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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?a)The intention of the accused and co accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.b)Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.c)Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.d)All of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.