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

Related MCQs

• In a case the accused who was a widower led a homely life with his 12-year-old son, nephew and unmarried daughter. The accused suffered from no insanity. One day the accused accompanied by his son went with an axe in his hand to woods to gather siadi leaves. Sometimes after his nephew who had been working in the field discovered the accused sleeping under a tree with the blood stained axe beside him. There was no trace of the son of the accused. Later his son was found hacked to death. It transpired in evidence that the accused for the time being was seized of a state of mind in which he visualised that a tiger was going to pounce on him and as such mistaking his son as the tiger he cut him into pieces.
• 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
• Six persons were charged under Sec. 302/ 149 IPC -- two were acquitted, the remaining four cannot be convicted under :
• Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be committed if the offence be not committed 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 --
• Assertion (A): A person is not guilty of dacoity unless he has committed, attempted to commit or aided in committing robbery. Reason (R): When tow persons conjointly commit robbery, then every person so committing robbery is said to commit dacoity.
• In a case the accused was convicted u/s. 325 I.P.C. and was sentenced by trial Court to two months R.I. with fine of Rs. 500 for offence under S. 325 I.P.C. The trial pended for seven long years.
• A, intending to cause theft instigates B, to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. With reference to the above statement Assertion (A): A is guilty of abetment of theft even if B is innocent. Reason (R): Liability of abettor is not dependent on the liability of the principal accused. Directions:- the following item consist of two statements, one labeled as Assertion A and the other labeled as 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 answers to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• The accused without any provocation caught hold of the legs of a 7 year old child and dashed his head thrice in quick succession resulting in the death of the boy. Immediately after the occurrence the accused ran away. The accused pleaded insanity in defence.
• There was a dispute between two brothers regarding some property matter. On a particular occasion wives of these two brothers were found quarrelling with each other. The elder of the two brothers came in and requested them to refrain from quarrelling. At that time the younger brother suddenly appeared and gave a lethal blow on the head of the elder brother who died after a few hours in the hospital. Which one of the following offences has been committed by the younger brother?