Question: A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For what offense A, B, C, and D are liable? Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) Exam, 1981 Find the answer to the mains question only… Read More »

Question: A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For what offense A, B, C, and D are liable? Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) Exam, 1981 Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For...

Question: A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For what offense A, B, C, and D are liable? Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) Exam, 1981

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For what offence A, B, C, and D are liable?]

Answer

A B, and D are guilty of beating X (hurt or grievous hurt according to the nature of bodily harm or injury that occurred). D will also be liable for molesting of the daughter of X which will be covered under Section 354 of IPC that deals with outraging the modesty of a woman. Further, B would be liable for committing the theft of watches, in addition to beating X.

The reason for the above conclusion goes on as follows: A, B, C, and D jointly plan to beat X. Thus, all four accused persons are guilty of beating X under Section 34, as the offense was committed in furtherance of their common intention. In addition, D is individually guilty of molesting X’s daughter and B is individually guilty of theft of watch as there was no meeting of minds or pre-arranged plan to molest or steal, which is an essential element for invoking common intention under Section 34 of the act. The common intention or meeting of minds did not develop even on the spot as was held by the Supreme Court in Krishna Govind Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 sc 1413.

In Ramashish Yadav v State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555, two groups of people clashed over land. The accused side was armed with weapons. Two accused were convicted under Section 302 read with section 34, IPC the SC, after considering the evidence, held that prior concert or meeting of minds may be determined from the conduct of offenders unfolding itself and by declarations made by them. On this ground, the two accused who merely held the deceased were held not to have shared the common intention and hence were acquitted.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-06-29T06:04:59+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story