Related Questions

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
Which provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deal with the 'Solitary confinement' and 'limits on solitary confinement'?
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Harbour ⇔ Section 51A, Indian Penal Code
2. Wrongful Loss ⇔ Section 23, Indian Penal Code
3. Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age ⇔ Section 376DB, Indian Penal Code
4. Gang rape ⇔ Section 376D, Indian Penal Code
Select the correct answer:
Which section of Indian Penal Code deals with solitary confinement
Which of the following distinguishes section 34 of Indian Penal Code from section 149, Indian Penal Code?
1. Section 149 creates a substantive offence whereas section 34 does not create an offence.
2. Section 149 requires common object whereas section 34 requires common intention.
3. Section 149 requires five or more persons whereas section 34 requires two or more persons.
Select the correct answer:
Consider the following statements:
1. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was examined by the Supreme Court of India and held that this Section violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution,
2. Counsel for appellants/petitioners in the above case contended that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary, because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure.
3. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide by causing death of person other that the person whose death was intended.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
In which of the following cases the court held that when an under trial prisoner was put in a separate cell only as a precautionary measure to ensure his non-mingling with other prisoners and for his security, it did not amount either to solitary confinement or cellular confinement?
Under Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum time for which a person may be kept in solitary confinement is
The maximum limit for a sentence of solitary confinement as provided under Section 73 of Indian Penal Code is: