal-conspiracy/
<1% - https://blog.ipleaders.in/criminal-conspiracy-under-ipc/
<1% - https://quizlet.com/26887624/chapter-5-substantive-law-flash-cards/
1% -
https://thelegalquotient.com/criminal-laws/criminal-jurisprudence/group-liability
/1163/
<1% -
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-2/key-issues/criminal-as
sociation.html
<1% -
https://www.main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/8771/8771_2021_14_10_33470_J
udgement_16-Feb-2022.pdf
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1593553/
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42504802/
1% -
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/a-different-series-by-sushmita-6-com
mon-intention-vs-common-object-14783.asp
<1% -
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/du-llb/practice-questions-on-common-intentio
n/
<1% -
https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/12/what-is-common-intention-under-section.
html#!
1% -
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/rules-of-action-or-conduct-adopted-by-the
accountants-universally-while-recordingaccounting-transaction/
<1% -
https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/mens-rea-the-criminal-state-of-min
d/
<1% -
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-cr
ime
<1% -
https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/hosting/technical-matters/object-oriented-d
atabases/
<1% -
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/06/six-times-technology-helped-win-
a-case/
<1% - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/7/5/1077/805524
1% -
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_law-for-entrepreneurs/s04-introduction-to-la
w-and-legal-.html
<1% -
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=cl_p
ubs
<1% -
https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/14-3-problem-solving-and-dec
ision-making-in-groups/
<1% - https://lawyersgyan.com/blog/common-intention-and-common-object/
<1% -
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/common-intention-common-object/
1% - https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/5/4/953/792839
<1% - https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-34
1% -
https://www.toprankers.com/100-most-important-judgements-indian-penal-code
<1% - https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-02/Releases%2002.13.2023.pdf
<1% -
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/30637/30637_2019_13_1501_18457_Ju
dgement_20-Nov-2019.pdf
<1% - https://devgan.in/ipc/section/141/
<1% -
https://www.studocu.com/in/document/university-of-mumbai/bachelors-of-com
merce-accountancy-and-finance/toazinfo-final-black-book-pr-4e1b7301661246-
cc4349e7569fb3a637-converted/21746610
<1% - https://www.studymumbai.com/how-to-write-declaration-for-project/