CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the passage and answer the ...
Start Learning for Free
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 Intention
Common 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. 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.
- a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.
- b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.
- c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.
- d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Com...
Explanation:
Common Intention:
- Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan.
- It comes into being prior to the commission of the act, and a pre-concert is not necessarily required.
Case Scenario:
- In the given scenario, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod, resulting in Aman's death.
- Raghav, on the other hand, was only involved in an argument with Aman and did not participate in the act of hitting him.
Analysis:
- To establish common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each person be known to the rest and shared by them.
- In this case, Raghav did not participate in the act of hitting Aman, and there is no evidence to suggest that he shared the intention to cause harm to Aman.
- Raghav's involvement was limited to the argument, and there is no indication that he had a shared intention to cause harm to Aman along with Raman.
Conclusion:
- Therefore, Raghav cannot be held liable for murder as there was no common intention established between him and Raman to cause harm to Aman.
- Only Raman, who directly committed the act resulting in Aman's death, can be held liable for the murder in this scenario.
Common Intention:
- Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan.
- It comes into being prior to the commission of the act, and a pre-concert is not necessarily required.
Case Scenario:
- In the given scenario, Raman hit Aman with an iron rod, resulting in Aman's death.
- Raghav, on the other hand, was only involved in an argument with Aman and did not participate in the act of hitting him.
Analysis:
- To establish common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each person be known to the rest and shared by them.
- In this case, Raghav did not participate in the act of hitting Aman, and there is no evidence to suggest that he shared the intention to cause harm to Aman.
- Raghav's involvement was limited to the argument, and there is no indication that he had a shared intention to cause harm to Aman along with Raman.
Conclusion:
- Therefore, Raghav cannot be held liable for murder as there was no common intention established between him and Raman to cause harm to Aman.
- Only Raman, who directly committed the act resulting in Aman's death, can be held liable for the murder in this scenario.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Com...
This is the most suitable answer for the following question.
After reading the above-given passage and post-analysis of the above-given situation one can easily conclude that Raghav is not liable for the murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.
As 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.
Hence, this is the correct option.
|
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
|
|
Similar CLAT Doubts
Top Courses for CLATView all
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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.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. 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.a)Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot.b)Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.c)No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself, and he started the fight.d)Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© 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