Joint Liability: Common Intention and Common Object

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), two rules make a person answer for an act done jointly with others. Section 3(5) (the old Section 34 IPC) says that when several persons do a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if he did it alone, while Section 190 (the old Section 149 IPC) makes every member of an unlawful assembly of five or more guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of its common object. The first needs a shared plan and participation; the second needs membership of the assembly at the time of the offence.

This explainer is for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for criminal law papers, and for any reader who has seen a news report where five or six people were convicted of one murder and wondered how. The two rules look similar, but mixing them up costs marks in exams and, in real trials, can decide whether an accused walks free.

What does the law say in 2026?

The BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024. The provisions you need are:

• Section 3(5) BNS: "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." This sits in Section 3, the general explanations, so it creates no offence by itself. It is always read with a substantive offence, for example murder read with Section 3(5).
• Section 3(6) and 3(8) BNS: companion rules. Where an act is criminal only because of a particular knowledge or intention, each person who joins in it with that knowledge or intention is liable. Where an offence is committed by several acts, a person who intentionally cooperates by doing any one of them commits that offence.
• Section 189(1) BNS: defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons whose common object is one of five listed aims, such as overawing government by criminal force, resisting the execution of law, or committing mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence. An assembly that was lawful when it gathered can become unlawful later. Section 189(2) punishes membership with up to six months, fine, or both.
• Section 190 BNS: if a member commits an offence in prosecution of the common object, or one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who is a member of the same assembly at that time is guilty of that offence.

Use the old IPC numbers (34, 141 and 149) only as pointers when you cite older judgments.

What is common intention, and how have courts read it?

The core idea is a prior meeting of minds. In Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 118), the Privy Council required a pre-arranged plan. The Supreme Court took this up in Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad (3 December 1954). Writing for the Court, Bose J. held that common intention presupposes prior concert, and that several people independently having the same intention is not enough. The plan can still be "hastily formed and rudely conceived", even on the spot, and the inference should be drawn only when it is a necessary inference from the circumstances.

Two recent rulings sharpen the test:

• Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 INSC 738: common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the act, and may be inferred from conduct before, during and after it.
• Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218 (judgment dated 11 February 2025): a husband who stood by while his mother set his wife on fire, and then poured water on her, was acquitted. Mere presence as a spectator is not enough; the prosecution has to prove participation in the criminal act.

What is common object, and how is it different?

Section 190 works on membership, not participation. In Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (25 November 2003), the Supreme Court said common object does not need prior concert or a meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough that five or more persons share the same object and act as an assembly to achieve it. Mere presence, though, does not make a person a member unless he shares that object.

In Vasant (2025), the Court gave an illustration. A mob gathers to attack a community in a locality. One member, X, finds that the target, Y, is his old friend and does not want him harmed. If Y is killed in prosecution of the common object while X remains in the assembly, X can still be liable. Under Section 3(5), by contrast, X would need to share the intention and take part in the act.

Has this come up in a Tamil Nadu case?

Yes. In Joseph v. State (decided 14 December 2017), the Supreme Court heard an appeal from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which had confirmed murder convictions of eleven accused with the help of Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court found no proof that all eleven shared a common object to kill, and no definite finding that some of them knew murder was likely. It set aside the murder convictions of seven accused and recorded lesser hurt offences against them. It altered one accused's conviction to murder read with Section 34, because carrying a bomb showed he shared the intention of the two main assailants, and upheld another's conviction for murder read with abetment (Section 109 IPC) because his words instigated the attack. For students in Nagercoil or Madurai, this is a useful reminder that courts examine each accused separately even when the charge is collective.

How do the two provisions compare?

1. Number: Section 3(5) needs two or more persons; Section 190 needs five or more.
2. Mental element: common intention needs a prior meeting of minds, even if formed on the spot; common object needs only a shared aim falling within Section 189(1).
3. Participation: Section 3(5) needs participation in the criminal act; Section 190 needs membership at the time of the offence.
4. Nature: Section 3(5) is a rule of evidence and liability that creates no offence; Section 190 creates a distinct head of constructive liability.
5. Substitution: in Baljinder Singh (2024), the Court reaffirmed that if Section 149 fails, a conviction can still rest on Section 34 where the evidence shows the offence was done in furtherance of common intention.

How should you write this in an exam?

• Start with the BNS section number and quote the key words, then give the IPC pointer in brackets.
• List the elements of each provision as numbered points.
• Cite Mahbub Shah and Pandurang for common intention, Bikau Pandey for common object, and one recent case such as Vasant or Baljinder Singh.
• Close with a numbered list of differences. It shows the examiner you can separate the two rules at a glance.
• In problem questions, ask three things: how many accused, was there a plan or only a shared aim, and what did each accused actually do.

Students who want to see how these charges play out in real FIRs can observe at the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• India Code: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: official text of the BNS, including Section 3.
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954): Supreme Court judgment on common intention and prior concert.
• Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003): Supreme Court judgment on common object under the old Section 149.
• Joseph v. State (2017): Supreme Court appeal from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
• LiveLaw report on Vasant v. State of Karnataka (2025): summary of the Supreme Court's illustrations on the two provisions.
• Verdictum report on Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 INSC 738): common intention arising moments before the act.