Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is the "General explanations" section - a set of interpretive rules that apply across the whole code. Its best-known rule is Section 3(5), the principle of common intention: the provision that was Section 34 IPC, one of the most invoked sections in Indian criminal law. The BNS folded it into Section 3 as a sub-section, dropping the old heading but changing nothing else.
What Section 3(5) BNS provides
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of those persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. It is a rule of joint liability, not a separate offence: no one is charged "under Section 3(5)" by itself. It is always read with a substantive offence - for example, a murder charge against several accused invokes the murder provision read with Section 3(5).
How the common-intention rule works
- Prior meeting of minds. The prosecution must show a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds to commit the criminal act. The plan need not be elaborate or old - common intention can develop at the spur of the moment, even during the incident itself.
- Common intention, not similar intention. Two people who independently happen to want the same result do not share a common intention. What is required is a shared, communicated purpose in furtherance of which the act is done.
- Participation. Each accused must participate in the criminal act in some way - by doing the act, facilitating it, or standing guard - though every participant need not perform the same role or strike the fatal blow.
- Equal liability. Once common intention and participation are established, each person is punished as if they alone had done the act.
Common intention versus common object
The common-intention rule is often confused with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the assembly's common object. The two are distinct: common intention requires a shared plan and participation and applies to any number of persons (two or more), while the unlawful-assembly rule applies to groups of five or more and rests on membership of the assembly and its object rather than on a pre-arranged plan. Which rule fits a case changes both the charge and the defence.
What else Section 3 covers
The rest of Section 3 contains the code's other general explanations - background rules on how definitions, exceptions and expressions in the Sanhita are to be understood and applied when reading every offence. Sub-section (5) is the part of the section that most often appears in FIRs and charges, which is why this page focuses on it.
What changed from Section 34 IPC
Nothing of substance. Section 34 IPC became Section 3(5) BNS: the old stand-alone section, with its heading "Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention", now sits as a sub-section inside the General explanations section, without the heading and with no other change. The decades of Supreme Court case law on common intention continue to apply.
Leading Supreme Court judgments
- Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955) - common intention requires a prior meeting of minds; mere presence at the scene, or even a similar intention held separately, is not enough.
- Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001) - on the participation required before a person can be held liable for an act done in furtherance of the common intention.
Named in a case along with others under the common-intention rule? Whether the prosecution can establish a shared plan and your participation is often the whole case. Talk to a criminal lawyer in your city or browse advocates in the Free Law directory.