Author: Arpita Singh Bhadauriya, Shambhunath institute of law, Prayagraj
To the point
Barendra Kumar Ghose case is the notorious in the IPC, relating to common intention. By this case it broad the interpretation of communal intention by Privy Council. The case is rotate around the principle of common intent and collective liability. This paper is frequently discusses the vicarious liability, where individual involved in a collaborative criminal act even if they didn’t shared in a crime.
Abstract
In 1925 Privy Council in post office case (Barendra Kumar Ghose case) laid down the wider rule of common intention indeed indicated accused isn’t present at the time of act but shared in furtherance of felonious act. In this case group of member performing an illegal act while one of the co-accused stayed outdoor, the other members entered in the post office to demand plutocrat from post master but he refused and resisted. So one the accused fired and kill the post master.
The court set up the indicated shamefaced of murder under sec.300 read with sec.34 of IPC, in headway of common intention. The court ruled in this case if a multiple person commit a criminal act with common intention, in furtherance of act each individual will be held responsible the act solely. In this article, the Judgment of the court widened the scope of the word ‘criminal intention’ and constructive and vicarious liability of accused.
Use of legal jargon
Other issues addressed in this opinion include common intention, vicarious liability, meetings of mind, constructive liability. Furthermore, the court expressly stated that this sec.34 is held liable if the person solely indulge in crime without any act. Privy Council amended the sec.34 of IPC with vicarious liability. That coconspirator will be responsible without any act but by participation in a felonious act.
The Proof
Barendra Kumar Ghose case has molded the sec.34 of IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention; commit a criminal act each of those persons will be held liable. The constituents of the sec. 34 and case which proof that accused were the responsible, are, criminal act by several persons is necessary, common intention must be there, participation in criminal act.
If there is no common intention amongst suspect sec.34 will cannot be withdrawn. Sec.34 only applies if there are several persons. In court it must be prove that there are several persons and they acted in furtherance of the criminal act according to sec.34. On the other side participation in an act not necessary they just act in furtherance of common intention. Prior meeting of mind is the element of this case and sec.34. In Barendra Kumar Ghose case Privy Council also perceive the prior meeting of mind (common intention) and held liable Ghose on the ground that he is not actively present but he was participated in a crime. Privy Council also differentiates between the difference of common object and common intention. Common object is explained under sec.149 of IPC. In common object there is no prior meeting of mind. If the individual is acting unaccompanied and is part of sec.34 he will be liable for an act. Court in presence in any criminal act envisions the common intention of accused.
Case laws
Barendra Kumar Ghose v Emperor (1925) momentous on the ruling of common intention.
Pandurang v state of Hyderabad (1955) in this case court held that individual will not be liable for the other act if there no common intention between them.
3. Mahboob shah v Emperor (1945) in this case court also ruled the importance of common intention that without this element person can’t be considered as accused.
Conclusion
Barendra Kumar Ghose v Emperor is a landmark case in relation of common intention in which Privy Council enlarge the scope of common intention and constructive liability and interpret the sec.34 of IPC. Common intention is present between two or more person. Active participation of accused is not indispensable under sec.34 of IPC. In this case the accomplice charged with sec.302 read with sec.34 of IPC, it was also held that active presence of accused was present in furtherance of an act and he will be liable for the act. However, interpretation of common intention through this case was necessary and patent by which the accused was liable and in presence scenario it is beneficial for court for punishing the accused for their criminal act.
FAQs
What is common intention?
Common intention is when two or more persons do criminal act with prior meeting of mind and presence of actual contribution is not necessary.
Landmark case related to common intention is?
Barendra Kumar Ghose v Emperor is renowned for the common intention.
Is active participation is necessary in common intention?
Actual presence of accused is not necessary in common intention. If the accused is part of common intention of criminal act he will be held liable for the act.
What is difference between common object and common intention?
Common object is under sec.149 and common intention is under sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
