Question

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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B): Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.

Answer 2

Common intention need not be something planned long in advance, it can exist as a shared, pre-arranged plan for a joint criminal venture, and every participant in that venture is liable for the acts done in furtherance of the common object, even if he did not personally commit the fatal act. Applying this to the bank heist scenario, each option needs to be examined.

1. Mr. A is not liable for murder as he was outside the bank and there was no common intention: Mr. A did not merely happen to be nearby, he was deliberately stationed outside as a lookout, playing an assigned role within a pre-planned armed heist carried out by all six members together. His physical location outside the bank does not remove him from the common plan he knowingly participated in, so this option incorrectly treats presence at the scene as the test rather than participation in the shared plan.
2. Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention: All six members went to the bank armed and with defined roles as part of one coordinated heist. When gang members go armed to commit a robbery, the risk that someone might use the weapon if the situation escalates is a foreseeable consequence of the shared plan, and death resulting from that plan makes every participant, including a lookout, equally liable for murder because the act was done in furtherance of their common intention.
3. Only that person is liable for murder who actually fired the gun: This would be true if the shooter had acted entirely outside the scope of any shared understanding, but here the gang went in armed for a heist, arming themselves for a robbery carries the shared risk of violence if things go wrong, so liability is not confined only to the individual who pulled the trigger.
4. Mr. A is liable only for the heist and no other offence: This would apply only if the killing were a complete departure from the gang's common plan, something none of the other members could have anticipated. Since the group armed itself before the heist, the possibility of violence resulting in death was within the scope of what they jointly undertook, so Mr. A cannot be shielded from the murder charge merely by staying outside.

Because the killing occurred in furtherance of an armed heist that all six members, including the lookout, jointly planned and carried out, liability for murder extends to everyone involved in the common intention, not just the person who fired the shot.

Therefore, the correct answer is Mr. A along with all other members of the gang are liable for murder as there was common intention.

Answer 3

The correct option is (B): Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.

Answer 4

The scenario describes a sudden roadside altercation where Raghav verbally abused Aman while Raman, without any prior plan, picked up an iron rod lying nearby and struck the fatal blow. The question is whether Raghav shares liability for murder along with Raman under the doctrine of common intention, tested option by option.

1. Both Raman and Raghav are liable for murder as there was a common intention developed on the spot: Common intention, even when it develops in the heat of the moment, still requires that the participants shared a meeting of minds toward the specific criminal act, here, causing death. Raghav's role was limited to verbal abuse during the argument, there is nothing to show he knew Raman would pick up a weapon and strike a fatal blow, so treating this as shared intention to kill stretches the facts too far.
2. Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman: Raghav only abused Aman verbally, he neither used nor encouraged the use of the iron rod, and there is no indication the two had any prior or spontaneous understanding that violence, let alone a fatal blow, would follow. Since Raman's decision to strike appears to be his own independent act rather than something both had jointly resolved to do, Raghav cannot be fastened with liability for the killing merely because he was present and arguing.
3. No one is liable as Aman was a wrongdoer himself and he started the fight: Even if Aman's bike bump started the confrontation, that at most explains why the argument began, it does not give Raman a licence to kill him with an iron rod, and a minor provocation does not extinguish criminal liability for causing death.
4. Only Raghav is liable for murder as he started abusing Aman: Verbal abuse alone, without any physical act causing death, does not amount to murder, it is Raman who actually delivered the fatal blow, holding Raghav liable for murder while ignoring Raman's direct act inverts the facts.

Since Raghav's participation was confined to the verbal argument and there is nothing to establish that he shared Raman's decision to strike a fatal blow, only Raman, who inflicted the injury, bears liability for the killing.

Therefore, the correct answer is Raghav is not liable for murder as there was no common intention to kill Aman.

Answer 5

The correct option is (A):

Answer 6

The passage draws a distinction between common intention, a shared, prior-or-spontaneous meeting of minds toward a specific criminal act, and similar intention, where several people happen to have the same independent intention without any such meeting of minds. The question asks which of the four statements about this distinction is not correct, so each needs to be checked against what the passage actually establishes.

1. Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence: This gets the explanation backwards, common intention can exist well before the act, a pre-arranged plan, or it may develop suddenly on the spot, it is not confined to only the moment of commission. Similar intention, on the other hand, is not defined by any particular timing at all, it is about several people independently holding the same intention without any shared plan, whether formed earlier or simultaneously. Because this statement misstates both halves of the distinction, it is the incorrect one.
2. Under Common intention each of the offender is equally liable for the offence but under similar intention each of the offender is differently liable: This matches the doctrine correctly, common intention makes every participant in the joint plan liable to the same extent as if he had done the act himself, whereas under similar intention, since there was no shared plan, each person answers only for what he individually did. This statement is accurate.
3. In order to determine the existence of Similar or Common intention, one must analyse the fact and circumstances of each case: This is also accurate, since whether a group shared a common plan or merely acted with the same independent intent depends entirely on the specific facts, this is examined through conduct, prior dealings, and the sequence of events case by case rather than by any fixed formula.
4. The boundary between Similar and Common intention is very fine and it may sometime overlap: This too is accurate, since both situations can look alike on the surface, several people acting together, the line between them is a fine one that, if overlooked, can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Because the first statement incorrectly ties similar intention and common intention to a rigid, and reversed, timeline, while the other three correctly capture the actual doctrine, it stands out as the one that is not correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is Similar intention is developed prior to the commission of offence but the common intention is developed only at the time of commission of offence.

Answer 7

The correct option is (C): Only Theft as Mr. X had a different intention from Y.

Answer 8

Mr. X and Mr. Y jointly entered the house with a shared plan to commit theft, but only Mr. Y went further and committed sexual assault on a minor girl, an act outside anything the two had agreed upon. The question asks what Mr. X is liable for, tested option by option.

1. Both Theft and Sexual Assault as there was a Common intention: Common intention only extends liability to acts done in furtherance of the plan both parties actually shared, Mr. X and Mr. Y's common intention was limited to theft, there is nothing to suggest Mr. X knew of or agreed to any sexual assault, so extending liability for that separate, unplanned act to Mr. X goes beyond what common intention covers.
2. Only Theft as there was a Similar intention: This mislabels the relationship between the two, Mr. X and Mr. Y did not merely happen to hold the same independent intention by coincidence, they had actually agreed together to commit the theft, which is a common intention for that specific offence, not a similar one.
3. Only Theft as Mr. X had a different intention from Y: Mr. X's culpability tracks only what he actually intended and agreed to, theft. The sexual assault was Mr. Y's own independent act, born of an intention Mr. X neither shared nor could have anticipated as part of the burglary plan, so Mr. X's liability stops at theft and does not extend to the assault.
4. He would not be liable for any offence: This ignores that Mr. X did in fact participate in and share the intention to commit theft, he cannot escape liability for that offence merely because his accomplice went on to commit an additional, unrelated crime.

Because common intention is tied to the specific act actually agreed upon, Mr. X's liability is confined to theft, the offence he intended and planned for, while the sexual assault remains Mr. Y's separate and individual liability.

Therefore, the correct answer is Only Theft as Mr. X had a different intention from Y.

Answer 9

The correct option is (D): All of the above.

Answer 10

The question asks which statement is correct regarding the distinction between common and similar intention, with the final option asserting that all three preceding statements hold true together. Each needs independent verification.

1. The intention of the accused and co-accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case: Since there is rarely direct evidence of what was going on in someone's mind, whether a common intention existed is determined by examining conduct, prior dealings, presence at the scene, and the sequence of events, this is an accurate description of how common intention is actually established.
2. Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable: This reflects the core legal fiction behind common intention, once a shared plan is established, the law treats every participant as though he personally committed the criminal act, making each one jointly and equally liable, regardless of who performed the physical act.
3. Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved: This correctly states the fallback position, when it cannot be established that a common intention existed, liability reverts to ordinary individual criminal responsibility, meaning each person answers only for his own specific act.
4. All of the above: Since each of the first three statements independently and correctly describes a different facet of how common intention is proved, how it operates, and what happens when it fails to be established, all three together give a complete and accurate picture.

Because each individual statement is legally sound and they address three distinct aspects, proof, effect, and the default fallback, of the doctrine, the complete correct answer requires combining all three.

Therefore, the correct answer is All of the above.