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.
After reading the passage which of the following is not correct in relation to the difference between Common and Similar intention?
Correct Answer :
Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence.
Solution :
Correct Option: Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence.
Explanation:
The passage explicitly states that common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act (which may develop well in advance or on the spot, on the spur of the moment). It does not hold true that similar intention is developed prior while common intention develops only at the time of commission of the offense. Therefore, this statement is not correct in relation to the distinction between common and similar intention.
Let us analyze the details from the passage:
1. Timing of Common Intention: The passage states, "Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap... could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment."
2. Difference in Intention & Liability: Common intention requires that the intention of each person be known to and shared by the rest (acting in concert pursuant to a plan), rendering participants liable for the pre-concerted action. In contrast, similar intention involves individual intentions actuated at the same time without necessarily sharing or knowing each other's intent.
3. Facts and Circumstances: Determining whether an intention is common or similar requires inferring intent from the specific facts and circumstances of each case, as noted by the fine boundary highlighted in Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar.
Hence, the incorrect statement regarding the difference between Common and Similar intention is the first 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.
