Question: Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons), and C (informant). In such a sudden fight, A caused simple hurt to C whereas B caused grievous hurt to C. Will A and B both be guilty of causing grievous hurt to C in view of the provision made in Section 34, LP.C.? Give reasons and also… Read More »

Question: Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons), and C (informant). In such a sudden fight, A caused simple hurt to C whereas B caused grievous hurt to C. Will A and B both be guilty of causing grievous hurt to C in view of the provision made in Section 34, LP.C.? Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point. B successively and independently wound C with murderous intent. C dies from the loss of blood caused by both the wounds together. But the fact...

Question: Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons), and C (informant). In such a sudden fight, A caused simple hurt to C whereas B caused grievous hurt to C. Will A and B both be guilty of causing grievous hurt to C in view of the provision made in Section 34, LP.C.? Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point. B successively and independently wound C with murderous intent. C dies from the loss of blood caused by both the wounds together. But the fact remained that C would not have died from either wound alone. Discuss the criminal liability of A and B. [UPCJ, 1992, 1997]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons) and C (informant)….]

Answer

No. only B will be held liable for grievous hurt following in death of C and A will be liable only for simple hurt caused by him to C, in the context of section 34, IPC.

Section 34 of the code deals with the provision relating to ‘acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention’ which is known as common intention. This section reads as follows- “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. Therefore, for the application of section 34, the meeting of minds (pre-arranged plan) between the accused person is necessary to hold the accused liable.

But in the present case, it is clear that A and B did not have a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds or had acted in a concert of a common intention to cause grievous hurt to C. So, both A and B here will be liable for their independent acts.

In R v Gora Chand Gopi, (1860) BLR Sup Vo. 443, Justice Barnes Peacock had observed:

“When several persons are in company together engaged in one common purpose, lawful or unlawful, and one of them, without the knowledge and consent of the others, commits an offense, the others will not be involved in the guilt unless the act was in some manner in furtherance of the common intention.”


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 2021-07-07T06:07:02+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story