Can you explain the concept of common objective under sec 190 of the BNS, and how it differ from common intention?
Can you explain the concept of common objective under sec 190 of the BNS, and how it differ from common intention?
Written by- Shalini Bishi
INTRODUCTION
As the question suggest Their are 2 word-common intention", "common object"
The concept of common intention defines under sec 3(5) of BNS corresponds to sec 34of IPC.
Common intention
Intention is the important stage of crime to commit and intention must be guilty (mensrea). without intention Their will he no crime This is the general Rule but Their are some exception. when this guilty intention shared among two on more person Then it is called as Common intention
common objective
common object means when The objective or purpose behind the commission of crime is same among the member of Assembly.
Ingredients of common intention
1) common intention means matching of mind among Two or more person to commit crime.
2) criminal Act done by several person.
3) criminal Act in furtherance of common intention.
4)each person liable for the same offence.
we can under stand This ingredient Through an Illustration-
A, B, C,D make planning to commit dacoity in the house of ' X ' they planned that-
'B and A ' will entered to the house with weapons. 'C' stay in the main door so that he can inform other member if there is any danger. And ' D 'will Threaten the member of that house, so here
all ingredient fulfilled-
- criminal Act done by: A,B,C,D (several person)
- criminal Act in further acance of common intention Among A.B.C.D
- All person included in the comission of crime, Then all person liable for the offence of Dacoity.
COMMON OBJECTIVE
INGREDIENT
1. Thein must be a unlawful Assembly.
2. The Assembly consist of 5 or more persons.
3. Their must he a common objective of that Assembly.
ILLUSTRATION
A, B, C, X, Y,Z 6 person constitute an unlawful assembly, and the common intention of that assembly to attack the public servant. so here all these 6 persons liable for the offence, Their is no matching of mind Among them, Their is only common objective to commit that crime.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON OBJECTIVE AND COMMON INTENTION
1. Their must he an unlawful Assembly in common objective but their is no need of unlawful assembly for common intention.
2. The unlawful assembly must consist of minimum 5 persons, for common intention their is need of two or more person.
3. Their is no need of matching of mind in common objective, but their is need of matching of mind I common intention.
4. Common objective itself a crime, but only common intention is not a crime.
5. Common objective is a punishable offence, but only common intention is not an offence.
Let's consider an example which we took before In the first illustration A,B,C,D commit Dacoity with planning and matching of mind, but in 2nd illustration A,B,C,X,Y,Z have only one purpose to attack public servant their is no matching of mind.
CONCLUSION
In the above discussion we can conclude that -
Generally intention means- the guilty mind behind crime.
And objective means-the goal behind the commission of crime.
QUESTION 2
WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS TYPES OF THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT?
"Punishment is a consequence of wrongful acts. When any person commits a crime defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), they shall be punishable with the punishment provided under the IPC. The main purpose of punishment is to prevent crime and set an example, so that people do not even think about committing a crime.
When a sensitive case like rape comes to light, we conduct candle marches, demand justice for the victim, and if the accused receives punishment, is it enough? Is it justice for the victim? According to my opinion, the victim actually gets justice if society changes and reforms in a positive way."
"There are some theories on which basis punishment is meted out, as provided in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
1. Deterrent Theory
The Deterrent Theory consists of the word 'deter', which means to prevent. As the name suggests, the main intention behind this theory is to prevent crime by imposing severe punishment, thereby setting an example for society. However, the question arises whether this theory is really effective. According to me, no, because in the Nirbhaya case, the accused were punished with the death penalty, but did rape cases decrease? This type of theory fails after the completion of punishment and creates sympathy in the minds of the public for the accused.
2. Retributive Theory
The word 'retribute' means to give in return the same thing, or to pay back. This theory is based on the principle of 'tit for tat', as stated in the phrase 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. It means that if a person commits rape, they should receive punishment equivalent to the suffering of the victim. The main principle of this theory is that a person cannot realize the gravity of their offense until they experience the same suffering as the victim. However, this theory is contrary to the principles of Mahatma Gandhi and is not really effective. If we inflict the same torture on the accused as the victim experienced, is that really justice?"
"According to me, no, this is not justice or a good example for society. If we do the same, then what will be the difference between the accused and the justice system?
3. Preventive Theory
As the name suggests, this theory aims to prevent crime by keeping wrongdoers in jail or keeping them away from society. This theory is somewhat effective and is practiced by the Indian judiciary.
4. Reformative Theory
This theory is based on the principle "Hate the sin, not the sinner". It focuses on the reformation of the accused and bringing them back to society, so they can start anew. This theory is effective and morally as well as legally sound.
5. Compensatory Theory
This theory is based on the principle of self-realization. If a person realizes their mistake, that's better than the entire concept of punishment. If they acknowledge their guilt, they should be forgiven and provide compensation to the victim for their loss.
Conclusion
The main purpose of punishment is to provide justice and take a step forward to change society. To achieve this change, theories like Deterrent, Retributive, Reformative, Preventive, and Compensatory are provided.