send mail to email@example.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
Please verify your mobile number
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Refer & Earn
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Point out incorrect response. In Barendera Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40, the appellant was charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. with the murder of a sub-postmaster. Sub-postmaster was counting money in the backroom. Several persons appeared at the door of the office and demanded the post master to give up the money and immediately afterwards fired pistols at him. Postmaster died immediately and the assailants fled in different directions without taking money. On of them was chased and caught with a pistol in his hand. It was not clear as to who fired the fatal shot. While holding the appellant liable for murder the Privy Council laid down the following principles: (a)
“Criminal act” means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be liable if it were all done by himself alone, in a criminal offence.
Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, in crimes they also serve who only stand and wait.
Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons ; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for ‘that act’ in the latter part of the section must include the whole action covered by a “criminal act” in the first part because they refer to it.
Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with the common intention.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources