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

Does Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, create a distinct substantive offence?

Correct Answer: Yes

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 distinguishes section 34 of Indian Penal Code from section 149, Indian Penal Code?
1. Section 149 creates a substantive offence whereas section 34 does not create an offence.
2. Section 149 requires common object whereas section 34 requires common intention.
3. Section 149 requires five or more persons whereas section 34 requires two or more persons.
Select the correct answer:

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:

397 × 397 + 104 × 104 + 2 × 397 × 104 = ?

Consider the following statements:
1. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was examined by the Supreme Court of India and held that this Section violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution,
2. Counsel for appellants/petitioners in the above case contended that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary, because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure.
3. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide by causing death of person other that the person whose death was intended.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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 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.

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.

Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code punishes the offence of exposure and abandonment of a child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it. Section 304 of the Indian Penal code provides for punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
'A' exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause its death. The child dies in consequence of such exposure. In such circumstances 'A' may be