Q.) To establish Section 34 of IPC:
- A common intention is to be proved but not overt act to be proved
- Common intention and overt act both have to be proved
- Common intention need not be proved but overt act to be proved
- All of the above
Ans – B
Q.) Which one of the following is not the ingredients of Section 34 of Indian penal code?
- Criminal act done by several person
- In the furtherance of common intention
- Meeting of the minds of those who involved in crime
- Similar intention of those who involved in the crime
- A, B, and C for instance, had a rivalry with X. In the first case all three of them devised a plan and shared the common intention to murder X and committed the act in furtherance of the same for which they were jointly liable under section 302 read with section 34. While in a second instance, all three, strangers to each other, while walking from different lanes, spotted X and used different weapons to attack him to which he succumbed to death. Therefore, they had murdered X with a similar intention to kill him but there was no pre-mediation or communication of such plan or such intention nor any act in furtherance of this intention of all. Therefore, it only constitutes murder under section 302 and section 34 will not be invoked.
Q.) In which one of the following cases Lord summer said “they also serve who stand and wait”
- Mehboob Shah v. Emperor
- Inder Singh v. Emperor
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
- None of the above
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (also known as Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case). In this case several persons appeared before the sub-post master who was counting the money on the table and demanded the money. In the mean time they opened fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money. Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed over to the police.
- The accused was tried under sections 302/34 as he was one of the three men who fired at the sub-post master. The accused denied his charge on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased. The court, on being satisfied that the sub-post master was killed in furtherance of the common intention of all, convicted the accused even if he had not fired the fatal shot.
Q.) To impose joint liability under Section 34 of IPC the prosecution needs to prove
- Same intention
- Similar intention
- Common intention
Q.) In which one of the following cases the Privy Council made a distinction between common intention and similar intention?
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs Emperor
- Mahboob Shah vs Emperor
- Sri Nivasa Badolia vs Emperor
- Banu Mal vs Emperor
Q.) The difference between section 34 and section 149 of Indian penal code is that ?
- In section 34 there must be at least five persons whereas in section 149 two persons are required
- That section 149 is only a rule of evidence where as section 34 creates a specific offence and provides for its punishment
- That section 34 requires active participation in action whereas section 149 requires mere passive membership of the unlawful assembly
- That section 34 need not be joined with the principal offence whereas section 149 must be combined with the principal offence
Q.) X armed with a loaded pistol and Y empty handed go to Z’s shop in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery. X enters the shop and on being resisted in carrying away property shoots Z with pistol. Z dies at once. For what acts of X, Y is liable?
- Dacoity with murder
- Extortion and culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Attempt to commit robbery when armed with deadly weapon
- Robbery and murder
Q.) X a jailor has the charge of Z, a Prisoner. X intending to cause Z’s death illegally omits to supply Z with food, in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength but that starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. X is dismissed from his office and Y succeeds him. Y without collusion and cooperation with X illegally omits to supply Z with food knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z’s death. Z dies of Hunger. What will be the position under Indian Penal Code?
- X and Y are guilty of Murder
- X is guilty of an attempt to commit murder
- Y is guilty of an attempt to commit Murder
- Y is guilty of an attempt to commit culpable homicide
Q.) Which of the following punishment cannot be awarded under the Indian Penal Code?
- Forfeiture of property
- Rigorous imprisonment
- Transportation for life
Q.)Who may commute sentence under IPC?
- Chief Justice of High Court
- Chief Justice of India
- Appropriate government
- Any appellate Court
55. Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life.—In every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Q.) In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, section 57 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes that the imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for
- 10 years
- 4 years
- 20 years
- 25 years
Ans – C
Q.) Under section 65 of the Indian penal code 1860 sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine shall be limited to?
- one third of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
- one fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
- one half of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
- one fifth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
- Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine awardable.—The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Q.) Under Indian Penal Code if the offence is punishable with fine only and accused has been awarded with 50 rupees fine the period of imprisonment in default shall be
- Not exceed one month
- Not exceed two months
- Not exceed 3 months
- Not exceed 4 months
- Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only
Q.) If an offender is sentenced to an in present for a term exceeding one year, the term of solitary confinement shall not exceed
- 1 month
- 2 months
- 3 months
- no limit
- Section 73- A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months; a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year; a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
Q.) Imprisonment for life means, imprisonment for
- 20 years
- 74 years
- 14 years
- whole of the remaining life
Q.) The Maxim ignorantia juris non excusat means:
- ignorance of law is no excuse
- ignorance of fact is no excuse
- ignorance of law is an excuse
- ignorance of fact is an excuse
- Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.—
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by
reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Q.) Ignorantia facit excusat maxim means
- Mistake of law is excused
- Ignorance of facts is an excuse
- Ignorance of law is not an excuse
- none of these
Q.) Assertion:- A a soldier fires on a mob by the order of a superior officer in conformity with the commands of law. A has committed no offence
Reason : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it
- Choose the correct answer from the codes given below
- Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
- Both A and R are true and R is not the correct explanation of A
- A is true but R is false
- A is false but R is true
Section 76 IPC illustration
Q.) A who is a police officer without warrant apprehends Z who has committed murder. A has committed the offence of
- wrongful confinement
- wrongful restraint
- A and B both
- No offence
Q.) A in good faith accuses Z before a magistrate
- A has committed no offence
- A has committed the offence of defamation
- A has committed the offence of defamation but he can take defence under section 93 of IPC
- None of the above
Q.) A Hangman who hangs the Convict pursuant to the order of the court is exempted from criminal liability by the virtue of
- Section 94 of IPC
- Section 76 of IPC
- Section 78 of IPC
- Section 77 of IPC
- Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court.—Nothing which is done in pursuance
of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice; if done whilst such judgment or
order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such
judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Q.) Which of the following is not an essential ingredient of the defence of accident under Section 80 of Indian penal code
- The act must be an accident or misfortune
- The act must not be done with any criminal intention
- The act need not be done with proper care and caution
- The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means
- Accident in doing a lawful act.—Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune,
and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful
means and with proper care and caution.