Question

Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, suddenly Aman (another biker) bumped into their bike. A heated argument started between the three of them. While Raghav started abusing Aman, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod lying on the road and as a consequence he died. Now, chose the correct option. (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, suddenly Aman (another biker) bumped into their bike. A heated argument started between the three of them. While Raghav started abusing Aman, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod lying on the road and as a consequence he died. Now, chose the correct option. (Answer the question after reading the following paragraph.)

Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.

Common Intention and Similar Intention

Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….” The mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of ‗several persons‘ be known to each other for constituting common intention.

Option A: Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.
Option B: Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.
Option C: No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself and he started the fight.
Option D: Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.

Correct Answer

Option: b

Explanation

Chapter XVI, Section 301 IPC describes Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.

Sample Mock Tests for Practice

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018(1)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 40)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2009

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019-2

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 280)

AIBE-XV-2021-I (BCI-JAN-2021-SET-C) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2021-I)

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2017)

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2016)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 269)

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2018)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 401 TO 440)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 12)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 22 Q. NO. 841 TO 874)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2014

THE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 29)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

UTTARAKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 25)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 14 Q. NO. 521 TO 560)

THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (PAPER 01 Q.NO. 1 TO 40)

MAHARASHTRA LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

AIBE-XVI-2021-II (BCI-OCT-2021-SET-A) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2021-II)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

JHARKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018-2

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 12 Q. NO. 386 TO 420)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 211 TO 245)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 17 Q. NO. 641 TO 680)

THE HIMACHAL PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 2011 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 16)

UTTARAKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019