CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) 2020 MCQs Questions Paper Part 19

Get top class preparation for CLAT right from your home: get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of CLAT.

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

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 v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized 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 the 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 v. 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 the person 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 a 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.

Question 96

A gang of six members went to a bank, armed with weapons to commit a heist. While five of the gang members went inside the bank, Mr. A (the sixth member) waited outside the bank to alert them on any threat. During the heist one of the gang members fired a gun at the branch manager, as a result he died. All five escaped but Mr. A was caught and arrested. Now, choose the most appropriate option as per the principle stated in the above passage.

A. Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention.

B. Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.

C. Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun.

D. Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence.

Question 97

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.

Question 98

After reading the passage which of the following is not correct in relation to the difference between Common and Similar intention?

A. Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence.

B. Under Common intention each of the offender is equally liable for the offence but under similar intention each of the offender is differently liable.

C. In order to determine the existence of Similar or Common intention, one must analyse the fact and circumstances of each case.

D. The boundary between Similar and Common intention is very fine and it may sometime overlap.

Question 99

Mr. X and Mr. Y entered into a house at night to commit theft, while committing theft Mr. Y committed sexual assault on a minor girl of aged 11 years. Identify for which of the following offences Mr. X is liable for.

A. Both Theft and Sexual Assault as there was a Common intention.

B. Only Theft as there was a Similar intention.

C. Only Theft as Mr. X had a different intention from Y.

D. He would not be liable for any offence.

Question 100

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.

Developed by: