Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.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 preconcerted action. In the case Pandurang vs. the State of Hyderabad, the Supreme court emphasised 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 IntentionCommon intention does not mean a 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 vs. the 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 persons 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 the 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.Q. A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them of any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result, he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.a)Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.b)Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.c)Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.d)Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.