The doctrine of common intention plays a pivotal role in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Section 34, as well as under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 3(5). This article delves into the legal framework and jurisprudence surrounding common intention, where multiple individuals act in furtherance of a shared criminal goal.

The discussion includes the historical context, a comparative analysis of Section 34 IPC and Section 3(5) BNS, and an in-depth exploration of relevant case laws that have shaped the doctrine's interpretation by courts. By focusing on leading judgments, the article offers a comprehensive understanding of how liability is determined when a criminal act is executed by several persons under a common plan.

Introduction
The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(5) of the BNS creates vicarious liability, holding every individual in a group equally responsible for a criminal act done in furtherance of their shared intention. Unlike conspiracy, common intention does not require prior agreement but merely the presence of a shared intention at the time of the crime. This principle is crucial in scenarios where direct involvement in the crime may not be evident, yet liability is attributed to all participants based on their collective intent.

The courts have consistently applied this doctrine to hold each member of a group responsible as if the act were committed solely by them. This article will explore the key elements of common intention and how they have evolved under Indian jurisprudence, supported by authoritative case laws and statutes.

Statutory Framework
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 IPC reads: "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." The provision does not create a substantive offence but attributes joint liability when a crime is committed in furtherance of a shared intention.

The essential elements of Section 34 include:

• The criminal act must be committed by several persons.
• There must be a common intention among the participants.
• The act must be done in furtherance of that common intention.

Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 3(5) of the BNS incorporates similar principles: "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." While the language mirrors IPC Section 34, the BNS offers a more structured and refined understanding, emphasizing the evolving needs of modern criminal jurisprudence in India. Section 3(5) maintains the same liability mechanism but within the broader framework of reformed criminal law under the BNS.

Judicial Interpretation
Case Law: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925 SCC OnLine PC 1)
One of the earliest cases interpreting Section 34 was Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, where the Privy Council upheld the doctrine of common intention. In this case, the accused stood outside the post office while his accomplices entered and shot the postmaster. Although Barendra did not fire the fatal shot, the Privy Council held that he was equally liable under Section 34 as the act was done in furtherance of a common intention to rob the post office. This case laid the foundation for understanding that physical presence or participation in the overt act is not always necessary; the shared intention suffices to attract liability.

Case Law: R. v. Mahbub Shah (1945 SCC OnLine PC 6)
The decision in R. v. Mahbub Shah provided further clarity on the principle of common intention, highlighting that the prosecution must prove a pre-arranged plan or shared intention between the accused. It clarified that mere presence or association at the scene of the crime does not suffice to hold an individual liable under Section 34 unless there is clear evidence of common intention.

Case Law: Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2001) 3 SCC 673
The Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh expanded upon the concept of "in furtherance of the common intention." It held that for the application of Section 34, it is not necessary that all participants in a crime perform the same role. Each participant's role may vary, yet all are equally liable as long as the act is committed to further their shared intention. In this case, one of the accused was held liable under Section 34 despite not physically assaulting the victim, as he had actively participated in the plan that led to the murder.

Case Law: Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 311
In Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated that the essence of common intention is a prior meeting of minds, which can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances surrounding the crime. The case emphasized that common intention could be developed even at the spur of the moment and need not be premeditated.

Case Law: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955) 1 SCR 1083
The Supreme Court, in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, underscored the requirement of active participation or involvement in the criminal act for Section 34 to apply. The court held that if one of the accused merely stands by without participating or aiding the act, Section 34 cannot be invoked. This case helped in drawing a distinction between active and passive involvement in crimes committed under common intention.

Comparative Analysis: IPC Section 34 and BNS Section 3(5)
Although the language of IPC Section 34 and BNS Section 3(5) is almost identical, the application under the BNS reflects the recent developments in criminal law reform, particularly focusing on the accountability of individuals in a group context. BNS Section 3(5) maintains the essence of the doctrine of common intention but within a modernized legal framework that accounts for digital crimes, organized crime syndicates, and other complex criminal enterprises. The inclusion of specific guidelines on how common intention is inferred from evidence also strengthens the prosecutorial approach under the BNS.

Liability Under Common Intention
The doctrine of common intention ensures that each participant in a crime, regardless of their role, bears equal responsibility for the outcome. This principle prevents individuals from evading liability by claiming lesser involvement in the actual commission of the crime. The courts have consistently upheld the need for the prosecution to establish the existence of a common intention, either through direct evidence or circumstantial inferences.

Conclusion
The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(5) of the BNS plays a crucial role in ensuring that all participants in a crime are held equally accountable for their collective actions. While the doctrine has been a part of Indian criminal law for over a century, its interpretation has evolved through landmark judgments that have clarified the scope and application.

The concept of common intention remains a powerful tool in the prosecution of group crimes, ensuring that justice is served irrespective of individual roles. As criminal law continues to develop, particularly under the newly enacted BNS, the doctrine of common intention will likely adapt to address emerging challenges in criminal accountability.

References:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34)
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 3(5))
• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925 SCC OnLine PC 1
• R. v. Mahbub Shah, 1945 SCC OnLine PC 6
• Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2001) 3 SCC 673
• Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 311
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, (1955) 1 SCR 1083