Bissoy
Login
Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App
Which of the following distinguishes section 34 of Indian Penal Code from section 149, Indian Penal Code?<br>1. Section 149 creates a substantive offence whereas section 34 does not create an offence.<br>2. Section 149 requires common object whereas section 34 requires common intention.<br>3. Section 149 requires five or more persons whereas section 34 requires two or more persons.<br>Select the correct answer:
A
1, 2 and 3
B
1 and 3
C
2 and 3
D
1 and 2
Correct Answer:
1, 2 and 3
Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
A
1 and 3
B
2 and 3
C
1 and 2
D
2 and 4
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
A
1 and 3
B
2 and 3
C
1 and 2
D
2 and 4
Which of the following statement/statements is/are not correct?
1. Both Sections 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code itself create specific offences
2. Both Sections 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code relate to Doctrine of Vicarious liability
3. Section 34 fixes a minimum two persons who must share common intention while Section 149 requires there must be at least 10 persons to have the common object
4. Some active participation is necessary under Section 34 but Section 149 does not require it. Mere member of the unlawful Assembly with common object is sufficient for liability.
A
Only 1 is incorrect
B
1 and 2 both are incorrect
C
1 and 3 are incorrect
D
1, 2, 3 and 4 all are incorrect
Which of the following among item A and item B are correct?
Item A: Common intention within the meaning of Section 34 of the Penal Code means:
1. Evil intention of many persons to commit the same act
2. Implication of a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind, between all the persons constituting the group
3. A desire of several persons to commit an act without contemplating the consequences
Item B: Within the meaning of section 149 in prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly's means:
1. In relation to common intention of the group
2. In order to attain the common object
3. In relation to a common object
Select the correct answer:
A
1 and 2 of both items
B
1 and 3 of both items
C
2 alone of both items
D
3 along of both items
Read the following statements and answer with the help of given below:
(1) Two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife.
(2) Two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands.
(3) Two persons are said to be related to each other by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife.
(4) Two persons are said to be related to each other by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives.
A
(1) and (2) are correct, but (3) and (4) are incorrect.
B
(1), (2) and (4) are correct, but (3) is incorrect.
C
(4) and (2) are correct, but (3) and (1) are incorrect.
D
(2) and (3) are correct, but (1) and (4) are incorrect.
Which of the following is an essential ingredient to an offence under Section 141, Indian Penal Code?
1. That there was an assembly of five or more persons
2. That assembly must have one of the five objects given in Section 141, Indian Penal Code
3. There must be commonality of object amongst all members
4. The members assembled knowingly or continued to join (remain in) the assembly
A
1
B
2, 4
C
3
D
1, 2, 3, 4
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Harbour ⇔ Section 51A, Indian Penal Code
2. Wrongful Loss ⇔ Section 23, Indian Penal Code
3. Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age ⇔ Section 376DB, Indian Penal Code
4. Gang rape ⇔ Section 376D, Indian Penal Code
Select the correct answer:
A
1, 3 and 4
B
1, 2 and 3
C
2, 3 and 4
D
1, 2 and 4
Which of the following statements are correct in relation to criminal conspiracy?
1. When two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act by an unlawful means then they will be guilty of criminal conspiracy
2. Several persons agreed to commit an "offence" but nothing was done in pursuance of the agreement
3. When two or more persons agree to do a lawful act in lawful manner by lawful means but an overt act is done by one them
4. Criminal conspiracy to commit and offence punishable with fine alone will not entail any liability
Select the correct answer:
A
1, 3 and 4
B
2, 3 and 4
C
1, 2 and 4
D
1, 2 and 3
Accused persons were charged under section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. The existence of common intention amongst the accused persons was established from the surrounding circumstances and from their conduct on the spot. No charge had been framed under section 34, Indian Penal Code. In such case
A
It is not possible to convict the accused with the aid of section 34
B
It is possible to convict the accused with the aid of section 34
C
Cannot be determined
D
None of these
Choice the correct propositions:
1. Evidence of fingerprint expert is substantive evidence.
2. Evidence of fingerprint expert can be used only to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.
3. Evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence.
4. Evidence of fingerprint expert is admissible in all circumstances as expert evidence.
A
1 and 2 are true
B
2 and 3 are true
C
3 and 4 are true
D
2 and 4 are true