Top 1000+ Solved Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQ Questions Answer
Q. The difference between Section 34 and Section 149 is:
a. That whereas in Section 34 there must be at least five persons, Section 149 required only two persons.
b. That Section 149 is only a rule of evidence whereas Section 34 creates a specific offence and provides for its punishment.
c. That Section 34 requires active participation in action whereas Section 149 requires mere passive membership of the unlawful assembly
d. None of the above
Q. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, eachone of them is liable:
a. As if it was done by each one of them in singular capacity
b. Only for the part each one has done
c. For the abetment of the act
d. For an attempt to commit the act.
Q. Common intention implies:
a. Similar intention
b. Pre-arranged planning
c. Presence of planning
d. Presence of common knowledge.
Q. Give incorrect response. The following are the requirements of the principle of joint liability under section 34 of the Penal Code:
a. Some criminal act must be done by several persons.
b. Criminal act must be done in furtherance of common intention of all of them.
c. Several persons must share the common intention, they may or may not participate in the commission of the act constituting the crime.
d. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan between such persons.
Q. Give correct response. Common intention within the meaning of section 34 of the Penal Code means:
a. It implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds, prior consultation in between all the persons constituting the group.
b. Evil intention of many persons to commit the same act.
c. A desire of many persons to commit a criminal act without any contemplation of the consequences.
d. The mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been committed by several persons.
Q. Give correct response. The principle of common intention within the meaning of section 34 of the Penal Code means:
a. Where each of the several persons did something criminal, all acting in furtherance of the common intention, each was punishable for what he had done as if he had done it by himself.
b. Where an act is done by several persons each one of them shall be jointly liable for any act done by any one of them provided their intention was same and they have acted jointly.
c. Section 34 deals with the doing of several acts, similar or diverse by several persons ; if all are done in furtherance of the common intention of all each of such persons is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself.
d. For joint liability under section 34 it would not be sufficient to show that the intention of the persons committing the crime was same or similar but it has also to be shown that they have acted jointly in furtherance of such intention.
Q. Give the correct response? When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all :
a. each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
b. each of such persons is liable for that act.
c. each of such person is liable according to their guilt.
d. None of the above.
Q. Give the correct response?
a. Sec. 34 does create a substantive offence.
b. Sec. 34 is only a rule of evidence.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. Under Sec. 34
a. Physical presence is necessary for participation but not in all cases.
b. Physical presence is not necessary at all.
c. Physical presence is necessary for participation in all cases.
d. None of the above.
Q. A & B goes to murder C. A stood as guard with a spear in hand to facilitate murder of C by B
a. A is liable for murder only.
b. B is liable for murder only.
c. A and B are liable for murder only.
d. A is not liable.
Q. Before a man can he held liable under Sec. 34
a. The person should have participated in some what manner in the act.
b. There was common intention.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. Common intention under Sec. 34 :
a. May develop at the spot as between a number of persons.
b. Implies a pre-arranged plan.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. Point out incorrect response. In Barendera Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40, the appellant was charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. with the murder of a sub-postmaster. Sub-postmaster was counting money in the backroom. Several persons appeared at the door of the office and demanded the post master to give up the money and immediately afterwards fired pistols at him. Postmaster died immediately and the assailants fled in different directions without taking money. On of them was chased and caught with a pistol in his hand. It was not clear as to who fired the fatal shot. While holding the appellant liable for murder the Privy Council laid down the following principles:
a. “Criminal act” means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be liable if it were all done by himself alone, in a criminal offence.
b. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, in crimes they also serve who only stand and wait.
c. Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons ; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for ‘that act’ in the latter part of the section must include the whole action covered by a “criminal act” in the first part because they refer to it.
d. Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with the common intention.
Q. Point out incorrect response. The following principles were laid down in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor 72 I.A. 148.
a. Under section 34 the essence of liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
b. It is difficult if not impossible, to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual; in most cases it has to be inferred from his act etc. Such an inference should never be reached unless it is necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.
c. Common intention within in the meaning of section 34 implies a prearranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying this section, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan.
d. Even though a person has not done anything but was only standing where the crime was committed by his co-conspirators the rule is that ‘they also serve who only stand and wait.’
Q. Give correct response. In J.M. Desat v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 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 for damage done to them and their nondelivery.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. The Managing Director would be liable under section 409 read with section 34 I.P.C. because physical presence is not necessary in offences involving diverse acts which may be done at different time and places.