Section 34 of I.P.C. provides for liability based on common intention.
Consider the following situations:
1. The weapon used in the offence was found in A’s house.
2. A has procured the weapon of offence voluntarily to aid the criminal gang.
3. A was compelled under threat to his life to procure the weapon of offence.
4. The weapon was supplied on receipt of value of the weapon (sale).
Which of the situation given above reflect (s) the correct ingredients with regard of Section 34?

Related MCQs

• Assertion (A): X and Y had independently entertained the idea to kill Z. Accordingly each of them separately inflicted wounds on Z, who dies in consequence. X and Y are liable for murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable as if the whole act is done by him alone. Of the above statements.
• Consider the following two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R): Assertion (A): There is no liability for an attempt to commit an impossible theft. Reason (R): No criminal liability can be incurred under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to do an act which, if done will not be an offence. Of the above statements.
• Section 300 of the IPC speaks of situations in which if a murder is committed, then it is treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Which one of the following situations is not covered under S. 300, IPC?
• A is found guilty of attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention. Under which one of the following situations can his offence be proved?
• The house of a person was raided by a gang of five dacoits. One of them was armed with a gun. Mean while a number of villagers had assembled outside the house and compelled dacoits to retreat with out the booty. The dacoits fired a shot resulted in the death of a villager
• Assertion (A): Where sister of X was being abducted by force from her parents house by her husband, X caused death of sister’s husband in defence of the sister against an assault with intention of abducting her by force, it was held that the private defence of body extended in the above circumstances to the causing of death. Reason (R): The word abducting in Section 100 IPC includes abduction simpliciter. Direction: The following four items consist of two statements, one labeled the Assertion (A) and the other labeled the Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answer to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• Assertion (A): A person compelled by threats, from another, which reasonably cause apprehension of his instant death, commits murder of the third person, can plead the defence of compulsion. Reason (R): Consent of the deceased (above 12 years) is a defence to the charge of murder if the act causing death is done in good fait for the benefit of the deceased without intention to kill. Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): X and Y independently intending to kill Z strike him with iron rod on his head. Z dies as a result of the injuries. Both X and Y are guilty of murder under Section 302/304, Indian Penal Code. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of common intention of all, each of them is liable as if it was done by him alone.Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): The Indian Penal code contains certain exceptions from criminal liability. Reason (R): There cannot be universal criminal liability in all circumstances. Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): There is no liability for an attempt to commit an impossible theft. Reason (R): No criminal liability can be incurred under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to do an act which, if done, will not be an offence.