In a case P a married lady was found in a pool of blood and lying on the ground On the way to hospit...........

Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 General Explanations

In a case P, a married lady was found in a pool of blood and lying on the ground. On the way to hospital in ambulance she breathed her last. It transpired in the evidence that when P was seated outside her jhuggi, her brother came near her and challenged as to why she made a complaint against her own brother R to the police, Her other brother R and Sharma too came. There was an altercation wherein Sharma stabbed her to death. Which of the following is true regarding this particular case?

As to the vicarious liability of R & C, that the accused Sharma was not carrying an open knife in his hand and there was no evidence to show that this fact was in the knowledge of the other accused.

Sharma had not given any call to his brothers that P should be stabbed to death. Otherwise all the accused had not come together and for that reason it is difficult to assume that all had a prior meeting of mind to cause the death of their sister.

The words used by C were to teach P a lesson for making false accusations. Keeping in view the close relationship, it is difficult to assume that all of them had shared the common intention to kill P. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to rope C and R by aid of Section 34, IPC and they were acquitted.

All of them

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master General Explanations

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

- Option 1: There was no evidence that R & C knew Sharma had a knife or intended to kill, meaning vicarious liability cannot be assumed.

- Option 2: Sharma acted alone, without instigating or informing his brothers to attack, showing no shared plan or prior intent among all.

- Option 3: Though C spoke angrily, there was no evidence of shared intent among the siblings to kill, especially given their close relationship. Hence, Section 34 IPC does not apply to C and R, leading to their acquittal.

- Option 4: All of the above statements are correct as they each highlight why only Sharma was held responsible.