Abetment of an offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life if an act, which causes harm to be done in consequence of the abetment is dealt under-

Related MCQs

• 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-
• Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be committed if the offence be not committed is dealt under-
• Abetment of any offence, if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment is dealt under-
• Abetment of any offence when one act is abetted and a different act is done; subject to proviso is dealt under-
• ‘A’ instigates B to cause grievous hurt to X. In consequence of the instigation B causes grievous hurt to X. X dies in consequence. A is guilty of abetment of:
• Point out incorrect response. The principle underlying section 91 I.P.C. is that consent will only condone the act causing harm to the person giving the consent, which will otherwise be an offence. Acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause will not be covered by consent given by the sufferer. Some instances of such acts are :
• Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable is dealt under-
• 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?
• T instigates C, a child under seven years of age to do an act which can cause X’s death. In consequence of this C cause X’s death in absence of T. With reference to the above statement” Assertion (A): T is liable for murder of X, even though the actual act has been committed by an infant. Reason (R): The liability of the abettor depends upon the capability and knowledge or intention of the person abetted. Of the above statements.
• 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