Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?<br>1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.<br>2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.<br>3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.<br>4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.

Correct Answer: 1, 2, 3, 4

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?

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:

Which of the following is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 129, Indian Penal Code? Which of the following is an essential ingredien t of an offence under Section 129, Indian Penal Code?
1. The accused is a public servant (or was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence)
2. He was having custody of a prisoner of state or custody of a war prisoner
3. Such a prisoner was rescued or escaped
4. Such an escape or rescue was due to the negligence of the accused

Which of the following ingredient is to be proved of an offence under Section 128, Indian Penal Code by the prosecution?
1. The accused is a public servant
2. That a State prisoner or prisoner of war is confined in a place
3. That such accused (public servant) has in his custody such State prisoner or prisoner of war
4. That the accused public servant has voluntarily allowed a prisoner to escape from the place of confinement

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of confessional evidence
1. So much of the information as it relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused may be proved against him.
2. Person giving such information must be accused of an offence.
3. Accused need not be in the police custody.
4. Any statement of the accused confessing his guilt must be made in presence of a Magistrate, in all cases, whether anything is discovered or not in consequence of such statement, may be proved against him.

Consider the following statements:
1. A public servant accepted gratification to show favour to a person.
2. A person expecting to become a public servant accepted gratification to show favour.
3. A person not expecting to be in office accepted gratification to show favour.
Which of the above amount to an offence by a public servant u/s 161 Indian Penal Code?

Consider the following statements.
To constitute abetment, it is:
1. Necessary that the act abetted must be committed
2. Not necessary that the act abetted must be committed
3. Necessary that the person abetted must have the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor
Which of the statements given above represent(s) the correct position of law?

Consider the following statements:
To constitute abetmentit is
1. Necessary that the act abetted must be committed.
2. Not necessary that the act abetted must be committed.
3. Necessary that the person abetted must have the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Which of the statement given above represent(s) the correct position of law?

Consider the following statement(s).
A police officer has the power to arrest any person without an order from a magistrate or warrant of arrest, if he has reason to suspect his complicity in a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, provided that he is satisfied for reasons in writing that such arrest is necessary
1. To prevent such person from committing any further offence.
2. For proper investigation of the offence.
3. To prevent such person from tampering with or causing the evidence of the offence to disappear.
4. To compel the absconding co-accused to surrender.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Abetment of an offence punishable with imprisonment, if the abettor or the person abetted be a public servant, whose duty is to prevent the offence is dealt under