X and Y agree to commit theft in Z’s house but no theft is actually committed. They are guilty of:

Related MCQs

• X and Y agree to commit theft in Z’s house but no theft is actually committed. They are guilty of:
• 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.
• Assertion (A): A servant removes wrist watch from the table and keeps it concealed under the carpet in the same room for fear of being detected. He is guilty of theft. Reason (R): To be guilty of the offence of theft, a person must move and take away the property stolen. 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
• X and his four associated attempted to commit theft at the place of Y and caused hurt to Y. They were forced to retreat without collecting the booty because of stiff resistance by the inmates. They are guilty of
• Some militants are hiding in a house occupied by an individual. Militants are engaged in an attack on the police party by firing from the house. The police persons, to defend themselves, fire towards the house and an innocent person in the house is hit by the bullet and dies as a result. The police persons are 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
• A instigates B to set fire in Z’s house. B set fire to the Z’s house & same time commit theft of property there.
• 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.
• Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be committed if the offence be not committed is dealt under-
• Give correct response. A, B and C three adults and D a boy were on a voyage in an open boat. They had no food after about 18 years of journey. C proposed to B and A to sacrifice the boy so that they may feed upon ut B did not agree. On 20th day C with the consent of A only killed the boy and all the three fed upon the boy for four days when they were picked up. It was found that the boy was in a weaker condition and was likely to die before others and also if the men would not have fed upon the boy, hey would not have survived. Held that: