When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each one of them is liable:

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.
• When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all each one of them is liable:
• When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of a common intention of all, each of such persons is liable
• 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.
• When a criminal act is done by several persons is furtherance of common intention of all:
• Give the correct response? When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all :
• 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?
• Point out incorrect response. In Barendera Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40, the appellant was charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. with the murder of a sub-postmaster. Sub-postmaster was counting money in the backroom. Several persons appeared at the door of the office and demanded the post master to give up the money and immediately afterwards fired pistols at him. Postmaster died immediately and the assailants fled in different directions without taking money. On of them was chased and caught with a pistol in his hand. It was not clear as to who fired the fatal shot. While holding the appellant liable for murder the Privy Council laid down the following principles:
• Use of violence by a member of an assembly of five or more persons in furtherance of common object will constitute
• T instigates C, a child under seven years of age to do an act which can cause X’s death. In consequence of this C cause X’s death in absence of T. With reference to the above statement” Assertion (A): T is liable for murder of X, even though the actual act has been committed by an infant. Reason (R): The liability of the abettor depends upon the capability and knowledge or intention of the person abetted. Of the above statements.