Question

Assertion (A): X and Y independently entertained the idea to kill Z. Accordingly, each of them separately inflicted wounds on Z who died as a consequence. X and Y are liable for murder under 341 IPC.
Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable as if the whole act was done by him alone.

• A. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
• B. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
• C. A is true but R is false
• D. A is false but R is true

Hint:

Look at the section number first, then at the word "independently". Section 341 punishes wrongful restraint, and common intention under Section 34 needs a shared plan, not two separate decisions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
X and Y each decided on their own to kill Z. They did not plan together. Each wounded Z separately, and Z died. The assertion says both are liable for murder under Section 341 IPC. The reason states the rule of joint liability. Both statements have to be tested one by one.

Step 2: Testing the Assertion, part one - the section cited:
Section 341 IPC has nothing to do with murder. It prescribes the punishment for wrongful restraint, which is simple imprisonment up to one month or a fine up to five hundred rupees, or both. Murder is defined in Section 300 and punished under Section 302. So the assertion cites the wrong section, and on that ground alone it is false.

Step 3: Testing the Assertion, part two - the joint liability point:
The facts say X and Y acted independently. The word carries weight here. Joint liability under Section 34 needs a prior meeting of minds, a common intention shared before the act. Two people who separately form the same wish do not thereby share a common intention. So neither can be made answerable for the other's blows. Each answers only for what he himself did. The assertion is false twice over.

Step 4: Testing the Reason:
The reason reproduces Section 34 IPC almost word for word. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if the act were done by him alone. That is a correct statement of law, so the reason is true.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Options (A) and (B) both need the assertion to be true, and it is not, because of the wrong section and the absence of common intention.
Option (C) reverses the position; it makes A true and R false, which is the opposite of what the analysis shows.

Final Answer:
The assertion is false and the reason is a correct statement of Section 34, so the answer is option (D).