A is at work with a hatchet: the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. What offence is committed by A in this situation?

Related MCQs

• Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be committed if the offence be not committed is dealt under-
• A is at work with hatch, the head flies off and killed a person
• 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?
• Under which of the following situations would Indian courts have jurisdiction? 1. Crime committed by an Indian in a foreign country 2. Crime committed by a foreign in India 3. Crime committed by a person on an Indian ship. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: Codes:
• Abetment of any offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if the offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment is dealt under-
• When a member of an unlawful assembly is to be constructively found guilty of an offence, he must commit same offence of which the principle is convicted and not some other offence this statement is --
• X while in the state of voluntary intoxication kills Z. prosecution fails to establish that X could form an intention of a sober man. X is guilty of:
• A man in order to escape death from hunger kills another for the purpose of eating :
• X while in the state of voluntary intoxication, kills Z. Prosecution fails to establish that X cloud form an intention of a sober man, X is guilty of
• Mr. V, an appellant is an owner of a house in City A. The wife of the first respondent Y, was tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1966, one R a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and Halkat. On the following day, the first respondent slapped R on his face which was followed by heated exchange of abusive words and between the first respondent and the appellant’s husband. The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant’s husband a file of papers. The file did not hit the appellant’s husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a scratch. The appellant lodged information to the police complaining that the first respondent had committed a house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her and had slapped her servant R. During the course of the investigation the appellant and R refused to be examined at a public hospital, claiming that a p