Common Intention
As per section 34 of the IPC, common
intention means any act done by more than one person in furtherance of the common
intention of all. In, Suresh And Anr vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2 March 2001)
the Supreme Court held that the common intention can be proved by the
circumstantial evidence
Punishment: Each one of them
would be liable for the act as the act is done by him alone.
Eg: A and B plans to
kill C, and hence they both “plan” to bring the poison and mix it in the C
glass of water, which ultimately leads to the C’s death.
Criminal Conspiracy
As per section 120 (A) of the IPC,
criminal conspiracy means that when two or more persons agree to do an illegal
act or any act by any illegal means, then such agreement is designated to
criminal conspiracy.
It is difficult to prove a conspiracy
by direct evidence as observed by the Supreme Court and held that it is not
necessary to prove the conspiracy by direct evidence, even the circumstantial
evidence is enough to prove the conspiracy, as held by the Supreme Court in
the Kehar Singh and Ors. v. The State
(Delhi Administration) [AIR 1988 SC 1883 at p. 1954]
Punishment: In criminal
conspiracy, the punishment is different from that of the common intention. As
defined in section 120 (B), if the act is punishable with rigorous punishment
of 2 years or more life imprisonment, then the person shall be punished in the
same manner as he had abetted such offence. And the act with the lesser
punishment than that of the above said, then the punishment would be no more
than 6 months, with fine imposed.
Eg:
A, B and C plan to rob a bank and “plans” that A will keep checking at bank’s
gate, B will keep a check over the bank personnel’s and C will put the bank
money in the bag. Meanwhile, the security guard at the gate attempts to attack
over A in order to prevent robbery and A kill the guard with his gun and the
guard dies. In the following case though B and C didn’t have the intention to
kill the security guard, but still they would all be held liable for murder as
well because the security guard wanted to prevent the robbery (the act for
which they all conspired for) and in order make their act successful A had to
kill the guard.
But
in another example: in the same situation, if A, B and C had already robbed the
bank and tries to escape. In the meanwhile, A got caught by the guard and B and
C had already flee from the place with money. And if that time A kills the
guard, then for this act A would be personally liable and not B and C because A
didn’t kill the guard to prevent the robbery but for rather for his 'personal
safety'.
Therefore, in common
intention, the accuse have the same mindset to commit an offence. All the
accuse had the clear picture from A to Z of how that offence will be done to
meet their end goal. Whereas in criminal conspiracy the accuse might not have
the same mindset due to the circumstances, of how their act will be
carried out but have an illegal objective that needs to be achieved and
therefore any other illegal act done by any other co-accuse in order to keep
alive the achievement of that particular (conspired illegally) objective, then
all will be tried under a criminal conspiracy.
The difference in punishment: As we could see
that there is a difference in the punishment of both the sections and the
punishment provided in the common intention is more harsh and severe as all the
accused will be liable for the same act. Therefore, the prosecution always
tries to if possible to prove the common intention, but it is difficult to
establish due to lack of availability of direct evidence and only relying on
circumstantial evidence. But once proved, the case turns around one-sided in
the favor of the prosecution.
In Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin v
State of Maharashtra, the SC held that if both the accuse and co-accuse are
present at the crime spot at the time of the crime and participate in the
offence, then both will try under section 34 (principle of joint liability). On
the other hand in case the co-accuse was not present at the crime spot at the
time of the crime but he had all the knowledge about the situation and
circumstances of the offence, then he will be tried under section 120(B). Even
if no step is taken out to carry that offence but the close association of
conspiracy with incitement and abetment.
1 Comments
Nice post
ReplyDelete