Common Intention and common object

Common Intention

 Section 34 of the pakistan penal code deals with constructive criminality i.e., liability of all for acts done by one or   more. This section was introduced in order to meet the cases in which it may be difficult to apportion the liability of each member according to his participation in the commission of the crime. Since it is difficult to distinguish precisely the part taken by each member of a group, it was thought necessary to declare all the persons equally liable for the acts done. SEction 34 does not create a distinct offence, it only lays down the principle of joint criminal liability. So it is a rule of evidence only and does not create a substantive offence.

The words “furtherance of common intention “have been the subject of much discussion amongst the lawyers and  conflicting interpretations have been put forth.

 One common agreed point has, however, been that furtherance of commonly design is the condition precedent for joint liability under section 34. The words common intention means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF BODY

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF BODY :

 Section 97 lays down that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained is Section 99, to defend his own body and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Section 102 of the Code provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence the offence though, the offence may not have been committed; and it commences as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. It is clear from the wording of the section that the right commences and continues as long as danger to body lasts. The extent to which the exercise of the right will be justified will depend not on the actual danger but on whether there was reasonable apprehension of such danger. There must be an attempt or threat, and consequent thereon an apprehension of danger, but it should not be a mere idle threat. There must be reasonable ground for the apprehension.

 The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offence occasioning the exercise of the right be of any of the following descriptions, viz.,

 (i) an assault" causing reasonable apprehension of death-even injury to innocent persons in private defence against an assault is excusable,

 (ii) assault causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt;.

 (iii) assault with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting or wrongfully confining a person causing reasonable apprehension that he will not be able to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

 For the purpose of exercising the right of private defence physical or mental incapacity of the person against whom the right is exercised is no bar.There is, however, no right of private defence:

 (1) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant or by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law;

 (2) in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities ;

 (3) nor does the right of private defence extend to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. (S. 99).The measure of defence must bear proportion to the quantum of force used by the attacker and which it is necessary to repeL Thus where the accused who was attacked by another with a Kirpan succeeded in disarming his opponent by taking away hls weapon and showered blows after blows including the serious ones on the chest, it was held that he must be held to have exceeded the right of self defence and was guilty under section 304, part 1 of pakistan penal code.

 An act done in exercise of the right of private defence is not an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence in return. The right is not available in respect of anticipated action. Defensive action is justified only when positive overt act of damage or harm is set in motion. The law does not confer a right of self-defence on a man who goes and seeks an attack on himself by his own threatened attack on another' -an'attack which was likely to end in the death of the other.The right of self-defence conferred- by the law or Preserved by the law for an individual is a very narrow and circumscribed right and can be taken advantage of only when the circumstances fully justify the exercise of such a right.

What is an act excusable on the ground of its being done by accident or misfortune ? Cite illustrations.

ACCIDENT IN DOING A LAWFUL ACT :

Section 80 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. A is at work with a hatchet; the head files off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. The essential ingredients to constitute a justifiable plea ofaccident or misfortune are :

 (1) that the act was done by accident or misfortune ;

 (2) that it was done without any criminal intention ;

 (3) that it was the doing of a lawful act ;

 (4) in a lawful manner;

 (5) by lawful means; and

 (6) with proper care and caution.

 If has been held that where two persons went out to shoot animals and agreed to take up certain position in the jungle and lie in wait, but after a while the accused heard a rustle and believing it to be an animal fired in that direction but the shot killed his companion, the Case was held to be one of pure accident, although the gun used was an unlicensed one. But where the accused was engaged in a fight in which a woman intervened, whereupon the accused aimed a blow at her, but it accidentally killed the infant she was carrying, it was held that the. case was not protected by the provisions of Section 80 as the assault on the woman was a wrongful act.

ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES :
Section 511, lays down that "whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life  or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the  commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt,  be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of  the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence,  with such fine as provided for the offence, or with both.
The points which require proof under the above section are:

(1) that the accused attempted to commit some offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment; or that he  attempted to cause such an offence to be committed ;
(2) that in attempting to do the above act he did some act towards the commission of the offence.

ILLUSTRATIONS :

(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box and finds after so opening the box, that there is no  jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under the above section.

(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt in  consequence z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of an offence under the above section.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

Subject to, certain limitations the law gives a right to every person to defend his body or property, or the body or property of another person against unlawful aggression. He may protect his right by his own force or prevent it from being violated. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. This use of force to protect one's property and person is called the right of private defence.

Plea of compulsion or Necessity.

PLEA OF COMPULSION OR NECESSITY 

The excuse of necessity or compulsion as a defence for an act cannot be pleaded except as provided in Section 94 of  the Pakistan Penal Code. That section lays down that except murder and offences against the State punishable with  death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which, at the time of doing it,  reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the  person doing the act did not, of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant  death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. This section will not, however, save a person who, of his own accord or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits. But if he is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law. for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it under pain of instant death, will be entitled to the benefit of this section.

It is thus clear from the above that a person is excused from the consequences of any act, except murder and offences  against the State punishable with death, done under fear of instant death ;but fear of hurt or even of grievous hurt is not  a sufficient justification. It has been held that the accused was not entitled to the protection of Section 94 of the Code in  the case where the threat of instant death was present at the beginning or even some time afterwards but did not  continue till the end of the commission of an offence. There must be the apprehension of force upon the person and fear  of death, and this force and fear must continue to be present at the time of the act.

Offences relating to religion.

They are provided in section 295 to 298 of Pakistan penal code , which are as follow:
1. Injuring or defiling a place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with intent to insult the religion of any class of persons. (section 295--- punishment upto two years with or without fine)
2. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (section 295-A.... punishment upto three years)

3. Voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies. ( section 296... punishment upto one year)
4.Trespassing in any place of worship , or burial place, offering any indignity to a human corpse, with intent to wound the feelings or religion of any person. (section 297.... punishment upto one year)
5. Uttering words or making signs with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person . section 298 ... punishment upto one year.
6. Using derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Passenger . Section 298-A.... punishment upto three years or fine or both.

Criminal liability of an intoxicated Person.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF AN INTOXICATED PERSON
Section 85 of Pakistan penal code lays down that nothing is an offence whis is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nture of act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

The ingredients of this section are that a person will be exonerated from liability for an act done while in a state of intoxication if he at the time of doing it, by reason of intoxication was:
1. incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
2. That he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
3. That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowleged or against his will.
Voluntary drunkness is no excuse for the commission of the crime. But if a man is made drunk through stratagem or the fraud of others, or through ignorance, or through any other means against his will, he is excused.
Section 86 of pakistan penal code further says that a person voluntarily drunk will be deemed to have the same knowledge and liable for the consequences as he would have had if he had not intoxicated. The section attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a sober man when judging of his action , unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledege or against his will.

PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED OUTSIDE PAKISTAN

PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED OUTSIDE PAKISTAN...

There is no express enactment by which the pakistan's legislature can assume to render foreigners subject to the criminal law with reference to acts committed by them beyond the limits of pakistan. In the words of chief justice Cockburn, 

" proposition of law can be more incontestable or more universally admitted than that, according to the general law of nations, a foreigner, though criminally responsible to the law of the nation not his own for acts done by him while within the limits of its territory, cannot be made responsible to its law for acts done beyond such limits . The rule must however, be taken subject to this qualification, namely6, that if the legislature of a particular country should think fit by express enactment to render foreigners subject to its law with reference to offences committed beyond the limits of its territory, it would be incumbent, on the courts of such country to give effect to such enectment, leaving it to the state to settle the question of international law withthe governmentsof other nations."

The acts of a foreigner committed by him in the territory beyond the limits of pakistan do not, therefore constitute an offence against the penal code, and consequently, a foreigner cannot be held criminally responsible under that code by the tribunals of this country for acts committed byhim beyond its territorial limits.

 It is only for acts done when the person doing them is within the territory over which the authority of pakistan law extends, that the subjects of a foreign state owe obedience to that law and can be made amenable to its jurisdiction. Thus when it is sought to punish a person, who is not a pakistani subject, as an offender in respect of certain act, the question is not, where was the act committed, but, was the person at the time when the offence was committed, within the territory of Pakistan.

EXTRADITION....

Extardition means the surrender of fugitive offender by one state to another in which the offender is liable to be punished or has been convicted. The law of extradition is founded upon the broad principle that it is to the interest of

Civilized communities that crimes, acknowledged to be such, should not go unpunished, and it is part of the comity of the nations that one state should afford to another every assistance towardsbringing persons guilty of such crimes to justice.

Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition.

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries.

 The refusal of a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained.

 Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether or not this is justified). A case in point is that of Ira Einhorn, in which some US

 commentators pressured President Jacques Chirac of France, who does not intervene in legal cases, to permit extradition when the case was held up due to differences between French and American human rights law.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE:

 The offences against the state may be classified as under:

1. Waging or attempting or conspiring to wage or collecting men and ammunition to wage war against the government of pakistan ( sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 of pakistan penaal code.)

 2. Assaulting president, or governor of any province with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power.

 ( section 124 of pakistan penal code).

 3. Sedition (section 124-A of pakistan penal code).

 4. War against the government of any asiatic power at peace with pakistan or committing depredations on the territories of such power ( sections 123 - 126 of pakistan penal code)

ENHANCED PUNISHMENT

 Section 75 of pakistan penal code provides that whoever, having been convicted by a court in pakistan of an offence punishable under chapterXII or chapter XVII of the code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under any of those chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for evey such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life , imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

 The above section does not create a substantive offence, but only imposes a liability to enhanced punishment under the following conditions:

 1. The previous conviction must have been under chapter XII or chapter XVII of the pakistan penal code punishable with three years imprisonment.

 2. The previous conviction must not have necessarily resulted in the awarding of three years punishment, but it must be an offence punishable with three years improsonment or more.

 3. The subsequent offence must have been committed after the previous conviction, i.e, the section is inapplicable to offences committed at one and at the sid time.

 4. The subsequent offence must be an offence punishable with three years imprisonment or more.

 5. The subsequent offence must fall under chapter XII or chapter XVII and be punishable with three years imprisonment or more before section 73 of the pakistan penal code can be made applicable.

Punishment under Pakistan Penal Code and Punishment in Islam

PUNISHMENT UNDER PAKISTAN PENAL CODE

The scheme of the punishment is laid down from sections 53 to 75 of the pakistan penal code out of which five sections namely sections 56, 58, 59, 61, and 62 have already been repealed. Different types of punishments rules for their assessment and enhancement in subsequent offence, from the subject matter of this topic.

PUNISHMENT IN ISLAM

The punishment in islam in its nature, is deterrent as well as reformative. Recent researches reveal that imprisonment is and has, infact proved itself to be a source of producing criminals, besides bringing a burden on public ex-chequer.

 Fine, as prescribed in various modern legislative enactments, has miserably failed to achieve the desired results . It neither bring any reformatory to the criminalnor put any deterrent effecton him. Specially in these days when the money value has gone down tremendously, the country's old scales of fines failed to produce any effects on the minds of the criminal. It is suggested that provisions relating to imposition of fine and prescribing imprisonment in various enactments may be reconsideredin the light of their effects on reforming the criminal vis-a-vis the islamic principles of punishment.

Islamic law has also additional forms of punishments. A person who is convicted of false accusation of fornication for example, is deprived of the right of testimony, a pnalty which corresponds to some extent to the loss of civil status which accompanies some convictions, today.

Punishments in islam are of three kinds

01. HADD

02. QISAS

03. TAAZIR

According to section 53 as amended by the criminal laws amendment act II of 1997, the offenders areliable to the following punishments:

 1. Qisas

 2. Diyat

 3. Arsh

 4. Daman

 5. Taazir

 6. Death

 7. Imprisonment for life

 8. imprisonment of two description (1) rigorous (2) simple

 9. Forfeiture of property

 10. Fine

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

 Conspiracy differs from oter offences in this respect that in other offences the intention to do a criminal act is not a crime of itself untill something is done amounting to the doing or attempting to do some act to carry out the intention, conspiracy on the other hand consisit simply in the agreement or confederacy to some act, no matter whether it is done or not.

 When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:

 (i) an illegal act

 (ii) or a legal act by illegal means

such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy, provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof...... section 120-A PPC.

 PUNISHMENT OR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

As regards punishment section 120-B P.P.C provides that one who is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shal, where there is no provision for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished as an abettor of such offence, in other cases he shall be liable to a punishment that may extend to six months , or with fine or with both.

ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY

As regards the difference between abetment and conspiracy the former is the wider of the two, it is a genus of which the offence of conspiracy is a species. Abetment may be committed in various ways enumerated in section 107 and 108 and conspiracy is one of them. Abetement per se is not a substantive offence, while criminal conspiracy is a substantive offenceby itself and is punishable as such.

ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY

The provisions relating to an attempt to escape from custody are contained in sections 224,225, and 225-B of the pakistan penal code.

They provide punishment:

 (a). for a person resisting or obstructing the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, orescaping or attempting to escape from legal custody. ............... 
imprisonment upto two years with fin or with both.

 (b). resisting or obstructing lawful apprehension of another person for an offence or rescuing or attempting to rescue him from legal custody......... punishment up to two years or with fine, but if the person to be apprehended is charged for an offence punishable :

 (1). with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.

 (2). or with death

 the sentence provided is up to three years and seven years respectively and

(c). resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue in cases not covered by the above two provisions........ Imprisonment up to six months or with fine.

HARBOURING AN OFFENDER

 The word "harbour" according to section 52-A, includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink , money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means to evade apprehention.

The various provisions in the penal code relate to harbouring or concealing a person knowing him to be an offender with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, harbouring or concealing an ofender having escaped from custody, or whose apprehension has been ordered, and knowingly harbouring any persons who are about to commit or have committed Robbey or Dacoity.

 The above provisions however, do not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of the person harboured, (sections212, 216, 216-A)

 The above However, presupposes that some offence has been actually committed and that the harbourer gives refuge to a person knowingly that thereby he helps to evade his apprehention or screens him from legal punishment . It does not apply to the harbouring of persons, not being criminals, who abscond to avoid or delay a judicial investigation

Solitary confinement

Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, excluding members of prison staff. It is considered by some as a form of psychological torture. It is usually cited as an additional measure of protection (of society) from the criminal. It is also used as a form of protective custody.

Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the 'hole', 'lockdown', the 'SHU' (pronounced 'shoe') or the 'pound', and in British English as the 'block' or the 'cooler'

 This is a kind of imprisonment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse or sight of, and communication with other prisoners. it may be accompanied with or without labour.

 Section 73 of pakistan penal code provides that whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under the code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment , the court may by its sentence , order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sntenced, not exceeding three months in the whole.

TERM OF IMPRISONMENT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

 ** Not exceeding six months ** a time not exceeding one month

 **exceeding 6 months but not exceeding one month ** time not exceeding two months

 ** Exceeding one year ** time not exceeding three months

 It is clear from the above that a sentence inflicting solitary confinement for the whole term of imprisonment is illegal. It must bear only a portion of the term of imprisonment.

 Section 74 of the code further limits the solitary confinement by providing that in executing a sentence of solitary confinement , such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.

Solitary confinement as a ruleis not ordered unless there are special features appearing in the commission of the offence.

Use and criticism

Those who accept the practice consider it necessary for prisoners who are considered dangerous to other people ("the most predatory" prisoners), those who might be capable of leading crime groups even from within, or those who are kept 'incommunicado' for purported reasons of national security. Finally, it may be used for prisoners who are at high risk of being attacked by other inmates, such as pedophiles, celebrities, or witnesses who are in prison themselves. This latter form of solitary confinement is sometimes referred to as protective custody.

Counterfeiting:

 A person is said to counterfeit who:

 (i) Causes one thing to resemble another thing.

 (ii) Intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or

 (iii) Knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced

Explanation:

(1) It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

 (2) When a person cause one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced.

 (S. 28)

Pakistan Penal Code & Important Features of PPC

Pakistan Penal Code
The Pakistan Penal Code usually called PPC is a penal code for all offences charged in Pakistan. It was originally prepared by Lord Macaulay with a great consultation in 1860 on the behalf of the Government of British India as the Indian Penal Code. After the partition of India in 1947, Pakistan inherited the same code and subsequently after several amendments in different governments,it is now mixture of Islamic and English Law. 
History...
The draft of the (British) Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First Law Commission and it was chaired by Lord Macaulay. Its basis is the law of England freed from superfluities, technicalities and local peculiarities. Suggestions were also derived from the French Penal Code and from Livingstone's Code of Louisiana. The draft underwent a very careful revision at the hands of Sir Barnes Peacock, Chief Justice, and puisne Judges of the Calcutta Supreme Court who were members of the Legislative Council, and was passed into law in 1860, unfortunately Macaulay did not survive to see his masterpiece enacted into a law.

 Though it is principally the work of a man who had hardly held a brief, and whose time was devoted to politics and literature, it was universally acknowledged to be a monument of codification and an everlasting memorial to the high juristic attainments of its distinguished author. For example even cyber crimes can be punished under the code.

Important Features of PPC

Jurisdiction

Section 1. Title and extent of operation of the Code. This Act shall be called the Pakistan Penal Code, and shall take effect throughout Pakistan.

Section 4

The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by:-
(1) any citizen of Pakistan or any person in the service of Pakistan in any place without and beyond Pakistan;
(4) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be.

 Explanation: In this section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside Pakistan which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under this Code.Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.

Punishments..
Section 53.
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are:
Firstly, Qisas;

Secondly, Diyat;

Thirdly, Arsh; 

Fourthly, Daman;

Fifthly, Ta'zir; 

Sixthly, Death; 

Seventhly, Imprisonment for life; 

Eighthly, Imprisonment which is of two descriptions, namely:-- (i) Rigorous, i.e., with hard labour;

(ii) Simple;
Ninthly, Forfeiture of property;
Tenthly, Fine
First five punishments are added by amendments and are Islamic Punishments.

OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT

The object and purpose of punishment is the prevention of crime and every punishment is intended to have double effect, viz, to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent other members of community from committing similar crimes. The main object of awarding punishment for offences is to create such an atmosphere which may become a deterrence for the people who have propensities towards crime and thereby prevention of offences so that the society in which all the members have to live may not feel suffocated, distuebed and prone to unhealting environment. The measure of punishment therefore, must vary from time to time according to the condition of a particular crime and other circumstances. The object of punishments being preventive, Penal policy of state should be to protect the society.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT:

DETERRENT

According to this theory the punishment is awarded to deter people from committing the crime. Emotion of fear play a vital role in man's life. The peole fear to commit the crime because it will render them to suffer. The fear of punishment put a check not only on criminal from committing further crime but also on all other evil minded. In spite of its weakness this has not entirely been eliminated from the policy of modern court of criminal justice. Hegal strongly supported this theory.

2. RETRIBUTIVE

The theory is based on the principle of an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. The offender should be punished according to the nature of injury caused by him to the victim. In other words punishment should be in proportion to the injury caused by the accused. This theory does not look to the motive but to the intention in committing the crime. According to Salmond, t suffer punishment is to pay a debt due to the law that has been violated.

 3. PREVENTIVE

This has also been called theory of dsablement as it aims at, preventing the crime by disabling the criminal. In order to prevent the repitition of crime , the offenders are punished with death, imrisonment for life. For example, a murder is commited by A and he is punished. Here A is punished not for having committed the murder, but in order that no further murder be committed. This theoty has been commented by many writers on the ground that prevention of crime can also be done by reforming the behaviour of the criminal.

 4. REFORMATIVE

 The object of punishment according to this theory should be to reform the criminals. The cime is a mental disease which is caused by different anti-social elements. Therefore, there should be a mental case of the criminal s instead of awrding them severe punishment. Much truth lies in the statement that to open a school is to close a prison. if a persons of criminal mind are educated and trained there will be a little or not at all possibility of any crime being committed by them. The punishment therefore should be curative or corrective because no body could be cure by killing. In modern times much imortance is given to reformation or rehabilitation of the criminals.specially the young offenders in whose case this theory has very successfully applied. This theory has however failed in the cases of professional and habitual offenders.