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 Exceptions

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 Exceptions

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- Option 1: This basically says that R & C can't be held vicariously liable since there’s no proof they knew Sharma had a knife or was about to use it. Makes sense—if you didn’t know someone had a weapon or planned murder, you can’t be part of a conspiracy.

- Option 2: It makes the point that Sharma didn’t rally his brothers or shout orders to stab P. The lack of coordination and spontaneous nature means there’s no joint intent. Again, crucial for Section 34, IPC—that section needs a shared "meeting of minds."

- Option 3: It brings out the words C used were just to “teach her a lesson,” not to kill her. Also, family fights don’t always equal murder pacts. Whether you like your brother or not, you don’t always share murderous intent. Hence, lack of common intention here.

- Option 4: This one says “all of them” are true.

Here’s the thing: all the statements—taken together—explain why Section 34 (common intention) doesn’t work here. The knife wasn’t brandished publicly, no murder rallying cry happened, and the mere angry outburst isn’t enough to prove conspiracy.

Option 4 is correct.