All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Directions: The question consists of two sta... Start Learning for Free
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.
Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.
Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?
  • a)
    Only A
  • b)
    Only B
  • c)
    Z himself, as he provoked A
  • d)
    Both A and B
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...
Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder and A is guilty of only culpable homicide which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Underlining that the Uniform Civil Code is “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”, the 21st Law Commission of India, in 2018, argued for reform of family laws of every religion through amendments and codification of certain aspects so as to make them gender-just. Currently, Indian personal law is complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws. The exception to this rule is the state of Goa, where all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces, and adoption. A UCC would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities, in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption etc. Article 44 of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC for citizens throughout the territory of India. Article 44 is among the Directive Principles of State Policy. Directive Principles are not enforceable by court, but are supposed to inform and guide governance. Legal experts argue that the Constitution’s framers used the term “uniform” in Article 44 and not “common”. Common means one and the same in all circumstances, while uniform means the same in similar conditions. Even code does not necessarily mean one single law in every circumstance. Different people may have different laws, but the law within a particular group should be uniform. Such a classification is permissible even under the right to equality under Article 14. During the Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others (1985) case, the top court exhorted the central government to enact a “common civil code” in the interests of national integration.Recently in 2023, The 22nd Law Commission of India has decided again to solicit views and ideas of the public at large and recognized religious organizations about the Uniform Civil Code. According to critics, the Law Commission’s decision appears to be a political initiative aimed at bringing the potentially divisive issue under focus. There is a rising demand from all parts of the country for a Uniform Civil Code. But it comes with a set of its own misconceptions. The foremost regarding personal laws is that they are invincible and aren’t subject to judicial review. Thus, people believe that UCC is the only option left after special marriage act which allows only monogamous marriages to filter out all discriminatory practices in personal laws. The truth is all laws whether personal or criminal or financial are judicially reviewable and the judiciary can declare them potentially void if they encroach upon Fundamental Rights.Q.There have been heated discussions on a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India for many years. A UCC was not deemed required at this time, according to the 21st Law Commission of India, which recommended changing family laws in all religions to improve gender equality. With the exception of Goa, where common law rules, the diversity of Indian personal laws is clear. Experts contend that "uniform" in this case denotes uniformity under identical situations, not absolute uniformity in all circumstances, despite the fact that Article 44 of the Constitution favors a UCC. While there may be differences in personal laws between groups, each group must maintain consistency. However, there are some myths that persist, such as the idea that personal laws are exempt from judicial examination.In actuality, if fundamental rights are violated, all laws, whether they be pecuniary, criminal, or personal, are susceptible to judicial review. Which of the following statements is false?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatre d) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. In a civil action for defamation, truth is an absolute defence. The burden of proving the truth is on the defendant, and if this burden is not discharged, then the person making such statements is liable. Dinesh, the editor of a local daily, published a series of articles mentioning that Puru, a government servant, used to accept a bribe and have adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money. Puru brought a civil suit against Dinesh. In the given facts and circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The University Grants Commission has drafted guidelines for Professor of Practice positions in universities and colleges. The Commission's secretary, Rajnish Jain, has written to industry bodies, including FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM and NASSCOM regarding the rules for engagement. He has pointed out that the National Education Policy 2020 recommends transformative reforms in the higher education sector. The main thrust of the policy is the promotion of holistic and multidisciplinary education. Integration of academic scholarship with practical experience is an important step in the context of holistic and multidisciplinary education. Towards this, the UGC has taken a new initiative of engaging Professor of Practice in Higher Educational Institutions (HEls). The document states that experts with remarkable contributions in their professions from various fields, with proven expertise in their specific professions are eligible to be Professor of Practice. A formal academic qualification is not essential if they have exemplary professional practice in lieu and nor will they be required to have authored publications. Such faculty may be involved in developing and designing courses and curriculum; deliver lectures; mentor students; improve industry-academia collaboration; conduct with regular faculty members workshops, seminars and training programmes besides research projects.[Extracted with edits and revisions from The Hindu, October 1, 2022]Q. Consider the following statements and mark the correct option.Statement I: Any expert having 10 years or more experience in a particular field is eligible to become the Professor of Practice.Statement II: The posts of Professors of Practice must not surpass 10 per cent of the sanctioned faculty number in an institute.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Hate speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. To effectively curb hate speech, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in the IPC such as Section 153C (Prohibiting incitement to hatre d) and Section 505A (Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) were needed to address the issue.As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the Draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality' and 'undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state'. The term 'public order' was added later by an amendment which is now known as the First Amendment. Jawaharlal Nehru was a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution, one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.Q. Roshan told Shivani that Lucky got suspended from the college on account of cheating in an exam, and the same was also heard by Punit. The statement made is

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.Facts: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.Who is/are responsible for culpable homicide?a)Only Ab)Only Bc)Z himself, as he provoked Ad)Both A and BCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup