Passage (Q.96-Q.100): Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.
Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….” The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of ‘several persons’ be known to each other for constituting common intention.
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?
Correct Answer :
All of the above.
Solution :
The correct answer is All of the above.
Let us analyze each statement step-by-step based on the provided legal passage and established principles of criminal law:
1. Statement 1: "The intention of the accused and co-accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case."
As stated in the passage, common intention need not be proved by direct evidence of a long-standing prior agreement; rather, it "could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case" and may develop even on the spot.
2. Statement 2: "Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable."
Common intention establishes joint liability (acting in concert pursuant to a pre-arranged plan). When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
3. Statement 3: "Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved."
If common intention or a shared pre-concert cannot be established among multiple accused persons, joint liability fails. In such cases, the court treats their intentions as merely similar rather than common, making each individual liable only for the specific act/offence he himself actually committed.
Since all three individual statements accurately reflect the legal distinction between common intention and similar intention as detailed in the passage, All of the above is the correct option.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
