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.
Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, suddenly Aman (another biker) bumped into their bike. A heated argument started between the three of them. While Raghav started abusing Aman, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod lying on the road and as a consequence he died. Now, chose the correct option.
Correct Answer :
Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.
Solution :
Correct Answer: Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Understanding Common Intention vs. Individual Action:
As discussed in the passage, to establish common intention under legal principles, there must be a shared pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds that develops prior to or on the spot, where each person knows and shares the intention of the other. The mere presence of multiple individuals at a scene or an argument does not automatically mean they share a common intention to commit a specific criminal act like murder.
2. Analyzing the Facts of the Case:
- Raman and Raghav got into a heated verbal argument with Aman after a motorcycle collision.
- Raghav participated in the argument by abusing Aman.
- Raman independently picked up an iron rod from the road and struck Aman, resulting in Aman's death.
- There is no evidence showing that Raghav knew Raman was going to hit Aman with an iron rod or that Raghav shared any intention to cause death or fatal bodily harm to Aman.
3. Application of Legal Principle:
Since abusing someone during a sudden quarrel does not imply a shared intention to commit murder, common intention cannot be attributed to Raghav for Raman's sudden, individual act. Therefore, Raghav cannot be held liable for murder due to the absence of a common intention to kill Aman.
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.
