Change set
Pick exam & year, then Go.
Question map
By application of principle of joint liability, every member of unlawful assembly is held guilty for offences that are committed by such unlawful assembly. What should be established on the part of the members of unlawful assembly to hold them liable for offences committed by such an assembly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ?
Explanation
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the principle of joint liability for an unlawful assembly is governed by Section 190 (which corresponds to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code). This section states that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members knew to be likely to be committed, every person who is a member of that assembly at the time of the committing of the offence is guilty of that offence.
While "common intention" (Section 3(5) of BNS) also creates joint liability, it requires a prior meeting of minds and applies to any group. In contrast, "common object" is the specific legal requirement for holding members of an unlawful assembly (defined in Section 189) liable for the acts of others in the group.
SIMILAR QUESTIONS
Consider the following statements in the light of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 : 1. Any police officer of any rank may command any unlawful assembly that is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace to disperse. 2. If an unlawful assembly despite being commanded to disperse, cannot otherwise be dispersed, any police officer may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Under which one of the following situations may dispersal of assembly by use of civil force not be commanded by any Executive Magistrate or Officer-In-Charge of a police station ?
Which one of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is cognizable and non-bailable ?