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

Assertion (A): The essence of joint liability under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is that the criminal act must have been done with a view to fulfill the common object of an unlawful assembly.<br>Reason (R): Any sudden and provocative act done by a member of an unlawful assembly would render the other members of that assembly liable:

Correct Answer: A is true but R is false

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 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.

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 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:

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

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition

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:

Under section 149 of Indian Penal Code if an offence is committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object

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