A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provoca­tion that his killing of Z would be only culpable homi­cide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z, and intending to kill him and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Which of the following judgment under Section 38 of IPC applies to A and B?

Related MCQs

• Section 300 of the IPC speaks of situations in which if a murder is committed, then it is treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Which one of the following situations is not covered under S. 300, IPC?
• The statement “all murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder” is”
• Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given in the IPC in:
• Assertion (A): X and Y independently intending to kill Z strike him with iron rod on his head. Z dies as a result of the injuries. Both X and Y are guilty of murder under Section 302/304, Indian Penal Code. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of common intention of all, each of them is liable as if it was done by him alone.Of the above statements.
• In the above stated question the person is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because in this case
• Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punishable with:
• 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.
• Give correct response. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket, A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith the child’s benefit. The child is killed by fall, Held that :
• Give best response. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z and in good faith intending Z’s benefit, A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound:
• 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.