When an act is abetted & a different act is done the abettor is liable-

Related MCQs

• 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.
• Whoever abets an offence & if the act abetted is committed & no express provision is made by this code for punishment of such abetment, the abettor will be punished --
• Abetment of any offence when one act is abetted and a different act is done; subject to proviso is dealt under-
• 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.
• 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-
• 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.
• 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.
• In cases where an act is not an offence unless done with particular knowledge and intents a person who does the act in state of intoxication shall be liable to the be dealt as if he :
• Give the correct response : A in India abetted B, a foreigner in Pakistan to commit a murder in Islamabad
• Where the accused was charged with the main offence but it was found in evidence that he had abetted the offence in fact