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

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2007-1

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2016-2

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 22 Q. NO. 841 TO 870)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

BIHAR LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES EXAM 2020

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 05 Q. NO. 161 TO 200)

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2015

THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (PAPER NO.: 04 Q. 76 TO 100)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

MADHYA PRADESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019(2)

THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 35)

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

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

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

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2014)

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

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

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2010

GUJRAT LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 16 Q. NO. 526 TO 560)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 18 Q. NO. 596 TO 636)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 211 TO 245)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 08 Q. NO. 246 TO 280)

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

THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (PAPER -3 Q. NO. 51 TO 75)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2018-2

THE LAW OF TORTS (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 136 TO 180)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2001

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 280)