[Solved] Point out incorrect response. The following principles were laid down in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor 72 I.A. 148.

Q.	Point out incorrect response. The following principles were laid down in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor 72 I.A. 148.
A.	Under section 34 the essence of liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
B.	It is difficult if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual; in most cases it has to be inferred from his act etc. Such an inference should never be reached unless it is necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.
C.	Common intention within in the meaning of section 34 implies a prearranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying this section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan.
D.	Even though a person has not done anything but was only standing where the crime was committed by his co-conspirators the rule is that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait.’
Answer» D. Even though a person has not done anything but was only standing where the crime was committed by his co-conspirators the rule is that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait.’

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860)

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

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:
Point out incorrect response. The following are the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence:
The accused & his wife sister’s husband B were sleeping out in the verandah. B got up & entered the accused wife’s room accused also got up & peeping through door he saw B & accused wife was having intercourse. He returned to his charpai & lay down. After some time B come back & lay down on the charpai. When B began to snore accused cutted down him by a knife which he was having with him. This case
A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty to thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in boat B. But in the course of this action A runs down boat C.
Point out incorrect response. The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
Point out incorrect response. The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of section 79 of the Indian Penal Code:
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the defence of accident under section 80 I.P.C. :-
Point out incorrect response. The following are some of the illustrations of defence of mistake of fact:
Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the defence of necessity under section 81 of the Penal Code :