Common Intention

In one line

Where several people do a criminal act together as part of a plan they share, each is liable for the whole act as if he had done it alone.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provides that 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 essence of the liability is a common intention animating the accused and leading to the criminal act done in furtherance of it, that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and a prior meeting of minds, though the plan need not be elaborate and may be formed suddenly; and the section creates no offence but lays down a rule of liability, so it is always read with the section defining the substantive offence.

The provision, and where to find it

Section 3(5). 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.

Under the Indian Penal Code this was section 34. In the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita it is not a section at all: it is the fifth sub-section of section 3, the general explanations clause.

Why the numbering matters more than usual. The Sanhita has a section 34, and it is "Things done in private defence": nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. So a candidate who writes "section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" for common intention has not merely used an outdated number; he has cited a provision that says something else entirely.

The safe form in an answer to a paper written in Penal Code numbering is: section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The ingredients

One: a criminal act. Which, under section 3 read with section 2(1) and section 2(25), includes a series of acts and includes an illegal omission.

Two: done by several persons. At least two. There is no upper limit and no requirement of five.

Three: in furtherance of the common intention of all. The heart of the provision.

Four: participation. The person sought to be made liable must have participated in the criminal act in some way, though what counts as participation is where the Postmaster case does its work.

Common intention, pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds

Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941, decided on 31 January 1945.