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:

A

1 and 3

B

2 and 3

C

1 and 2

D

2 and 4

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:

A

1, 2 and 3

B

1 and 3

C

2 and 3

D

1 and 2

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.

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

Three persons A, B and C are standing in a queue. There are five persons between A and B and eight persons between B and C. If there be three persons ahead of C and 21 persons behind A, what could be the minimum number of persons in the queue?

A

41

B

40

C

28

D

27

Consider the following statements:
1. Intention is the essence of sedition.
2. Intention is irrelevant in sedition.
3. Result is the essence of sedition.
4. Intention and result both are important in sedition.
Which of the statement given above is/are correct?

A

1 only

B

2 and 3

C

1 and 3

D

4

Read the following information carefully and answer the questions that follow: Seven persons Tina, Vini, Yasir, Rishi, Sanya, Pankaj and Urmila live on the separate floors of a 7- floor building. Ground floor is number one; second floor is number two and so on. Each of them goes to a city viz. Paris, Istanbul, Shanghai, Durban, London, Madrid and Dubai but not necessarily in the same order. Only three people live above the floor on which Sanya lives. Only one person lives between Sanya and the one who goes to Paris. Vini lives just below the person who goes to Madrid. Only three people live between the one who goes to Paris and London. The person who goes to Madrid lives on an even numbered floor. Urmila lives just above Rishi. Urmila does not go to London. Only two persons live between Pankaj and the one who goes to Durban. Pankaj lives above the person who goes to Durban. Yasir does not go to Istanbul. Tina does not live just above or just below Sanya. The one who goes to Shanghai does not live just above or just below Pankaj. Who among the following lives on floornumber 7?

A

Tina\

B

Yasir

C

Pankaj

D

Urmila

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?

A

1 and 2

B

1 only

C

1, 2 and 3

D

2 only