Distinction Between 'Common Intention' & 'Common Object' : Supreme Court Explains While Setting Aside Conviction In Triple Murder Case

The Supreme Court recently revisited a critical distinction between "common intention" and "common object", which are mentioned in Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively. The Court relied on Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan, which had previously addressed the conversion of charges from Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

It was observed : “A clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which convicted the appellant in a case of triple murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

The case centered around the alleged triple murder of Uma Prasad, Vinod Kumar, and Munau, who was also known as Anant Kishore Khare. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on June 2, 1987, when Vinod Kumar had taken Munau to Naugaon village for medical treatment. When they failed to return, Uma Prasad Khare, the father of the two, dispatched Naval Kishore and Manua Chammer to search for them. Uma Prasad himself joined the search party. As they reached the Hanuman temple, the prosecution alleged that the accused were gathered near the temple, armed with firearms and other weapons. The appellant, identified as accused no.2, and accused no.16 were reportedly armed with a spear. The appellant was accused of dragging Uma Prasad's body and disposing of it in a well.

The prosecution further alleged that all the accused planned to kill Vinod Kumar Khare and Munau Khare. After approximately 15 minutes, gunshots were heard, and Vinod Kumar Khare and Munau Khare were reportedly killed. However, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused of this part of the charges, and that ruling remains final.

The appellant approached the High Court which partially allowed his appeal, altering their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant's conviction under Section 201 of IPC was upheld.

Aggrieved by this, he approached the Supreme Court.

In the case at hand, the Court meticulously examined the evidence provided by two key witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2. It was noted that there was no evidence of the presence of "common intention," and the act of stopping the deceased individual, Uma Prasad, alone was insufficient to invoke Section 34 of IPC.

The Court stressed, “There is no overt act attributed to the appellant by any prosecution witness in the assault on deceased Uma Prasad. It is difficult to infer a prior meeting of minds in this case. There is no material to prove the existence of common intention which is the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC. In this case, there is no overlap between a common object and a common intention. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, read with Section 34 will have to be set aside.”

The Court held that the evidence presented by two consistent eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, provided substantial grounds for convicting the appellant under Section 201 of IPC, which pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence in a crime.

The Court had observed, “However, the evidence of two consistent eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) detailed the appellant's role in dragging the deceased's body and disposing of it in a well. Given the lack of cross-examination on this crucial aspect, the Court found justification for convicting the appellant under Section 201 of IPC, which pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence in a crime. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence for the offense under Section 201 of IPC were upheld.”

The Court's judgment also noted that the appellant had already served the rigorous imprisonment sentence of five years for the offense under Section 201 of IPC. Accordingly, the Court canceled the appellant's bail bonds and set him free.

Case title: Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment