5421. To apply Sec. 34 there must be at least :
A. 2 persons.
B. 5 persons.
C. More then two persons.
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
UPSC
5422. What is the difference between Sc. 34 and 149?
A. While active participation is needed in Sec. 34 while not necessary in Sec. 149.
B. Sec. 34 does create specific offence while Sec. 149 does not.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
5423. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.
5424. 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.’
✅ The correct answer is option D.
5425. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.
5426. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
5427. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
5428. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
5429. 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.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
5430. “Common intention” under Sec. 34 does mean:
A. Pre-concert of minds.
B. Similar intention.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option A.