Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Criminal Knowledge or Intention (S. 3(6) BNS)
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) lays down various principles to determine criminal liability when an act involves more than one person. Section 3(6) BNS deals with situations where a criminal act is carried out by several individuals, but the act becomes criminal only because it is done with a particular knowledge or intention. In such cases, each person involved is held liable as if the act were done by them alone with that knowledge or intention. This provision ensures that when multiple people participate in an act that requires a specific mental element, all participants who share that knowledge or intention are equally responsible for the consequences of the act. Thus, Section 3(6) BNS emphasizes the importance of shared knowledge or intention in determining collective criminal liability.
Liability in Case of Criminal Knowledge or Intention
Section 3(6) BNS:
Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.
This provision ensures that when an act derives its criminality from a guilty mind, every participant who shares that guilty mind is equally responsible, regardless of the specific role played. Criminal liability follows the shared intention or knowledge, not merely the physical act.
Section 3(6) applies when an act is criminal due to its being committed with criminal knowledge or intention. In such cases, each person who joins the act with the same knowledge or intention is held equally responsible, as though they had committed the act alone. However, if individuals involved have differing intentions or knowledge, liability is determined individually based on their specific intent or knowledge.
Essential Ingredients of Section 3(6) BNS:
- The act is criminal because of intention or knowledge;
- Several persons participate in the act; and
- Each participant shares the same guilty knowledge or intention.
Section 3(6) BNS thus ensures that liability is proportionate to the individual’s culpable state of mind, unlike Section 3(5) BNS, which presumes joint responsibility under a shared intention. Section 3(6) BNS only speaks of a number of persons doing an act with certain criminal knowledge or intention and not under a common intention, so that a pre-concerted plan will not be necessary to make this section applicable.
In cases where multiple individuals are charged under Section 3(6) BNS, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each person had the necessary criminal knowledge or intent. Mere physical presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to attract liability under this section. The prosecution must demonstrate that the individual was aware of the crime and participated with criminal intent. This section is especially relevant in cases where crimes are committed by organized groups, such as gangs, terrorist organizations, or criminal conspiracies.
Examples:
- A and B jointly receive a package knowing it contains stolen jewellery. Receiving property is not always criminal — it becomes an offence only when done with knowledge that it is stolen. Since both A and B received it with that knowledge, each is liable as if he alone dishonestly received the stolen property.
- A and B jointly submit a false document to obtain a government benefit. Submitting a document is not criminal by itself. It becomes criminal when done dishonestly or fraudulently. If both knew the document was forged and intended to cheat, each is liable as if he alone committed the fraud.
- If A knows goods are stolen but B honestly believes they are lawful goods and helps transport them. A is liable but B is not liable under this rule, because B lacked the required criminal knowledge.
Judicial Analysis:
In Afrahim Sheikh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 SC 1263 case, the Supreme Court clarified that common intention (and by extension, similar knowledge or intention under Section 35) can be established even without prior concert or planning. The crucial test is whether the plan or mental element preceded the act constituting the offence. The Court held that all accused could be held liable if it was proven they acted with the requisite mental state, even if their roles differed.
In Digantha Mudrana vs. B. H. Girish Pai (18 September 2018) case, whre in a business dispute where multiple partners were accused of jointly committing fraud against another party. Thecourt held all partners liable under Section 35 because it was proven that each had knowledge of and participated in the fraudulent scheme. The decision emphasised that joint liability arises when all accused share the requisite knowledge or intention, not merely from their association with the business.
In Anda v. The State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 case, the Supreme Court observed Section 34 IPC (S. 3(5) BNS) applies where there is a common intention and for a criminal act done in furtherance of the common intention of all, everyone is equally responsible. Section 35 IPC (S. 3(6) BNS) requires the existence of the knowledge or intent in each accused before he can be held liable if knowledge or intent is necessary to make the act criminal. Thus if two persons beat a third and one intends to cause his death and the other to cause only grievous injury and there is no common intention, their offences will be different. This would not be the case if the offence is committed with a common intention or each accused possessed the necessary intention or knowledge. Thus, the Apex Court clarified that Section 35 IPC (S. 3(6) BNS) requires that each accused person must individually possess the necessary knowledge or intent to be held liable, distinguishing it from the shared intent of Section 34 (S. 3(5) BNS).
Distinguish between S. 3(5) and 3(6) BNS:
| Section 3(5) BNS | Section 3(6) BNS |
| Section 3(5) corresponds to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention | Section 3(6) corresponds to act done with criminal knowledge or intention by several persons |
| Section 3(5) is associated with common intention meaning there must be a prior meeting of minds (which can develop on the spot). | Section 3(6) is associated with same criminal knowledge or intention meaning each accused individually possesses the required intention or knowledge that makes the act criminal. |
| Section 3(5) creates a principle of joint liability, each person is liable as if he alone committed the act. | Section 3(6) clarifies liability when an act becomes criminal because of intention/knowledge — those sharing that mental state are equally liable. |
| Section 3(5) requires some form of pre-arranged plan or common design. | Section 3(6) does not require a pre-arranged plan, but requires proof that each participant had the required guilty mind. |
| Example: A and B plan to kill C. They attack C together. Both are liable for murder because the act was done in furtherance of their common intention. | Example: A and B administer poison to C. If both knew it was poison and intended to cause death, each is liable for murder. If only A knew it was poison, B’s liability depends on his knowledge. |
Difference between Common Intention and Common Knowledge:
The difference between Common Intention and Common Knowledge is an important concept in criminal law, especially in understanding joint liability for criminal acts.
Common Intention → “We planned to do it”
Common Knowledge → “We knew what could happen“
| Common Intention | Common Knowledge |
| Common intention means a prior meeting of minds between two or more persons to commit a criminal act, and the act is done in furtherance of that shared intention. | Common knowledge means two or more persons are aware of the likely consequences of an act, and they participate in the act with that shared awareness. |
| Requires pre-arranged plan or concert. | Prior planning is not necessary. |
| Participants act together toward the same criminal objective. | Persons act knowing the probable result of the act. |
| Each person is responsible for the acts of others done in furtherance of the common intention. | Liability arises because they shared knowledge of the consequences. |
| Example: A and B plan to rob C. During the robbery B kills C. Even if A did not kill him, A may still be liable for murder because the act occurred in furtherance of their common intention. | Example: A and B beat C severely knowing that such a beating could cause death. If C dies, both may be liable because they had common knowledge that their act could result in death. |
Conclusion:
Section 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 plays an important role in determining criminal liability when an act is committed by several persons with a shared intention or knowledge. It emphasizes that when a criminal act depends on a particular intention or awareness, each individual involved is held responsible according to the mental state they possess. This provision ensures fairness in the administration of justice by distinguishing the level of culpability among participants in a joint act. Therefore, Section 3(6) BNS reinforces the principle that criminal liability is not based solely on participation in an act but also on the intention or knowledge accompanying it.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here