Difference Between Common Intention and Common Object

Common Intention

A pre-concerted criminal plan is referred to as having a common intention when two or more people decide to act together to carry out the plan. Though there may be a short or even spontaneous period of time between planning and execution, this agreement must take place prior to the actual crime.

A common intention gives rise to joint criminal liability, as stated in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In cases where a crime is committed, all parties who are co-accused bear equal responsibility. Legally speaking, this means that all parties concerned are accountable for the entire criminal act, just as if they had done it alone.

In essence, Section 34 makes others criminally liable in addition to the individual who committed the offense.

This section of the IPC serves to increase the extent of liability in circumstances where several parties have a common criminal intent. It's crucial to remember, though, that Section 34 also requires each accused person to be present in person at the scene of the crime.

Advantages of Common Intention

In the criminal justice system, the idea of common intention plays a crucial role in promoting fairness, accountability, and an efficient procedure. Below is a summary of its main benefits:

• Less Chance of Escape: Common intention guarantees that everyone involved in a crime is held accountable for their deeds. This deters criminal activity in the future by highlighting the possible repercussions of group involvement.
• Fairness: Common intention ensures that all parties involved suffer equal legal consequences, regardless of the level of participation. It preserves the idea of justice by guaranteeing that the penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
• Clarity: When it comes to determining criminal responsibility in group settings, common intention creates unambiguous guidelines. This removes any doubt and makes the prosecution process run more smoothly.
• Efficiency: Common intention expedites the legal process by keeping all parties accountable. This reduces the amount of time needed to determine individual guilt and the possibility of appeals.
• Curbs Crime: People are deterred from committing crimes with others by the possibility of being prosecuted under a shared intent. Because of the possible repercussions, there is a deterrent effect that makes society safer.
• Closure for Victims: Victims and their families experience a sense of closure when all parties are held responsible for their actions. This gives the impression that justice has been done.
• Justice Done: Mutual intent makes sure that no one who commits a crime gets away with it. This preserves the essential idea of justice by guaranteeing that individuals who assist in illegal activities suffer the proper legal repercussions.

Disadvantages of Common Intention

• Possibility of Injustice and Unfairness: People may be criminally charged for acts they did not directly commit or were not fully aware of as a result of the legal doctrine of common intention. This prompts questions about the justice system's inherent unfairness and injustice.
• Application Difficulties: Defendants and their attorneys may experience application difficulties due to the intricacy of the concept of common intention. A proper defense may be hampered by the complexity of comprehending and implementing this principle.
• Problems with the Evidence: There may be times when there is insufficient evidence to establish a common intention. This may result in circumstances where people who may have committed crimes are found not guilty, thereby freeing them from actual responsibility.
• Overbroad Application and Limited Liability: When common intention is applied too broadly, people may be held accountable for crimes they did not commit or were not fully aware of. This idea also has the potential to lessen the consequences for individuals who were more heavily involved in the crime, thereby clearing their name or reducing the severity of their charges.
• Burden of Proof on Prosecution: The prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating a common intention, whether it is in their favor or not. Meeting this burden can be difficult, particularly if there isn't enough proof to show that the parties involved had a common criminal intent.

Common Object

When assessing who is responsible for an illegal assembly, the legal notion of "common object" is vital because of the fundamental duty to give a fair chance to everyone present. The term "object" basically refers to the common goal that binds the assembly's members together. This goal needs to be unlawful and mutually agreed upon.

A meeting of five or more people formed with an unlawful purpose is referred to as an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Regardless of any prior understanding or "meeting of minds" among members, each one of such an assembly may be held equally accountable if they participate in unlawful activity to achieve their shared objective under this law. This principle is based on the idea that every member implicitly agrees to the achievement of the common goal by attending the assembly.

Section 149 of the IPC further develops this idea even further. Every member of an illegal assembly may be held accountable for any crime committed by any member while working toward the group's common goal. However, the degree of their responsibility depends on their awareness. The prosecution must prove that the other members knew or had good reason to think that the particular offense committed was probably going to happen as a result of going after the shared goal.

Evidence for establishing this awareness can be found in the assembly's actual makeup, the weapons that its members were carrying, and their general conduct both before and during the incident.

Their responsibility for the crime is eliminated if it can be demonstrated that the other participants were sincerely ignorant of the possible offense.

To put it another way, all participants in the unlawful assembly must agree upon and be aware of the common object. They must not only understand the goal but also agree to work toward it.

Advantages of Common Object

• Clearly Defined Offenses: Common object crimes have boundaries that are both distinct and unambiguous. This definition's clarity helps the legal system and law enforcement identify and prosecute these kinds of crimes (like theft and burglary) more successfully.
• Self-explanatory: Common object crimes are characterized by actions that are easy to identify, like stealing or breaking. This feature makes it simple for victims and witnesses to identify and report these illegal activities.
• Deterrent Effect: Potential offenders are discouraged from committing common object crimes by the laws that prohibit them. The knowledge of the possible repercussions deters people from committing such crimes.
• Increase in Justice: By making common object crimes more common (known to all) and criminalized, communities become safer overall.
• Simplified Prosecutions: Compared to other crimes, common object prosecutions are frequently easier to prove. This is because there is substantial, substantiated evidence that directly links the criminal activity.
• Social Acceptance of Prosecution: Most people agree that common object crimes constitute criminal activity. The prosecution and punishment of these crimes are made easier by society's acceptance of them.
• Consistent Legal Framework: Common object crimes are generally treated the same way by laws in different jurisdictions. Law enforcement and the courts are better equipped to apply and enforce these laws because of their consistency.

Disadvantages of Common Object

• The Expansion of Criminal Codes: Overcriminalization is a phenomenon that can result from making common object crimes illegal. This happens when actions that aren't fundamentally harmful are labeled as crimes. The judicial system may become overloaded with minor infractions as a result of the expansion of criminal codes, which would take resources away from more serious crimes.
• Unforeseen Repercussions: Making crimes involving common goods illegal may have unexpected effects. Certain communities or demographics may be disproportionately affected by these repercussions. Laws that forbid loitering, for example, may unjustly single out homeless people.
• Overemphasis on Punishment: It can be harmful to place an excessive emphasis on punishment as the main response to crimes involving common objects. This strategy does not address the underlying social and economic causes of such criminal activity. More successful solutions are frequently rehabilitation and addressing the underlying causes.
• Inconsistency in Application: Common object crime laws can be applied inconsistently in several jurisdictions. This discrepancy may cause misunderstandings and unequal application of the law. A crime that is deemed minor in one jurisdiction may carry severe penalties in another.
• Narrow Scope: Just making common object crimes illegal can divert attention from dealing with the underlying causes of crime. Criminal activity is frequently significantly influenced by socioeconomic problems like poverty and inequality. A comprehensive strategy addressing these fundamental problems is required for long-term crime reduction.
• Disproportionate Penalties: Making common object crimes illegal may lead to unduly severe penalties for relatively minor infractions. For example, minor theft or vandalism may result in harsh punishments that are out of proportion to the offense.
• Social Stigma: People convicted of crimes involving common objects may experience social stigma. This stigma may impede their prospects of rehabilitation by making it harder for them to find work and reintegrate into society.

Difference Table

Differences Based on Various Perspectives

Preparation and Consensus

• A pre-arranged plan and agreement between the parties involved are necessary for common intention. Before the intended crime is committed, there needs to be agreement and understanding among all parties involved.
• Common objects, on the other hand, don't need any prior arrangement or planning. The common goal may emerge on its own when there is an unauthorized gathering.

The Number of Participants

• Only in situations involving two or more people can common intention be invoked.
• In the case of a common object, the legal principle can only be applied in the presence of at least five individuals.

Consequences for Law

• A framework for imposing constructive liability without establishing a new criminal offense is established by common intention.
• Conversely, a common object gives rise to a separate substantive offense with its own set of sanctions.

Joint Liability

• When a shared intention is proven, the consequences fall equally on all those charged with the crime.
• The degree of culpability in common object cases may differ for each accused party based on how specifically they were involved in the offense.

The Main Difference: Planning vs. Flow

Although there is a common intention or objective in both ideas (Planning and Flow), the timing of that agreement is where the key distinction lies. A pre-existing agreement or understanding developed before the criminal act occurs is essential to common intention. On the other hand, a common object might emerge on its own while the crime is being committed.

• Shared Goal, Varied Formation: These theories recognize that the people who commit the crime have a common intention or objective. Common intention, notably, necessitates a planned agreement, whereas a common object permits that common goal to emerge during the act.
• Liability and Involvement: Determining the guilt of the individuals engaged in the criminal act requires an understanding of the common intention and object. It assists in determining each party's level of involvement based on the preparation and mutual understanding they possess.