Match List I with List II and select the correct answer from the codes given below it :List IList II(a) Common Object(1) Abetment(b) Common Intention(2) Theft(c) Instigation(3) Joint Liability(d) Dishonest Intention(4) Constructive Liability

The correct match is (a)-(4), (b)-(3), (c)-(1), (d)-(2).Common object is the basis of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC: every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of its common object.Common intention is the basis of joint liability under Section 34.Instigation is the first form of abetment under Section 107.Dishonest intention is the mental element of theft under Section 378.Each other code misplaces at least two items, for example pairing common object with abetment, or instigation with theft.

Joint and Constructive Liability Questions and Answers

Q: Which of the following is not main ingredients of principle of joint liability under Section 34 of IPC.

The element that does not belong to Section 34 is 'the criminal act must be furtherance of common object'.Section 34 of the IPC makes several persons jointly liable when a criminal act is done by them in furtherance of the common intention of all. Its ingredients are a criminal act done by several persons, a common intention shared by all, and participation by each in furthering it.'Common object' is the language of Section 149, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed in prosecution of the assembly's common object. Common object does not require the prior meeting of minds that common intention does, and Section 149 needs five or more persons, so the two must not be confused.

Q: If a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for :

Each person is liable as if the whole act were done by him alone.Section 34 IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. It is a rule of joint liability: if a common intention to kill is shown, each participant is liable for murder, even if another struck the fatal blow.Liability is not confined to the part each personally did. Abetment and conspiracy are separate offences under Chapters V and V-A, not the effect of section 34.

Q: Which of the following explains the correct distinction between section 34 and section 149 of IPC ?

The answer is All of the above.Each statement is a recognised distinction between Section 34 (common intention) and Section 149 (common object of an unlawful assembly):Section 149 needs a common object of the kinds listed in Section 141, whereas the common intention under Section 34 may be of any kind.Section 34 requires some participation in the act, however small, whereas under Section 149 mere membership of the assembly at the time is enough.Section 34 creates no offence but lays down a rule of joint liability, while Section 149 creates a specific offence.Since the first three are all correct distinctions, choosing any one of them alone is incomplete.

Q: A criminal act in ............ consists of the entire bundle of acts or omissions, tied together with the chain of common intention that have combined to constitute the offences.

This describes the criminal act in Section 34 of the IPC.In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925) the Privy Council explained that the 'criminal act' in Section 34 means the whole unity of criminal behaviour, the bundle of acts by several persons tied together by their common intention, which results in the offence. Each person who shares the common intention is liable as if he had done the whole act.Section 149 rests on a common object of an unlawful assembly, not a common intention, and Section 141 only defines an unlawful assembly. So neither they nor 'both (A) and (B)' fits the description.

Which of the following is not main ingredients of principle of joint liability under Section 34 of IPC.

A.A criminal act must be done by several persons
B.The criminal act must be furtherance of common object
C.The criminal act must be to further the common intention of all and
D.There must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: B

The element that does not belong to Section 34 is 'the criminal act must be furtherance of common object'.

Section 34 of the IPC makes several persons jointly liable when a criminal act is done by them in furtherance of the common intention of all. Its ingredients are a criminal act done by several persons, a common intention shared by all, and participation by each in furthering it.

'Common object' is the language of Section 149, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed in prosecution of the assembly's common object. Common object does not require the prior meeting of minds that common intention does, and Section 149 needs five or more persons, so the two must not be confused.

Discuss in Forum

If a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for :

A.Abetment to commit such an offence
B.Conspiracy to commit such an offence
C.The part of the act done by him
D.As if whole of the act is done by him alone

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2020, SET Exam - 2020,

Answer: D

Each person is liable as if the whole act were done by him alone.

Section 34 IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of them is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. It is a rule of joint liability: if a common intention to kill is shown, each participant is liable for murder, even if another struck the fatal blow.

Liability is not confined to the part each personally did. Abetment and conspiracy are separate offences under Chapters V and V-A, not the effect of section 34.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following explains the correct distinction between section 34 and section 149 of IPC ?

A.The common object must be one specified in section 141 whereas under section 34 the common intention may be any intention
B.Section 34 requires some act, however small to be done, whereas under section 149 more membership of the assembly is sufficient
C.Section 34 enunciates a mere principle of liability, but creates no offence, while section 149 creates a specific offence
D.All of the above

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: D

The answer is All of the above.

Each statement is a recognised distinction between Section 34 (common intention) and Section 149 (common object of an unlawful assembly):

Section 149 needs a common object of the kinds listed in Section 141, whereas the common intention under Section 34 may be of any kind.
Section 34 requires some participation in the act, however small, whereas under Section 149 mere membership of the assembly at the time is enough.
Section 34 creates no offence but lays down a rule of joint liability, while Section 149 creates a specific offence.

Since the first three are all correct distinctions, choosing any one of them alone is incomplete.

Discuss in Forum

Match List I with List II and select the correct answer from the codes given below it :

List I	List II
(a) Common Object	(1) Abetment
(b) Common Intention	(2) Theft
(c) Instigation	(3) Joint Liability
(d) Dishonest Intention	(4) Constructive Liability

A.(a)-(1), (b)-(2), (c)-(3), (d)-(4)
B.(a)-(4), (b)-(3), (c)-(1), (d)-(2)
C.(a)-(3), (b)-(4), (c)-(2), (d)-(1)
D.(a)-(2), (b)-(3), (c)-(4), (d)-(1)

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: B

The correct match is (a)-(4), (b)-(3), (c)-(1), (d)-(2).

Common object is the basis of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC: every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of its common object.
Common intention is the basis of joint liability under Section 34.
Instigation is the first form of abetment under Section 107.
Dishonest intention is the mental element of theft under Section 378.

Each other code misplaces at least two items, for example pairing common object with abetment, or instigation with theft.

Discuss in Forum

A criminal act in ............ consists of the entire bundle of acts or omissions, tied together with the chain of common intention that have combined to constitute the offences.

A.Section 34 of IPC
B.Section 149 of IPC
C.Section 141 of IPC
D.Both (A) and (B)

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: A

This describes the criminal act in Section 34 of the IPC.

In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925) the Privy Council explained that the 'criminal act' in Section 34 means the whole unity of criminal behaviour, the bundle of acts by several persons tied together by their common intention, which results in the offence. Each person who shares the common intention is liable as if he had done the whole act.

Section 149 rests on a common object of an unlawful assembly, not a common intention, and Section 141 only defines an unlawful assembly. So neither they nor 'both (A) and (B)' fits the description.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Joint and Constructive Liability Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Joint and Constructive Liability Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications