Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Correct Answer B is guilty of murder and A is guilty only of culpable homicide

Related Questions

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homi-cide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z, and intending to kill him and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Which of the following judgment under Section 38 of Indian Penal Code applies to A and B?
Consider the following statements:
To claim the benefit of provocation in reducing the liability for murder the offender must prove that the:
1. Provocation was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause a person of ordinary temper to lose his self-control.
2. Provocation was grave and sudden to justify the killing
3. Provocation was so grave that it would stir a desire for revenge
4. Sufficient time did not elapse so as to cool down the passion
Of these statements:
Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. However, a person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Factual Situation: Saurab, had a serious argument with his wife. The woman uttered some filthy words at Saurab, which further irritated him. He moved towards the woman with a wooden piece to beat her. Suddenly, their daughter who was sleeping in the room woke up and ran towards her mother. Saurab's blow fell on the child's head and she fell down unconscious. The couple believed that their daughter died due to the blow.
Saurab immediately took out a rope and hung her by the neck on to the ceiling fan to give the impression that the girl committed suicide as she failed in the Class X examination. When the rope got tightened the child cried, but died immediately due to asphyxiation.
In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court explain the concept of grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating circumstances reducing the gravity of the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to reduce criminal liability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a:
"All murder is culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder." This statement has been given by
In a trial, while explaining any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, an accused of committing murder states that due to grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of the power of self-control and thus, gave a single lathi blow to A, causing his death. The burden to prove grave and sudden provocation is on:
X' and 'T' both engaged in causing death of 'A'. There was grave provocation by 'A' towards 'X'. 'X' was having ill will towards 'A' and intended to kill him without provocation and assisted 'X' in killing 'A'. In this case
Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code punishes the offence of exposure and abandonment of a child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it. Section 304 of the Indian Penal code provides for punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
'A' exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause its death. The child dies in consequence of such exposure. In such circumstances 'A' may be
A murder is always a culpable homicide but a culpable homicide is not always a murder. This statement is: