Six persons were charged under Sec. 302/ 149 IPC -- two were acquitted, the remaining four cannot be convicted under :

Related MCQs

• Where there were only five named accused who committed dacoity. out of these two were acquitted holding that only three took part in the offence. The remaining three can be convicted of
• 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:
• Under Sec. 149 if any offence is done by any member of unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object :
• Which one of the following brings out the distinction between Section 34 and 149 of the IPC?
• Section 149 of IPC is
• For Application of Section 149 of IPC:
• Which one of the following brings out the distinction between Section 34 and 149 of the IPC?
• Which of the following is false of Section 34 and Section 149 of the IPC?
• 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.
• To apply Sec. 149 :