A is found guilty of attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention. Under which one of the following situations can his offence be proved?

Related MCQs

• 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?
• 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.
• 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?
• 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): 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.
• Assertion (A): One of the most difficult tasks in attempt cases has been to find out the dividing line between preparation and attempt. Reason (R): Shooting at the shadow sufficiently near a person as to put him in danger is attempt to commit murder. Of the above statements.
• Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of his wife, takes the defence of insanity and in the alternative of being drunk at the time of commission of the crime and being thus incapable of forming the intent required in murder. It is also pleaded in defence that the accused was a psychopath. The evidence further discloses that the accused had indicated an intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol. Here :
• Assertion (A): A person compelled by threats, from another, which reasonably cause apprehension of his instant death, commits murder of the third person, can plead the defence of compulsion. Reason (R): Consent of the deceased (above 12 years) is a defence to the charge of murder if the act causing death is done in good fait for the benefit of the deceased without intention to kill. Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): When murder is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of the assembly, all those who are members of that assembly at that time are liable for the murder. Reason (R): Members of an unlawful assembly are liable only if they participate in the commission of the murder. Of the above statements.
• 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