General Explanations

Question 1 of 150

The ‘doctrine of joint liability’ as envisaged by Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is based on the decision of the following: [UP JS 2018]

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
Mulcahy v. R.
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad
Reg. v. Cruise

Question 2 of 150

As defined in I.P.C. a “Woman” denotes a female human being of: [MP JS 2017]

of any age

Question 3 of 150

Af the act is a lawful one and not a criminal act and if in the course of such act any one of the person’s jointly doing that act commits an offence, then: [AILET 2018, HCJ 2018]

All the persons shall be liable under Section 34 of I.P.C.
only the doer of the act shall be liable for it and not others and Section 34 of I.P.C. shall not apply.
Nobody shall be liable for it and Section 34 of I.P.C. shall not apply.
No other person except the real doer of the act shall be liable for it and Section 34 of I.P.C. shall apply.

Question 4 of 150

*A‘ filed a FIR giving details of a crime that he had committed. There were no exculpatory statements in the FIR and gave all the details regarding the eommission of the crime. Which of the following statements is accurate: [DJS 2018]

the FIR is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence is inadmissible as an evidence. However, the fact that ‘A’ filed the FIR is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
since the FIR is confessional in nature, the fact that ‘A’ filed the FIR is also not admissible in evidence.
FIR including confession is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act as it was voluntary and before arrest.
it is admissible under Section 32(c) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Question 5 of 150

The case law of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George comes under which provision of IPC? [TN APO 2019]

Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5

Question 6 of 150

The term “he” used under Indian Panel Code relates to a person who is: [UK JS 2017]

male only
female only
male or female both
third gender only

Question 7 of 150

In Indian Penal Code the pronoun ‘he’ and its derivatives are used for: [RCJ 2014, UP HJS 2018]

Male
Female
Any person whether male or female
Such words are not used in the Code

Question 8 of 150

In IPC the word ‘Woman’ denotes to: [MP APPO 2008]

a female above the age of fifteen years
a female above the age of eighteen years
a female above the age of twenty one years
a female of any age including newly born female child

Question 9 of 150

Under Section 10 of IPC “Man” denotes a male human being of: [Chhat ADPPO 2008]

16 years
18 years
21 years
any age

Question 10 of 150

In the Indian Penal Code, the word ‘woman’ denotes: [MPJS 2011]

A major woman
An unmarried woman
A woman of any age
A married woman

Question 11 of 150

Which of the following statement correctly reflects the cardinal principle, ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’? [Jhar JS 2019, UGC-NET 2019]

Mens rea is an essential element of a crime and there cannot be a crime without mens rea.
Criminal liability under Indian law always implies mens rea.
To constitute a crime there must be actus reus and mens rea.
Actus reus is not always necessary to constitute a crime.

Question 12 of 150

Under the Indian Penal Code, a person is defined as: [APJS 2011]

Including any company or body of persons whether incorporated or not
Meaning only individual human beings
Meaning only as men
None of the above

Question 13 of 150

Homicide cannot be defined as killing of a person by a person in view of the nature of the definition of the word ‘person’ in: [HJS 2016]

Section 13 of the Indian Penal Code
Section EE ot the Indian Penal Code
Section 9 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 7 of the Indian Penal Code

Question 14 of 150

Section 13 IPC which was repealed gave the detinition of: [TN APO 2019]

Queen
British India
Government of India
Government servant

Question 15 of 150

In context to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ‘India’ means: [HPJS 2013]

Union of States
Contederation of States
The territory of India
‘Bharat’ only

Question 16 of 150

Who, according to Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not a public servant: [Raj HJS 2012, UP HJS 2018]

A commissioned officer in Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force.
An arbitrator to whom any cause has been referred for adjudication by the court of justice.
An officer, who, by virtue of his office, is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement.
An advocate, who practices law in a court of justice.

Question 17 of 150

In which Section of IPC, ‘public servant’ is defined? [Raj APO 2007, HPJS 2012]

Section 14
Section 20
Section 21
Section 24

Question 18 of 150

Who among the following is not a public servant? [UP APO 2009]

Chief Minister of a State
Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors
Surveyor of an Insurance Company
Employee of a ‘Nationalized Bank’

Question 19 of 150

It was held that a Chief Minister or a Minister in in the pay of the Government and, therefore, public servant within the meaning of Section 21(2) of IPC in the case: [HHJS 2011]

Karunanidhi v. Union of India
Kesheanand vy. State of Kerala
Kalyan Singh v. Union of India
Jayalalitha v. State of Tamil Nadu

Question 20 of 150

Which of the following is not a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 21 of the Code: [MP HJS 2008, MPJS 2009]

Municipal Commissioner
Member of Parliament
MLA
Examiner of University

Question 21 of 150

One of the following is not a public servant: [UJS 2002, AJS 2011, HJS 2013]

Liquidator
A Civil Judge
Member of a Panchayat assisting a court of justice
Secretary of a Co-operative society

Question 22 of 150

Which of the following is not a Public Servant? [MPJS 2010]

Municipal Commissioner
Member of Parliament
M.L.A.
Examiner of University

Question 23 of 150

Who among the following is not a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code? [MJS 2011]

Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Councilor
Manager of Nationalized Bank
Commissioned Officer in Military

Question 24 of 150

Who among the following defined crime as “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it”? [UGC-NET 2018]

Russel
Kenny
Blackstone
J. F. Stephen

Question 25 of 150

lf an accused of a crime wants to take advantage of general exceptions given in IPC who has to prove the applicability of these exceptions? [ILI (LLM) 2019]

The accused
The prosecution
Depends on the discretion of the Court
Depends on the discretion of the prosecution

Question 26 of 150

‘Movable property’ under IPC is defined in: [Raj APO 2007]

Section 21
Section 22
Section 23
Section 24

Question 27 of 150

The definition of movable property under section 22 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 excludes ………….. [UP HJS 2014]

Land
Things attached to the earth
Things permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth
All of the above

Question 28 of 150

What is not movable property under Section 22, IPC? [MPJS 2007]

Soil
Cheque
Tree
Fish in a tank

Question 29 of 150

Definition of ‘wrongful gain’ is ag follows: [APJS 2011]

Gain by unlawful means of property to which person is not legally entitleg
Gaining wrongfully and’ losing wrongfully
Gaining dishonestly
Loss by unlawful means of property to which person is entitled

Question 30 of 150

The word “public servant” denotes: A person falling under ……….. [UK CJS 2018]

A commissioned officer in the military
Every judge empowered by Law to do any adjudicatory functions
Every officer of court of justice
All the above

Question 31 of 150

Which one of the following Sections of IPC defines ‘Gaining Wrongfully and Losing Wrongfully’? [HPJS 2013]

Section 22
Section 23
Section 24
Section 25

Question 32 of 150

When a person gains something by unlawful means to which he is not legally entitled it is: [MPJS 2012]

cheating
wrongful gain
fraud
causing injury which is likely to cause death

Question 33 of 150

‘Wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’ have been defined under Indian Penal Code, 1860 in: [UP PCS CJ 2008, UK CJS 2018]

Section 22
Section 23
Section 24
Section 27

Question 34 of 150

A person acts dishonestly when he does anything: [DU LLM Entrance 2010]

With mens rea
With wrong motive
With intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
With intent to defraud

Question 35 of 150

Which of the following is not a constituent of Tort? [UGC-NET 2019]

Wrongful act
Damage
Remedy
Mens rea

Question 36 of 150

Match List-I with List-II and give the correct answer by using the code given below:
List-I
(a) Mehboob Shah v. Emperor
(b) State of Maharashtra v. M.H.
(c) Director of Public Prosecutions
(d) R.V. Dudley v. Stephens
List-II
(i) Mens rea
(ii) Intoxication George
(iii) Common v. Beard Intention
(iv) Necessity

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(ii) (iv) (i) (iii)
(iii) (i) (ii) (iv)
(iv) (ii) (iii) (i) [UGC-NET 2018]

Question 37 of 150

Consider the following statements: Anything is said to have been done dishonestly if it has been done with intention to 1. cause wrongful loss to any person and wrongful gain to another person. 2. cause injury to any person. Which of the statements given above is/ are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2

Question 38 of 150

Is it an indispensable element of dishonesty as defined in Section 24 with Section 23 that the alleged wrongful gain should be intended to be caused to a person who is not legally entitled to the property? [AILET 2019]

Yes
No
Depends
None of these

Question 39 of 150

The term ‘Dishonestly’ as defined under Section 24 of the IPC implies: [DU LLM Entrance 2014}

An act done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
Act done with intent to defraud
An act done mala fide
An act done with intent to cheat

Question 40 of 150

Word ‘Dishonestly’ as defined in Section 24 of IPC means: [MPJS 2012]

With the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person
With the intention of causing wrongful gain loss to another person
With the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person and with the intention of causing wrongful loss to another person
All of the above are true

Question 41 of 150

Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing: [CJS 2016]

Fraudulently
Dishonestly
Wrongfully
Mischievously

Question 42 of 150

Which of the following match is wrong? [Punj JS 2017]

Wrongful gain — Section 23 IPC
Dishonestly — Section 24 IPC
Fraudulently — Section 26 IPC
Valuable Security — Section 30 IPC
None of these

Question 43 of 150

As per Section 24 of Indian Penal Code, who ever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing: [Guj HJS 2019]

Dishonestly
Fraudulently
Mischievously
Wrongfully

Question 44 of 150

Which one of the following does not amount to ‘fraud’? [DU LLM Entrance 2008]

active concealment of fact
a promise made without intention to perform it
suggestion as to a fact which is not true by one who believes it to be true
a representation made without knowing it to be false, honestly believing it to be true

Question 45 of 150

“Fraudulently intention” has been defined as “intent to defraud but not otherwise” in the Indian Penal Code in Section: [ILI LLM 2010]

20.0
23.0
24.0
25.0

Question 46 of 150

A person does not have ‘reason to believe’ a thing if he does not have any: [HSJS 2012]

information
sufficient cause to believe
knowledge
reasons

Question 47 of 150

The term Dishonestly under IPC hag been defined as doing something: [DU LLM Entrance 2012]

With intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
With intent to defraud
Without due care and caution
Which is an illegal act or omission

Question 48 of 150

A person causes one thing to resemble another thing to practice deception is said to commit: [ILI LLM 2012]

Deception
Fraud
Counterfeit
Tampering

Question 49 of 150

‘Counterfeit’ under IPC is defined in: [Raj APO 2007]

Section 30
Section 28
Section 29
Section 27

Question 50 of 150

Which one of the following pairs is correctly matched? [UP PCS CJ 2013]

Counterfeit Section 28
Valuable security Section 29
Document Section 30
Omission Section 31

Question 51 of 150

Abetting the Commission of suicide is given under: [AIBE 2018]

Section 9 of IPC
Section 8 of IPC
Section 7 of IPC
None of the above

Question 52 of 150

‘Electronic Record’ under IPC is defined in: [Raj APO 2007]

Section 29
Section 29A
Section 29B
Section 29D

Question 53 of 150

Section 29A of I.P.C. is related to: [UK CJS 2018]

Documents
Valuable Security
Electronic record
None of the above

Question 54 of 150

Valuable security is defined in: [MP HJS 2009]

Criminal Procedure Code
Civil Procedure Code
Evidence Act
Indian Penal Code

Question 55 of 150

Which one of the following is not a valuable security? [UP PCS 2003]

A postal receipt for an insured parcel
A rent note
A promissory note
A deed of divorce

Question 56 of 150

As per IPC a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, restricted or released, is: [APJS 2011]

Conveyance deed
Gift deed
Will
Valuable security

Question 57 of 150

Which of the following match is wrong? [PJS 2017]

Wrongful gain — Section 23, IPC
Dishonestly — Section 24, IPC
Fraudulently — Section 26, IPC
Valuable Security — Section 30, IPC
None of these

Question 58 of 150

Mr. X, an injured makes certain statements to the investigating officer. Later he succumbs to those injuries and died. With respect to Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the statements so made are: [Punj PSC 2018]

Admissible
Inadmissible
Circumstantial
None of the above

Question 59 of 150

Which one of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the word ‘Act’? [UP PCS CJ 2015]

Section 32
Section 33
Section 23
Section 24

Question 60 of 150

‘X’ armed with a loaded pistol and ‘Y’ empty handed go to ’Z’ 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: [MP PCS 1996]

Dacoity with murder
Extortion and culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Attempt to commit robbery when armed with deadly weapon
Robbery and murder

Question 61 of 150

Which of the following is true regarding Section 34 of the IPC: [DU LLM Entrance 2012]

It creates a substantive offence
It lays down a rule of procedure
It is a rule of evidence
None of the above

Question 62 of 150

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: [DU LLM Entrance 2011, WB SCJS 2011, JHS 2011, UP PCS CJ 2015, Bihar HJS 2019]

creates a substantive offence
is the rule of evidence
both (a) and (b)
neither (a) nor (b)

Question 63 of 150

Give correct response, in J. M. Desai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 S. C. 889, Mr. Desai was the Managing Director of a Dying Company, the company entered into a contract with the textile Commissioner undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth. Out of the lot some were returned back to the
commissioner by the company while others, even after repeated demand,
remained undelivered. Therefore, the Managing Director was charged for an
offence and he pleaded that the clothes were eaten up by white ants and that
he was not personally responsible

In order to punish a person by application of Section 34 mental as well as physical participation was necessary, therefore, in absence of actual physical participation the Managing Director was not liable.
Since the act was not done in furtherance of a common intention, therefore, Managing Director cannot be punished for any offence, in the absence of evidence that the offence was committed with his consent or knowledge.
The Managing Director would be vicariously liable for the offence of criminal misappropriation under Section 409 IPC because he was responsible for supervision and control of the servants of the company who might have caused the loss negligently.
The Managing Director would be liable under Section 409 read with Section 34 IP.C, because physical presence is not necessary in offences involving diverse acts which may be done at different time and places.

Question 64 of 150

Give the correct response. [AILET 2019]

Section 34 needs active participation while section 149 does not
Section 34 does not create specific offence while section 149 does
Section 34 speaks of common object while section 149 speaks of common intention
All of these

Question 65 of 150

Four accused with common intention to kill, shot one B in the bona fide belief that B was A. In this case: [UGC-NET 2018]

None of them is liable for the offence of murder.
All accused are guilty of causing death.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code does not apply.
All accused are guilty of causing death without invoking Section 34.

Question 66 of 150

Principle: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Factual Situation: A, B, C and D who were unemployed, decided to loot the house of a rich businessman one night. When all of them were about to jump the compound wall, D decided to remain at the gate and warn them, in case of any problem. A, B and C entered the house and took cash and gold ornaments. While coming out of the house B tripped on a ru

A, B, C and D are all liable for the robbery. B in addition, is liable for the murder of the Watchman as murdering any one was not in their plan.
A, B and C are all liable for the robbery. B in addition, is liable for the murder of the Watchman. D is innocent of both the crimes as he was only guarding at the gate and did not participate in the crimes.
A, B, C and D are all liable for the robbery and murder of the Watchman as it was done in order to carry out their common plan.
A, B and C are liable for the robbery and murder of the Watchman as it was in fulfillment of their common plan. D is innocent as he did not participate in any of the crimes.

Question 67 of 150

What constitutes the gist of an offence under section 34, IPC? [DU LLM Entrance 2008]

same intention
similar intention
common object
common intention

Question 68 of 150

Imputed Criminal Liability Principle is laid down in which of the following provision/provisions: [CLAT LLM 2011]

Section 34 of the IPC
Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC
Section 108A of the IPC
Section 120A of the IPC.

Question 69 of 150

A, B, C, D and E entered the house of a prosperous businessman at 12.30 AM breaking open the kitchen door. Having planned to rob, they administered chloroform to the middle aged couple. While A, B, C and D managed to find money and gold ornaments in one of the cupboards, E went up to the first floor to look for more cupboards. When he entered the bedroom upstairs he found a beautiful girl fast asleep. After administering chloroform, he raped her and then rushed downstairs not venturing to steal anything. However, while leaving the gate, all the

A, B, C, D and E should be convicted for dacoity and rape read with Section 34, IPC.
As E. did not steal anything, E should be convicted only for rape
A, B, C, D and E should be convicted for house breaking by night, criminal trespass, dacoity and rape read with Section 34, IPC.
A, B, C, D and E should be convicted for house breaking by night, criminal trespass and dacoity read with Section 34, IPC but only E should be convicted for rape.

Question 70 of 150

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with: [ILI LLM 2012]

Common intention
Common object
Common knowledge
Criminal intention.

Question 71 of 150

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, recognizes one out of the following principles of criminal jurisprudence: [TLI LLM 2011, 2014]

Principle of Absolute Liability
Principle of Joint Liability
Principle of Strict Liability
Principle of Vicarious Liability.

Question 72 of 150

When a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone if it is done in furtherance of: [ILI LLM 2010]

Common object
Common intention
Common motive
Common motive as well as common object.

Question 73 of 150

Common intention under Section 34 implies: [HPJS 2011, J Pre JS 2014, AILET 2016]

Similar intention
Pre-arranged planning
Presence of common knowledge
Common design for common object

Question 74 of 150

In cases of common intention which of the following statements hold true? [AILET 2016]

The members of the mob = are presumed to have common intention for the offences committed
In cases excluding gang rape cases it is necessary for the common intention to be there from the beginning
For establishing of common intention it is necessary to prove individual acts of the accused by direct evidence
In gang rape cases it is not necessary for the common intention to be from the beginning, it can be developed at the last minute before committing of the offence

Question 75 of 150

In case of Kidnapping, a minor male means a person of age under: [TN APO 2019]

18 years
16 years
21 years
20 years

Question 76 of 150

A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s jewels. What offence A has committed? [TN APO 2019]

Theft
Robbery
Extortion
Dacoity

Question 77 of 150

In which of the following cases the Privy Council made a distinction between ‘common intention’ and ‘similar intention’? [MP APPO 2003, HPJS 2015]

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
Mahboob Shah v. King Emperor
Shrinivasmal Barolia v. Emperor
Bannu Mal v. Emperor

Question 78 of 150

The principle of common intention applies only when: [Raj APO 2007]

at least 5 persons involved
at least 2 persons involved
at least 1 persons involved
none of the above

Question 79 of 150

Under which one of the following Sections of Indian Penal Code, the principle of ‘joint criminal liability’ is applicable? [UK APO 2010]

Section 36
Section 39
Section 34
Section 40

Question 80 of 150

Under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code: [MP CJ 2018]

Physical Presence is necessary
Physical Presence is necessary for participation but not in all cases
Physical presence is not necessary
Physical Presence is necessary with common knowledge.

Question 81 of 150

Judgment in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 explained the penal law relating to: [HJS 2017]

Right to private defence
Defence of unsound mind
Common object
Common intention
None of the above

Question 82 of 150

X gave poisoned halva to Y with an intention to kill him. Y ate one morsel and kept it on the side: Z who was sitting there, picked it up and ate it. Z died: [ATLEY 2019]

X is guilty of murder of Z
X is guilty of only culpable homicide not amounting to murder
X is not guilty of murder
X is guilty neither of murder nor of culpable homicide as he never intended to Kill Z

Question 83 of 150

Which one of the following statements is correct? Joint criminal liability based on common intention requires that: [DAPP 2005]

criminal act is done bv more than one Person
there is a common intention among, the accused persons
the accused has a participating presence in a commission of the crime
All the above

Question 84 of 150

X with the intention to steal ornaments opened Y’s box and found it empty. Which of the following statements is correct? [UGC-NET 2019]

X is not liable for attempt to commit theft as the be. being empty, commission of the was impossible
X is not liable for attempt to commit theft as he did not do the penultimate act towards commi of theft.
X is not guilty of attampt to commit theft as the ornaments were not in the box.
X is guilty of attempt to commit theft as he had an intention to commit theft and did act towards its commission

Question 85 of 150

In which one of the following cases was the distinction between common intention and similar intention pointed out? [DAPP 2005]

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Mahboob Shah v. King Emperor
Ram Prasad v. State of U.P.
J. M. Desai v. State of Bombay

Question 86 of 150

Which of the following is not a meaning of the expression ‘common intention’ under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? [UP APO 2009]

A prearranged plan prior meetings of minds, prior conmsulbations in between all the persons constituting the group
A desire to commit a criminal act without any contemplation of the consequence
The mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been committed
Evil intent to necessarily commit the same offence which is committed

Question 87 of 150

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each one of them is liable? [UPSC CS 1998, UP APO 2006, PJS 2010]

for an attempt to commit the act
for the abetment of the act
only for the part each one has done
as if it was done by each one of them in singular capacity

Question 88 of 150

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all: [MP APPO 2009, UP HJS 2009, PJS 2011, HADA 2016]

each of such person is liable for that act .
each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone .
each of such person is liable according to his guilt
none of the above is correct

Question 89 of 150

The self evident principle of criminal justice is based on: [UGC-NET 2017]

Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege
Perils of his life and liberty on refusal of bail
Simple Principles based on corrective law
To avoid purposelean cruelty

Question 90 of 150

The care of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor ware decide by which one of the following Courts? [HPJS (Pre) 2018]

Vederal Court
Supreme Court
Privy Council
House of Lords

Question 91 of 150

What is the basic difference between Section 34 and Section 149 of IPC? [UPSC CS 2008]

Section 44 creates a principle of joint liability and does not create a specific offence
Section 149 creates a specific offence Section 149 does not create a specific offence but Section 34 creates a specific offence
Both create specific offences but the principle of joint Hability is created only by Section 34
Both create specific offences but the principle of joint lability is created only by Section 149

Question 92 of 150

Which of the following distinguishes section 34 of IPC from section 149, IPC? 1. Section 149 creates a substantive offence whereas section 34 does not create an offence. 2. Section 149 requires common object whereas section 34 requires common intention, 3. Section 149 requires five or more persons whereas section 34 requires two or more persons, Select the correct answer by using the codes given below: [UPSC CS 2007]

1, 2 and 3
1 and 3
2 and 3
1 and 2

Question 93 of 150

Which of the following is false of Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code? [Guj CJS 2019]

Section 34 does not by itself create any specific offence whereas Section 149 does so
Some active participation in crime is required in Section 34 while it is not needed in Section 149
Section 34 speaks of common intention while Section 149 contemplates common object
Section 34 requires at least five persons who must share the common intention while Section 149 requires at least two persons to share the common intention

Question 94 of 150

‘A’, B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ are charged for murder of ‘E’, But evidence proved that ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ along with three others jointly committed the offence. The court acquits ‘A’, ‘B’ ‘C’, but convicts ‘D’. In the context of the above, which one of the following statements is correct? [UPSC CS 2006]

The conviction is legally valid
The conviction is bad in law as ‘D’ as a single person cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC
The conviction is bad in law as the other person charged with ‘D’ were acquitted
The conviction is bad in law as the unnamed person were not charged with ‘D’

Question 95 of 150

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code regarding a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all is: [DJS 2019 (II)]

a separate offence itself punishable separately.
(b) only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence.
attracted in cases of criminal conspiracy.
Both (b) and (c) are correct.

Question 96 of 150

Which one of the following statements regarding Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is correct? [UPSC CS 2005]

Common intention and common object are the same
Both are distinct offences in themselves
Section 34 enunciates a mere principle of liability and creates no offence while Section 149 creates a specific offence
Sections 34 and 149 are mutually helping Sections

Question 97 of 150

Section 34 of IPC 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 to Section 34? [UPSC CS 2005]

1 and 2
2 and 3
2 only
4 only

Question 98 of 150

The various words used to denote Mens Rea under the IPC and are defined in the code itself are: [AIBE 2017]

Corruptly and want only
Malignantly and Maliciously
Rashly and negligently

Question 99 of 150

Consider the following statements: 1. Section 34 of IPC requires two persons whereas Section 149 of IPC require five persons. 2. Section 34 of IPC requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of IPC requires common object 3. Section 34 of IPC and Section 149 of IPC both require presence of a prior consent 4. Section 34 of IPC and section 149 of IPC. Both create specific offence Which of the above statements are correct? [UPSC CS 2001]

1 and 3
2 and 3
1 and 2
2 and 4

Question 100 of 150

Which one of the following brings out the distinction between Section 34 and 149 of the IPC? [UPSC CS 1999, JJS 2016]

Section 34 creates a specific offence where as Section 149 does not
Section 34 as well as Section 149 create specific offences
Section 149 creates a specific offence whereas Section 34 does not
Section 34 as well as Section 149 do not create specific offences

Question 101 of 150

Which of the following among item A and item B are correct? Item A: Common intention within the meaning of Section 34 of the Penal Code means: 1. evil intention of many persons to commit the same act 2. implication of a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind, between all the persons constituting the group 3. a desire of several persons to commit an act without contemplating the consequences Item B: Within the meaning of section 149 in prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly’s means: 1. in relation to common intention of the group

1 and 2 of both items
1 and 3 of both items
2 alone of both items
3 along of both items

Question 102 of 150

Consider the following statement: Section 34 of the IPC does not apply where: 1. five or more person assembled where one killed A 2. Aand B who are enemies of C decided distinctly of kill C. A killed C when B was also present 3. the presence of any person, who participated in the pre-arranged plan, is not necessary at the time of actual commission of the crime 4. privity of mind of all the accused is an essential ingredient for the commission of crime of these statements: [UPSC CS 1997]

1, 2 and 4 are correct
1, 2 and 3 are correct
2,3 and 4 are correct
1, 3 and 4 are correct

Question 103 of 150

It was alleged that ‘L’ ’M’, ‘N’, ‘P, ‘Q’ and ‘R’ with common object of taking forcible possession of land belonging to ‘Y’ entered his land, ‘P’ caused grievous hurt to ‘Y’ for the purpose of taking such possession. Presence of ‘Q’ and ‘R’ was doubted by the Court. Which one of the following statements is correct is this regard? [UPSC CS 1996]

‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’ are guilty of the offence committed by ‘P’ on the basis of section 149, IPC
‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’ are guilty of unlawful assembly
‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’ are guilty on the basis of section 34, IPC
‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’ are not guilty at all

Question 104 of 150

Common intention implies: [UPSC CS 1996]

similar intention
pre-arranged planning
presence of common knowledge
common design for common objects

Question 105 of 150

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of a common intention of all, each of such persons is liable: [UPSC CS 1994, PJS 2010]

for the part of the act done by him
as if the whole of the act is done by him alone
for abetting such an offence
for conspiracy of such an offence

Question 106 of 150

‘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? [UPSC CS 1994]

‘A’ procured the weapon of offence voluntarily
The weapon of offence was taken away from ‘A’s house without his knowledge
‘A’ was made to purchase the weapon of offence under the threat to his own life
When the weapon was snatched away from ‘A’ he did not report the same to police

Question 107 of 150

Accused persons were charged under section 302 read with section 149, IPC. The existence of common intention amongst the accused persons was established from the surrounding circumstances and from their conduct on the spot. No charge had been framed under section 34, IPC. In such case: [DHJS 2014]

it is not possible to convict the accused with the aid of section 34.
it is possible to convict the accused with the aid of section 34.
cannot be determined.
none of these

Question 108 of 150

The difference between section 34 and section 149 of IPC is that ………. [HJS 2011, DJS 2014, 2015, DU LLM Entrance 2015, 2016, Jhar JS 2019]

Section 34 deals with group hability whereas section 149 deals with unlawful assembly
Section 34 requires five persons whereas section 149 requires minimum of two
Section 34 requires active participation whereas section 149 is attracted even on membership of the unlawful assembly
Section 34 is a substantive offence whereas section 149 is a rule of evidence only

Question 109 of 150

Common intention means: [UP APO 2002, HPJ 2009]

Similar intention
Same intention
Sharing of intention by all persons
Common plans

Question 110 of 150

Which one of the following is not an essential element of Section 34 of Indian Panel Code? [UP PCS 2003]

Criminal act done by several persons
Criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention
Pre-arranged plan between persons doing criminal act
Act done in furtherance of common object

Question 111 of 150

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all each of them is liable: [DJS 2007]

for individual act
as if it were done by each alone
none of the above

Question 112 of 150

Which one of the following cases is a case relating to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? [UJS 2009]

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Niharendu Dutta v. King Emperor
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v, King Emperor
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal

Question 113 of 150

For the application of Section 34, IPC, there must be at least: [PJS 2010]

two persons
more than two persons
five persons
more than five persons

Question 114 of 150

In which case the court made a clear distinction between ‘common intention’ and ‘similar intention’? [UJS 2010]

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Mahboob Shah v. King Emperor
Kripal Singh v. State of U.P.
Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of U.P.

Question 115 of 150

Which of the following statement is correct? [DJS 2011]

Section 34, IPC creates a substantive offence.
Section 34, IPC introduces the principle of vicarious liability for an offence committed by the co-accused
Section 34, IPC recognizes that the coparticipant in a crime must be made liable for his act in the commission of the crime by the co-accused.

Question 116 of 150

To establish Section 34 of IPC: [Chatt ADPPO 2006, PJS 2011]

a common intention is to be proved but not overt act be proved
common intention and overt act both have to be proved
common intention need not be proved but overt act be proved
all the above

Question 117 of 150

Give correct response with respect to the difference between Section 34 and 149: [PJS 2011]

Section 34 does create specific offence while Section 149 does not
active participation is needed in Section 34 thus not necessary in Section 149
Both (a) and (b)
None of these

Question 118 of 150

The phrase “in furtherance of common intention of all” used in Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is: [UP PCS CJ 2013]

in the original draft
added by Amending Act of 1870
not at all there
added by Amending Act of 1986

Question 119 of 150

When several persons do a Criminal act in furtherance to the common intention: [KCJ 2012]

each of such person shall be liable according to the extent of his participation in the crime
each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone
each of such person is liable for his own overt act
all of the above

Question 120 of 150

In which one of the following cases Lord Summer said, “they also serve who stand and wait”? [UJS 2014]

Mahboob Shah v. Emperor
Inder Singh v. Emperor
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
None of the above

Question 121 of 150

Read the following: (1) R. v. McNaughten is the case related with insanity as a defence. (2) R. v. Govinda is-the case related with a common intention. Of the above: [Punj PSC 2018]

(1) is true but (2) is false
(1) is false but (2) is true
Both (1) and (2) are true
Both (1) and (2) are false

Question 122 of 150

‘A’, a woman knowing that his husband ‘B’ has recently committed dacoity, harbours him with the intention of screening him from punishment. In this case ‘A’ is: [UGC-NET 2018]

guilty for harbouring only
guilty for screening only
guilty for harbouring as well as screening
not guilty

Question 123 of 150

‘A’ enters into the house of ‘B’ with the intention to commit theft. ‘B’ along with other members of his family surround and attack ‘A’ with wooden sticks. ‘A’ finding his life in danger fires with pistol causing death to ‘B’. Here ‘A’ has committed: [UGC-NET 2018]

No offence, as he acted in self-defence
Theft
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Murder

Question 124 of 150

“Common intention” and “similar intention” was distinguished in the famous case of: [UJS 2015, HRJS 2015, HADA 2016]

Barendra K. Ghosh v. King, 1925 PC 1
Mehboob Shah v. Emperor, 1943 PC 118
Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., 1954 SC 706
Rishidev Pandey v. State of U.P., 1955 SC 331

Question 125 of 150

Which of the following statement/ statements is/are not correct? (i) Both Sections 34 and 149 of IPC itself create specific offences (ii) Both Sections 34 and 149 of IPC relate to Doctrine of Vicarious liability (iii) Section 34 fixes a minimum two persons who must share common intention while Section 149 requires there must be at least 10 persons to have the common object
(iv) Some active participation is necessary under Section 34 but Section 149 does not require it. Mere member of the unlawful Assembly with common
object is sufficient for

Only (i) is incorrect
(i) and (ii) both are incorrect
(i) and (iii) are incorrect
(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) all are incorrect

Question 126 of 150

Which of the following statements is not correct: [RJS 2016]

In a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of them will be held liable for that act.
In an act done by several persons, the act being criminal only by reason of its being done with criminal knowledge or intention, all persons joining in the act, irrespective of such knowledge or intention, will be held liable for that act.
In an offence done by means of several acts, all the persons intentionally cooperating in that act by doing any of those acts, will be held liable for that offence
In a criminal act done by several persons, all may be held liable for different offences by means of that act

Question 127 of 150

Which one of the following elements is not essential for the applications of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? [UP PCS CJ 2008]

common intention
commission of an offence
number of offenders be five
offence should be committed furtherance of common intention

Question 128 of 150

To impose joint liability under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution needs to prove: [DU LLM Entrance 2010]

Intention
Same intention
Similar intention
Common intention

Question 129 of 150

‘A’ intentionally causes ‘Z’s death partly by illegally omitting to give ‘Z’ food and partly by beating ‘Z’, ‘A’ is liable for murder by virtue of which one of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code? [RJS 2011]

Section 36
Section 37
Section 34
Section 35

Question 130 of 150

To prosecute a person under Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the following requirement is essential: [ILI LLM 2014]

Common Intention
Common Object
Cooperation
Similar Intention.

Question 131 of 150

Which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, defines ‘Voluntarily’? [UK CJS 2018]

Section 39
Section 38
Section 37
Section 36

Question 132 of 150

The term ‘offence’ as defined in IPC means: [AILET 2016]

Any Act made punishable by the Penal Code
Any Act made punishable by the Penal Code or any special or local law in certain cases
Both (a) and (b)
None of these

Question 133 of 150

“Offence” is defined under: [Chhat ADPPO 2008, UJS 2010, HPJS 2011, Jhar APO 2012, HJS 2013]

Section 41 of IPC
Section 40 of IPC
Section 42 of IPC
Section 39 of IPC

Question 134 of 150

“Local Law” mentioned under Section 42 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 means a law applicable to: [UJS 2014]

whole of India
a particular part of India
any part of India
None of the above

Question 135 of 150

In IPC the word illegal is applicable to which of the following? [MP APPO 2008]

which is an offence
Which is prohibited by law
Which furnishes ground for a civil action
To all the above

Question 136 of 150

Under Section 43 of the IPC, the word “illegal” is not applicable to everything: [MP HJS 2011]

Which is an offence
Which is prohibited by law
Causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person
Which furnishes ground for a civil action

Question 137 of 150

To which one of the following the word ‘Illegal’ used under Section 43 of IPC is not applicable? [JJS 2014]

Which is an offence
Which is prohibited by law
Which furnishes a ground for civil action
Which is immoral

Question 138 of 150

Which one of the following statements is correct? Injury is any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in his: [UPSC CS 2007]

body or mind only
body, mind, reputation or property
body or reputation only
body or property only

Question 139 of 150

The word ‘injury’ in Section 44 of IPC denotes harm illegally caused to: [HSJS 2012]

body
property
mind and reputation
all of the above

Question 140 of 150

Under Section 44 of IPC, the term ‘Injury” means any harm: [HPJS 2015]

illegally caused to a person in body and mind
illegally caused to a person in body and property
illegally caused to a person in body, mind, reputation or property
illegally caused to a person in body, mind and reputation

Question 141 of 150

Under section 45 of IPC, life denotes: [AJS 2011, CLAT LLM 2015, Bihar HJS 2019]

life of a human being
life of an animal
life of human being and of an animal both
life of either human being or animal.

Question 142 of 150

A person is believed to have acted in good faith when it is proven that the accused: (DU LLM Entrance 2010]

Acted with due care and caution
Was a faithful person worthy of trust
Was a God fearing and religious person
Lacked mens rea

Question 143 of 150

Good faith within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code means: [UPSC CS 1999, UPSC 2001, UJS 2014, DU LLM Entrance 2015, AILET 2016, DJS 2018-19]

an act done with due care and attention
an actual belief that the act done is not contrary to law
an act, in fact, done honestly
an act done under bona fide belief

Question 144 of 150

Meaning of good faith under IPC is doing any thing: [HSJS 2012]

honestly
in bona fide manner
with due care and attention
without fault

Question 145 of 150

The word ‘good faith’ is defined in the Indian Penal Code in: [UP APO 2002, HPJ 2009]

Section 44
Section 51
Section 52
Section 52A

Question 146 of 150

Under the Indian Penal Code, nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed: [CBI, APP 2015]

without attention
dishonestly
without proper care and caution
without due care and attention

Question 147 of 150

Match the items of List I with the items of List II and choose the correct answer from the code given below. List I List I
(Provision for) (Section of 1.P.C.)
(a) General explanation of (i) Section 45
‘lite’
(b) Act of judge when acting — (di) Section 52
judicially
{c) Act of child under seven (iii) Section 77
years of age
(d) Explanation of ‘Good (iv) Section 82
faith’
Codes:
(a) (b) (c) (d)
[UGC-NET 2018]

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(ii) (iv) (i) (iii)
(i) (ili) (iv) (ii)
(iv) (ili) (ii) (i)

Question 148 of 150

According to Section 52 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without ……………. [PJS 2017]

due care or diligence
due attention or bona fide
due diligence or bona fide
None of these

Question 149 of 150

Under which of the following Sections of the IPC ‘harbouring’ has been defined? [Phar APO 2012]

Section 52A
Section 60
Section 212
All of the above

Question 150 of 150

According to the IPC 1860, which one among the following is not an offence? [DAPP 2010]

Preparation to wage a war against the State
Preparation to commit dacoity
Preparation to commit murder
Preparation to commit depredation on the territory of a friendly power

Pos.	Name	Entered on	Points	Result
Table is loading
No data available

Average score
Your score

General Explanations

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question

11. Question

12. Question

13. Question

14. Question

15. Question

16. Question

17. Question

18. Question

19. Question

20. Question

21. Question

22. Question

23. Question

24. Question

25. Question

26. Question

27. Question

28. Question

29. Question

30. Question

31. Question

32. Question

33. Question

34. Question

35. Question

36. Question

37. Question

38. Question

39. Question

40. Question

41. Question

42. Question

43. Question

44. Question

45. Question

46. Question

47. Question

48. Question

49. Question

50. Question

51. Question

52. Question

53. Question

54. Question

55. Question

56. Question

57. Question

58. Question

59. Question

60. Question

61. Question

62. Question

63. Question

64. Question

65. Question

66. Question

67. Question

68. Question

69. Question

70. Question

71. Question

72. Question

73. Question