CRIMINAL LAW PYQs FOR CLAT

(Year wise and Topic wise)

1. Defamation: (online defamation)

(2024 Ques XI Set A)

In India, the legal landscape surrounding online defamation is a subject of significant interest
and debate. With the rise of social media, and online platforms, cases of online defamation
have become increasingly common. Defamation refers to making false statements about
someone that harm their reputation. Online defamation includes defamatory statements made
on the internet, including social media, blogs, forums, and other online platforms.

One critical aspect of online defamation is determining the liability of intermediaries, such as
social media platforms or websites, for defamatory content posted by users. Section 79 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, provides a safe harbor for intermediaries, stating that they
are not liable for third-party content if they act as intermediaries and follow due diligence in
removing or disabling access to the content once notified.
However, determining whether an intermediary has fulfilled its due diligence obligations can be
complex. The Indian judiciary has been actively interpreting this provision. One significant case
is the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court clarified that intermediaries
are required to act upon a valid court order or government directive for content removal, not
upon private complaints.

The court also emphasized that the intermediaries should not take a proactive role in
monitoring content, as this could potentially infringe on free speech. While the law provides a
safe harbor, it does not absolve intermediaries from their responsibilities.
Online defamation cases often involve a balancing act between the right to freedom of
expression and the right to reputation. The Indian legal system requires a careful examination
of the content, context, and intent of the statements to determine whether they qualify as
defamatory. Additionally, the plaintiff in an online defamation case must prove that the
statement was false, damaging to their reputation, and made with a degree of fault, such as
negligence or actual malice.

1. What is the primary focus of the passage?

(A) The rise of social media in India.
 (B) The legal aspects of online defamation in India.
(C) The role of intermediaries in online content.
(D) The importance of free speech on the internet.

2. What is online defamation, as described in the passage?

(A) Making harmful statements about someone in person.
(B) False statements made on the internet that harm someone’s reputation. (C)
Online harassment.
(D) A form of political activism.

3. What is the significance of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as

mentioned in the passage?
(A) It defines defamation laws in India.
(B) It provides safe harbor for intermediaries in cases of online defamation.
(C) It regulates the content on social media platforms.
(D) It allows private complaints against online defamation.

4. According to the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, under
what circumstances should intermediaries act in response to content removal?

(A) Upon receiving a private complaint.

(B) Upon a valid court order or government directive.
(C) Proactively to monitor content.
(D) Only if the content is found to be defamatory.

5. How does the Indian legal system balance the Right to Freedom of Expression and
the Right to Reputation in online defamation cases?
(A) By favoring freedom of expression over reputation.
(B) By favoring reputation over freedom of expression.
(C) By carefully examining the content, context, and intent of statements.
(D) By absolving intermediaries of their responsibilities.

6. In an online defamation case, what must the plaintiff prove about the defamatory
statement?
(A) That it was political activism.
(B) That it was made with good intentions.
(C) That it was true and intended to inform the public.
(D) That it was false, damaging to their reputation, and made with a degree of fault.

7. What is the role of intermediaries in the context of online defamation cases?

(A) To actively monitor and censor content.
(B) To act upon private complaints for content removal.
(C) To completely absolve themselves of liability.
(D) To encourage online defamation.
2. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(2024 Ques X Set A)

The Indian legal system places a significant emphasis on protecting the rights and welfare of
children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is a vital piece
of legislation in this regard. It is designed to ensure that children in conflict with the law receive
special care, protection, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of their rehabilitation and
reintegration into society.

One of the key provisions of the Act is the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) at
the district level. These boards consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the
first class and two social workers, at least one of whom should be a woman. The primary
function of the JJB is to determine the age of the juvenile, the circumstances in which the
offense was committed, and whether the juvenile should be sent to a special home or released
on probation.
The Act makes a clear distinction between a “child in conflict with the law” and a “child in need
of care and protection.” A child in conflict with the law is one who has committed an offense,
while a child in need of care and protection is a child who is vulnerable or at risk and requires
special care and support.
The Act introduces a unique approach to dealing with children who are in conflict with the law.
For children between the ages of 16 and 18, who have committed heinous offenses, they can
be tried as adults, subject to a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. This
assessment considers the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offense. If
the board determines that the child should be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to the
regular criminal courts.
The Act also places restrictions on the publication of information that could lead to the
identification of a juvenile offender. This is done to protect the privacy and future prospects of
the child.

1. What is the primary objective of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015?
(A) To punish child offenders.
(B) To rehabilitate and reintegrate children in conflict with the law.
(C) To remove all forms of violence against children.
(D) To increase the age of criminal responsibility.

2. Who makes up the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?

(A) Two Judges.
(B) A Metropolitan Magistrate and two Lawyers.
(C) A Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class and two
 Social Workers.
(D) Three Police Officers.

3. What is the role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?

(A) To determine the punishment for juvenile offenders.
(B) To decide whether a child should be sent to a regular prison.
(C) To assess the age and circumstances of the juvenile, and make decisions on
rehabilitation.
(D) To prosecute child offenders.

4. What is the distinction between a ‘‘child in conflict with the law’’ and a ‘‘child in need of
care and protection’’ ?
(A) There is no distinction; both terms mean the same thing.
(B) A ‘‘child in conflict with the law’’ has committed a crime, while a ‘‘child in need
of care and protection’’ is vulnerable or at risk.
(C) A ‘‘child in need of care and protection’’ is more likely to commit crimes.
(D) A ‘‘child in conflict with the law’’ is an adolescent offender.

5. Under what circumstances can children between the ages of 16 and 18 be tried as
adults?
(A) They can always be tried as adults.
(B) After a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board.
(C) When they have committed any offense, regardless of the severity.
(D) When they reach the age of 18.

6. What is the purpose of placing restrictions on the publication of information related to

juvenile offenders?
(A) To increase the age of criminal responsibility.
(B) To protect the privacy and future prospects of the child.
(C) To encourage public shaming of juvenile offenders.
(D) To help law enforcement track juvenile offenders.

3. Domestic Violence Section 498 A, IPC

(2023 Ques XII)
Quashing a case of cruelty that was filed against a man by his wife, the Bombay High Court said
that if a married lady is asked to do household work for the family, it cannot be said that she is
treated “like a maid servant”. The Court was hearing an application by the husband and his
parents seeking that proceedings against them be quashed. A First information report (“FIR”)
was filed against the trio in September 2020, around nine months after the marriage, alleging
that they hounded the woman for money to purchase a car, harassed her mentally and
physically and treated her like a maid servant. examining the evidence, the Court found that
there was no merit to the woman’s allegations. The Court said that though the Fir says that she
was treated properly for about a month and then “like a maid servant”, there are no details of
what this meant. the Court added: “if a married lady is asked to do household work for the
purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.” the Court held that the
mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” in the Fir is not sufficient to
constitute an offence Section 498A of the indian Penal Code (“IPC”), which punishes the
husband, or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty in any way. It is
interesting to note that Section 498A of the iPC also provides that if a married woman is
actually treated like a ‘maid servant’, it would be an offence under that Section.

[extracted, with edits and revisions, from “if Wife is Asked to do Household Work,
does Not mean She is treated Like maid: bombay HC”, The Wire]

1. Ashwin and Ashima were married in February 2020. in march 2020, Ashwin asked
Ashima took care of all their household work, such as cooking, cleaning, and other
domestic chores, as he was very busy with his professional responsibilities. Ashima
claims that this amounts to treating her like a maid servant and constitutes an offence
under Section 498A of the iPC. Applying the Bombay High Court decision, is she likely to
succeed?

(A) Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and
not for others.
(B) No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not
for others.
(C) Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as
as well as others.
(d) No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount
to an offence under that Section.

2. In April 2020, Ashwin’s friend rakesh visits Ashwin and Ashima’s home, and stay with
them for a few days. during his visit, he is very mean to Ashima, and uses abusive
language with her. He also threw a plate at her one evening when he was unhappy with
the meal that she had prepared. Ashima now claims that Rakesh has committed an
offence under Section 498A of the iPC. is she likely to succeed?

(A) No, since rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not
get a well-cooked meal.
(B) Yes, since rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima
clearly amount to cruelty.
(C) No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.
(D) Yes, since rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of
the incident.

3. Frustrated and upset with her marriage, Ashima applies for and is granted a divorce from
Ashwin in November 2020. Since she and Ashwin had been friends for many years
 before they got married, she stayed in touch with him. She moves into her own
apartment and starts going to the office regularly at a new job. Ashwin is very upset at
this and starts treating Ashima very cruelly. Ashima again claims that Ashwin has
committed an offence under Section 498A of the iPC. is she right?

(A) Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly.
(B) Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.
(C) No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behavior.
(D) No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

4. Assume that the government passes a new law in January 2021, called the Protection of
Rights of Married Women Act, 2021 (the “PoMWa”), according to which, asking a
married woman to take care of household chores would be an offence. the PomWA also
provides that if a man commits such an offence, he would have to pay compensation to
the woman. the PomWA even applies to actions that were committed any time in the
three years prior to the new law coming into force, and even if the man and woman
involved in the matter were no longer married. Upon hearing about this new law, Ashima
once again alleges that Ashwin has committed an offence under Section 498A of the
IPC, and claims compensation under the PomWA for his actions. Is she right, and will
she succeed?

(A) Ashima is right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC,
but she will not get compensation under the PomWA.
(B) Ashima will get compensation under the PomWA, but she is not right about
Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
(C) Ashima will get compensation under the PomWA, and she is also right about Ashwin
committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
(D) Ashima will neither get compensation under the PomWA, nor is she right
about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

5. Assume that in March 2021, the government changes Section 498A of the iPC. The
effect of this change is that asking a married woman to do household chores — even for
their own family — by herself would be considered cruelty, and therefore, an offence
under the Section. Some days after this change comes into effect, Shamita, Ashima’s
friend at work, tells her that her husband has been forcing her to do all the household
work by herself. Ashima tells Shamita that her husband’s actions would amount to an
offence under Section 498A of the iPC, even though Ashima herself has been
unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past. Is Ashima’s
advice to Shamita correct?

(A) Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband's
actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.
 (B) No, since Ashima has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that
Section in the past.
(C) Yes, since the passing of the Protection of married Women Act has resulted in
Shamita’s husband’s actions being made illegal.
(D) No, since Ashima is only Shamita’s friend, and only the married woman herself can
file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC.

NOTE: No questions from criminal law came in 2022

4. Consent given under fear or misconception (Section 90, IPC)

(2021 Ques XXI)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not define ‘consent’ in positive terms, but what cannot be
regarded as ‘consent’ under the Code is explained by Section 90. Section 90 reads as follows:
“90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception - A consent is not such a
consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under
fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has
reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception;...”
Consent given firstly under fear of injury and secondly under a misconception of fact is not
‘consent’ at all. That is what is enjoined by the first part of Section 90. These two grounds
specified in Section 90 are analogous to coercion and mistake of fact which are the familiar
grounds that can vitiate a transaction under the jurisprudence of our country as well as other
countries. The factors set out in the first part of Section 90 are from the point of view of the
victim. The second part of Section 90 enacts the corresponding provision from the point of view
of the accused. It envisages that the accused too has knowledge or has reason to believe that
the consent was given by the victim in consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact.
Thus, the second part lays emphasis on the knowledge or reasonable belief of the person who
obtains the tainted consent. The requirements of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied.
In other words, the court has to see whether the person giving the consent had given it under
fear of injury or misconception of fact and the court should also be satisfied that the person
doing the act i.e. the alleged offender, is conscious of the fact or should have reason to think
that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would not have been given. This is the
scheme of Section 90 which is couched in negative terminology. Section 90 cannot, however, be
construed as an exhaustive definition of consent for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. The normal connotation and concept of ‘consent' is not intended to be excluded. Various
decisions of the High Court and of the Supreme Court have not merely gone by the language of
Section 90, but traveled a wider field, guided by the etymology of the word ‘consent’.
1. ‘A’, a man, promises ‘B’, a woman that he will marry her if she has sexual intercourse
with him. ‘B’ agrees, but after having sexual intercourse, ‘A’ flees and never contacts ‘B’
again. In the given situation, which statement is true?
(A) Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact.
(B) Consent for sexual intercourse was given under fear of injury.
(C) Consent for sexual intercourse was given under undue influence.
(D) Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception or fear of
Injury.

2. According to the given passage, a person is said to ‘consent’ to the doing of an act if
(A) A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury.
(B) The person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the
agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury.
(C) A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury
and the person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the
agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury.
(D) A person agrees to do an act without having regard to the consequences of fear of
injury or misconception of fact.

3. According to your understanding of the given passage, why is negative terminology used
to explain the meaning of consent under Section 90?
(A) To emphasize on the factors that vitiate consent.
(B) To emphasize the point of view of the victim or the person who gives consent.
(C) To emphasize on the point of view of the person who receives consent.
(D) To emphasize on the non-exhaustive scope of definition of consent.

4. . ‘X’, a man, promises ‘Y’, a woman that he will marry her if she has sexual intercourse
with him. ‘Y’ agrees and they have sexual intercourse. Thereafter, ‘X’ assures ‘Y’ that
they will get married, but X’s family is opposed to the marriage even after X’s attempts to
convince them. Therefore, ‘X’ refuses to marry ‘Y’. In the given situation, which
statement is true?
(A) Consent for sexual intercourse was received knowing that the consent is given under
misconception of fact.
(B) Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception of fact or
fear of injury.
(C) Consent for sexual intercourse was received knowing that the consent is given under
fear of injury.
(D) Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact and received
misconception of fact.

5. According to the given passage, which of the following statements is not true?
(A) Misconception of fact vitiates consent.
(B) Fear of injury vitiates consent.
 (C) Misconception of fact obviates the necessity of consent.
(D) Fear of injury is analogous to coercion.

5. Obscenity under Criminal Law (Section 292, IPC)

(2020 Ques XV)

The issue of Obscenity has vexed the Courts in India and abroad for a long time now. The
intriguing question has always been the same, i.e., what should be the standards to qualify
something as obscene in the eyes of law? In the United Kingdom, way back in 1868, the Court
laid down the Hicklin test in Regina v. Hicklin (1868 L.R. 2 Q.B. 360), and held that: ―The test
of Obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as Obscenity is to deprave and
corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a
publication of this sort may fall.‖ Hicklin test postulated that a publication has to be judged for
obscenity based on isolated passages of a work considered out of context and judged by their
apparent influence on most susceptible readers, such as children or weak-minded adults.
However, this test was later rejected by most of the jurisdictions. There were many judgments
where it was stipulated by the Indian Courts that, Obscenity has to be judged in the context of
contemporary social mores, current socio-moral attitude of the community and the prevalent
norms of acceptability/ susceptibility of the community, in relation to matters in issue. [For
example, in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881; Chandrakant Kalyandas
Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra 1969 (2) SCC 687 etc.] These judgements indicated that the
concept of Obscenity would change with the passage of time and what might have been
―obscene‖ at one point of time would not be considered as obscene at a later period. This
came to be known as ―Community Standards Test. In Bobby Art International & Ors. v. Om Pal
Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC 1, the Court, upholding the Community standards test held that,
complete message and context of the objectionable scene/firm/picture etc., needs to be
examined in order to find out whether the alleged material is obscene or not.

1. A, daily local newspaper called ̳Ramanand Bazar Patrika‘ having wide circulation in
Anand Nagar published, on 1st July, 2019, an article with a picture of Boris Becker, a
world renowned Tennis player, posing nude with his dark-skinned fiance by name
Barbara Feltus, a film actress, which was photographed by none other than her father.
The article states that, in an interview, both Boris Becker and Barbara Feltus spoke
freely about their engagement, their lives and future plans and the message they wanted
to convey to the people at large, for posing to such a photograph. Article picturises Boris
Becker as a strident protester of the pernicious practice of ―Apartheid‖. Further, it was
stated that the purpose of the photograph was also to signify that love champions over
hatred. Will the alleged picture classify as an Obscene Material in India?
 (A) No, according to the Hicklin Test, it will not classify as Obscene.
(B) Yes, according to the Community Standards Test, the picture will classify as
Obscene.
(C) No, according to the Community Standards Test, the picture will not classify as
Obscene.
(D) Both (a) and (c).

2. The difference between Hicklin Test and Community Standards Test is:

(A) The former focuses on the susceptibility of the minds of individuals to get
corrupted while the later hinges upon the context, intended meaning and
contemporaneous socio-cultural environment of the society.
(B) As per Hicklin Test, a nude picture of a woman per se can be obscene while as per
the later, the picture should be suggestive of a depraved mind and designed to excite
sexual passion in persons who are likely to see it.
(C) The former considers Obscenity as a changing concept with changing times while
the latter does not.
(C) All of the above.

3. The issue of ̳Obscenity‘ is fundamentally related with which of the following?

(A) Freedom of Religion of an individual.
(B) Freedom of Speech and Expression of an individual.
(C) Right to Privacy of an individual.
(D) All of the above.

4. Consider the following situations.

Choose the correct option as per the Hicklin‘s Test.
1. A Movie scene where there are rows of Jewish naked men and women, shown
frontally, being led into the Gas Chambers of Nazi Concentration Camp. Not only are
they about to die but they are stripped off their basic dignity in the last moments of their
life.
2. The controversial movie scene of Phoolan Devi, the Bandit queen where she is
paraded naked and made to draw water from the well within the circle of a hundred men.

(A) 1 is Obscene but 2 is not.

(B) 2 is Obscene but 1 is not.
(C) Both 1 and 2 are Obscene.
(D) Neither 1 and 2 are Obscene.
 5. An activist, while being semi-nude, allowed her body to be used as a canvas to paint on
by her two minor children who were properly clothed. She uploaded this video of hers on
an online platform with a message that she intended to normalize the female form for her
children and not allow distorted ideas about sexuality to pervade their mind. An advocate
who sees the video, registers a case of Obscenity against her. Is it a case of Obscenity
as per the Community Standards Test?

(A) This is a pure case of Obscenity and she is spreading it.

(B) This is a pure case of Obscenity as well as Child Pornography as her children were
exposed to her nudity.
(C) This is not a case of Obscenity because as per the Community Standards Test
the video must not be seen in isolation but in the contextual set up of the message
that the activist has put on normalization of a female‘s sexuality.
(D) This is a case of Obscenity as per the Community Standards Test as the video was
blatantly obscene.

6. Mob Lynching under Criminal Law (Section 103, BNS)

(2020 Ques XVIII)

(Important for CLAT 2025 as Mob Lynching has been made a criminal offence
under the new criminal laws- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita)

Tension prevailed in the Jawahar area in Palghar district after three Mumbai residents,
travelling in a Ford Ecosport to Silvassa, were allegedly lynched late on Thursday night.
The Kasa police said the incident occurred near Gadakchinchale village under their
jurisdiction. Information received by us indicates that the three occupants of the SUV
hailed from Kandivali in Mumbai and were going to attend a funeral in Silvassa,‖
Superintendent of Police Gaurav Singh, Palghar police said. A large mob of villagers
surrounded the car within a matter of minutes and started attacking it with sticks, irons
rods and their bare hands,leading to the death of all three occupants. ―One of our
patrolling vehicles later spotted the severely injured trio lying on the road and stopped to
find out the matter. However, our team was also attacked by the mob and the vehicle
pelted with stones. Our personnel had to flee and were unable to rescue to the victims,‖
an officer with the Kasa police said. A wireless alert was sent out later apprising all
police stations and units of the incident following which reinforcements were sent to the
village and a combing operation was undertaken. “Prima facie information indicates that
the trio were mistaken for thieves and attacked. The villagers were on edge due to the
ongoing lockdown and unavailability of essential supplies. For the past few days, several
rumors have been doing the rounds on social media about thieves and dacoits targeting
villages on the highway. As a result, villagers have been patrolling the highway and
stopping late night travelers on suspicion,‖ the officer said.
1. Which of the following statements given below justifies criminalisation of Mob Lynching?

(A) In a democracy the actual power rests with the people and their actions cannot be
penalized by the state.

(B) There is no law in India which specifically prohibits mob lynching and therefore it is a
justified act of the people

(C) It is impossible to punish the wrongdoer in case of Mob Lynching.

(D) Violence cannot be a tool to implement the will of the majority and such
actions are a failure of the state.

2. Which of the following statement justifies the criminalisation of mob lynching as a distinct
offence apart from Murder‘?

(A) The offence of Murder is committed by a single individual or a group but mob
lynching involves a large group of individuals.

(B) When violence is committed by a mob it creates a situation of terror and anarchy
having potential to disturb the public peace for a longer period.

(C) Mob lynching is an offence which supports the idea of ‘might is right‘, and cannot be
accepted in a democratic society.

(D) All of the above.

3. The above passage states about the existence of rumors in the area regarding the
thieves and dacoits robbing the villagers or committing child lifting. In the light of this
proposition, which if the following statement is correct?

(A) The villagers should not be punished as there was a genuine mistake on their part.

(B) The villagers should be punished as they do not have any right to punish any person

unless he is an offender.

(C) The villagers should be punished as no individual in the country is entitled to

take law in his own hand and punish the wrongdoer.

(D) The villagers should not be punished as they have the right of private defense
against such incidents under which they can even kill a person.

4. In the light of the above passage, which of the following incidents of mob violence would
be justified?

(A) A group of people committing violence against people who are selling meat of an
 animal considered to be sacred under their religious beliefs.

(B) The residents of a boy‘s hostel caught a drug peddler selling drugs in their hostel and
killed him by beating.

(C) The villagers injured a woman by pelting stones on her, considering her to be a
witch.

(D) None of the above.

5. Assertion (A): Mob Lynching can be justified only in circumstances where the religious
sentiments or feelings of a large group of people are associated.

Reason (R): Religious sentiments and feelings are of paramount consideration for the
state and should not be interfered with.

(A) Both (A) and (R) are correct

(B) (A) is correct but (R) is incorrect

(C) Both (A) and (R) are incorrect

(D) (A) is incorrect but (R) is correct.

7. Common Intention under Criminal Law (Section 34, IPC)

(2020 Ques XX)

Common intention does not mean 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 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 miscarriage of justice....” The
mere presence of the accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the
common intention to commit the offense in question. It is necessary that the intention of
each one of several persons‘ be known to each other for constituting common intention.

1. 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 of 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 offense.

2. Raman and Raghav were riding on a motorcycle on a busy street, and 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, choose 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.

3. 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 offense but the
common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offense.

(B) Under Common intention each of the offender is equally liable for the offense 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
analyze the fact and circumstances of each case.

(D) The boundary between Similar and Common intention is very fine and it may
sometimes overlap.

4. 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 offenses Mr. X is liable?

(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 offense.

5. 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.