Legal Difference That Could Decide Your Fate!
“We were all there but are we all equally guilty?”
It is a question that has echoed through courtrooms across Sri Lanka for decades. When a crime involves several people, the law does not simply assume that everyone shares the same level of responsibility. Instead, it carefully examines why they acted together and what they intended to achieve.
This is where two powerful legal concepts come into play; Common Intention and Common Object. While these terms may sound similar, they carry very different meanings under Sri Lankan criminal law. Understanding the distinction can make the difference between individual liability and shared criminal responsibility.
Table of Contents
What Is Common Intention Under Sri Lankan Law?
Imagine several people working together to carry out a criminal act. They may have discussed it beforehand or formed the intention at the very last moment. What matters is that they ultimately shared the same purpose and acted together to achieve it.
This principle is governed by Section 32 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code, which provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each person is liable for that act as though they had committed it alone.
In simple terms, even if one person’s direct participation was limited, they may still be held legally responsible for the entire offence if it was committed in furtherance of the shared intention.
A common misunderstanding is that Common Intention always requires a detailed plan made well in advance. However, the law is more flexible than that. Although many cases involve evidence of a pre-arranged plan or prior agreement, Sri Lankan courts have recognised that a common intention may also arise spontaneously, even on the spur of the moment.
However, the courts have repeatedly warned against assuming Common Intention too easily. Simply being present at the scene or having a similar intention is not enough. The prosecution must establish that there was a genuine meeting of minds and a shared purpose directed towards the commission of the criminal act.
What Is Common Object Under Sri Lankan Law?
Now consider a different situation. Suppose five or more people gather as an unlawful assembly, all pursuing the same objective. They may never have discussed the details beforehand, yet they are united by a common purpose.
This is where the principle of Common Object applies.
Unlike Common Intention, Common Object does not require a prior meeting of minds or a pre-arranged plan. If five or more persons share the same object, they may constitute an unlawful assembly even without prior agreement.
The governing provision is Section 138 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code. Under this section, members of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, as well as for offences that they knew were likely to be committed in pursuit of that object.
The emphasis here is not on a carefully coordinated plan, but on the shared purpose of the unlawful assembly itself.
Difference Between Common Intention and
Common Object
Although both principles involve shared criminal responsibility, they are far from identical.
Common Intention requires evidence of a shared intention directed towards a particular criminal act. It generally involves a meeting of minds, whether formed before the incident or even during its commission.
Common Object, on the other hand, focuses on the purpose of an unlawful assembly. It does not require proof of prior planning or prior agreement. The existence of five or more persons sharing the same object is the key requirement.
Key Differences
- Common Intention centres on a shared criminal intention and requires a meeting of minds.
- Common Object centres on the shared purpose of an unlawful assembly and does not require prior planning or agreement.
- Common Intention can apply to two or more persons, whereas Common Object applies only where there are five or more persons forming an unlawful assembly.
Confusing these two legal principles can lead to serious errors in determining criminal liability.
How Have Sri Lankan Courts Interpreted These Principles?
Sri Lankan courts have repeatedly clarified the distinction between Common Intention and Common Object through several important judicial decisions.
Attorney-General v. Potta Naufar and Others (Ambepitiya Murder Case)
Widely known as the Ambepitiya Murder Case, this case arose from the 2004 assassination of Sri Lankan High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya and his police bodyguard. A High Court Trial-at-Bar found the five defendants guilty of conspiracy and murder, sentencing them to death by hanging.
The court stressed that Common Intention requires evidence of pre-arrangement, a pre-arranged plan, or a declaration demonstrating the existence of a shared intention. In a murder prosecution, the common intention itself must be a murderous one.
Thudugalage Don Lasantha Niroshan v. Hon. Attorney General
(CA/HCC/105-106/20)
In this landmark judgment, the Court considered the application of Common Intention in relation to joint liability for murder and unlawful assembly. The appellants were indicted before the High Court of Kalutara for participating in an unlawful assembly that resulted in the murders of Thudugalage Don Chandrasena and Thudugalage Don Nishani in 1998 at Iddagoda.
The Court cautioned against confusing similar intentions with Common Intention. It observed that merely being present at the scene or becoming involved later does not automatically create joint criminal liability. The inference of Common Intention should only be drawn where it is the necessary conclusion arising from the surrounding circumstances.
Why Understanding the Difference Matters
When several people are involved in the commission of an offence, the law does not simply assume that everyone bears the same level of responsibility. Instead, it carefully examines the facts, the role of each individual, and the legal principles governing joint criminal liability.
Although Common Intention and Common Object are often discussed together, they are distinct legal concepts with different requirements and consequences. Confusing the two can lead to serious errors in determining criminal liability.
Understanding this distinction is essential not only for legal practitioners and law students but also for anyone seeking to better understand how Sri Lankan criminal law attributes responsibility when offences involve multiple participants.
Key Legal Takeaways
- Common Intention and Common Object are distinct legal principles that determine joint criminal liability under Sri Lankan law.
- Common Intention, governed by Section 32 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code, requires a shared criminal intention and a meeting of minds.
- Common Object, governed by Section 138 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code, applies to unlawful assemblies consisting of five or more persons and does not require prior planning or agreement.
- Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish joint criminal liability.
- Whether a person can be held responsible depends on the specific facts of the case and whether the legal requirements of the relevant principle have been satisfied.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Conclusion
Understanding the distinction between Common Intention and Common Object is essential because these principles determine how joint criminal liability is assessed under Sri Lankan law. Although both involve shared responsibility, they differ significantly in their legal requirements, application, and consequences.
As reflected in the provisions of the Sri Lankan Penal Code and the decisions of the courts, criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because several persons were involved in the same incident. Each case must be assessed on its own facts to determine whether the legal requirements for Common Intention or Common Object have been satisfied.