Roll No.

64
SAP ID 500076620

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

Mid Semester Examination, October 2020
Open Book – Through Blackboard Learning Management System

Course: …Law of Crimes …… Course Code:…CLCC 2002………

Programme: B.A.,LL.B.CL/LL/CL………… …… Semester:.…III………………..

Time: 02 hrs. Max. Marks: 100

Instructions:
As this examination is in open-book format, the students are expected to demonstrate a very high degree of
Academic Integrity and not copy contents from resources referred. Instructors would look for
understanding of the concept by the students and any similarity found from resources online/ offline shall
be penalized in terms of deduction of marks and even cancellation of paper in requisite cases. The online
examination committee of the School would also look for similarity of two answer scripts and if answer
scripts of two or more students are found similar, both the answer scripts shall be treated as copied and
lead to cancellation of the paper. In view of the aforesaid points, the students are warned that they should desist
from using any unfair means.

Instructions:

S. No. Marks CO
1 “Common Intention means meeting of mind which requires prior concert”. In lieu of
the given statement decide the below given case with the help of land mark cases.
‘A’ along with three other persons was returning from Bazar to his village on the
day of Holi festival. 14 people were sitting at the house of ‘B’ variously armed with
weapons. At the instigation of ‘B’ all 14 of them encircled ‘A’ and his companions
25 CO 4
and killed ‘A’. Somehow, the friends of A managed to escape. Defence pleaded that
the accused should be tried for their individual actions as there was no prior concert
or meeting of minds amongst the 14 accused and there was no evidence that they
knew that he would be returning at that time through that path.

Ans.

2 A juvenile named Rahul has allegedly molested and sexually harassed a girl aged 16 25 CO 4
years. She is his classmate in school. Both study in Class 10. The two were in a
consensual relationship for two years. Rahul became depressed after the break-up
and this reflected in his academic decline and his social associations. He started
isolating himself from his friends and family. He started bullying his ex-girlfriend on
social media. He also kept calling her up continuously forcing her to resume the
relationship. After she stopped responding to his calls and blocked her social media
accounts, he took to alcohol and drugs. His mental health deteriorated. He finally
broke into her house late night and threated to rape her if she did not resume their
relationship. As she was screaming and fighting off his advances, her parents entered
the room and pushed away Rahul. They locked him into a room until the police
 arrived. Rahul’s parents are completely shocked as they were unaware of all the
incidents. They plead to the girl’s parents not to file a FIR but a FIR is filed on the
basis of molestation, attempt to rape, sexual harassment and stalking. As the court
proceedings are going on, Rahul’s parents have taken him to psychiatrist and his
mental health is improving. He is finally realising the nature of his actions and their
effect. He apologises to the girl and her family. Applying the various Theories of
Punishment, write your Judicial Opinion.
Ans.

I, …………Nainshree Joshi…………………………………., understand that submitting

work that isn’t my own may result in failure in this paper and I may also be subject to
Disciplinary Proceedings as per the Academic Integrity policy of the University.

A.1) COMMON INTENTION :-

Meaning of Common Intention:
 Intention means guilty mind, ‘purpose of desire to bring about a contemplated result
or foresight that certain consequences will follow from the conduct of the person.’
 When two or more persons share this guilty desire it is common intention. And when
a criminal act is done by such persons section 34 makes them liable for the act,
irrespective of what role one person individually played in that action.
 It states, “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.”
 COMMON INTENTION – ACT IN FURTHERANCE – PARTICIPATION OF THE
ACCUSED IN THE ACT.
 What is Common Intention: Common intention denotes meeting of mind of the
persons accused of an offence. This requires prior concert.
 In the question above, the landmark case is Lallan Rai vs State of Bihar

CASE:-
Facts:-
 In this case, victim alongwith three other persons was once returning from Taraiya
bazar to his village on the day of Holi festival. 14 accused had been sitting at the
house of Rajendra Rai variously armed with weapons.
 At the instigation of Rajendra Rai all accused persons encircled the sufferer and
his companions and killed the victim. Defence unsuccessfully tried to plead that
the accused should be tried for their man or woman actions.
 It could no longer be proved that 14 accused had assembled with the purpose to
kill the victim because there was once no evidence that they knew that he would
be returning at that time through that path.
 JUDGEMENT:-
 It was once located in trial that the plan to kill developed all of sudden. That is
why utility or application of Section 149 failed because the assembly was not
unlawful.
 But the Supreme Court applied Section 34 and held the accused folks responsible
for murder because they shared common intention to kill the sufferer and this
common intention had developed on the spot.

Although common intention capability meeting of mind which requires prior

concert, it can additionally develop on the spot after the offenders have gathered
there.
Another example which seems close to this case is Kripal Singh vs State of
Uttar Pradesh:-

Facts of the case:-

 There was once a dispute over land between the accused and the victim. One
morning the three accused tried to stop labourers from working in the area which
the labourers tried to resist.
 When the victim intervened, two accused hit him with sharp weapons. Third
accused stabbed the victim with spear blade which struck the victim in jaw.
 The blow injured the brain of the victim who died on the spot.

JUDGEMENT:-
 The court held that the three accused were liable under Section 326 examine with
Section 34.
 However, third accused alone was liable for murder.
 The common intention which developed on the spot was once to assault the vict
with sharp weapons.
 Other two accused did no longer intend murder of the victim.
An essential ingredient of liability under Section 34 is participation of the accused in the
commission of the crime.
In State of Orissa v. Arjun Das Agarwal :-
 Some people entered the resort of the victim after 10 pm and picked up quarrel with
him. One of the accused stabbed him and others gave blows. Fifth accused, Arjun Das
Aggarwal used to be standing outside the hotel on the road and instigating the
different accused to finish the victim soon.
 Supreme Court held four accused in charge umder Section 302 examine with Section
34 but did no longer preserve Arjun Das Agarwal liable for homicide because he
neither went inside the lodge of the deceased nor took any section in the commission
of the murder.
 He used to be solely standing outdoor and instigating and there used to be no evidence
to show that greater blows had been given to the victim due to instigation of the
respondent.
  This was once a case the place frequent intention had developed on the spot.

In direct contrast to this case is the choice of the Privy Council in Barendra Kumar
Ghosh v. Emperor which used to be preplanned.
 In this case four men attacked the office of the submit grasp whilst he was once
counting money.
 Three of them entered the office and demanded the money. Thereafter they opened
hearth at postmaster and fled with the money. Appellant who was one of the
celebration used to be standing outdoor the workplace all this time.
 He used to be visible from inner and may want to see what used to be going on inside.
 Defence of the appellant was that he used to be fearful and he did no longer take part
in the crime and was purely standing outdoor the office. Rejecting his appeal, Privy
Council stated that they also serve who stand and wait.
 In this way his participation was sufficient to make him vicariously liable for the
actions of the different contributors in the group.
 Whether the accused had participated or no longer has to be decided on the
foundation of information surrounding the case.

Once it is mounted that a crime has been committed in furtherance of frequent

intention of all the accused, it is irrelevant what was once the nature of participation
of specific accused. He would be liable for the crime as if he by myself committed the
crime.
If two folks assault any individual with the frequent intention to kill him they each
would be liable for murder read with Section 34 even though dying was prompted
with the aid of the wound given via one of them only.
 In Krishnan v. State, the victim was attacked with the aid of 4 accused. They had
formerly also threatened her. One day when the deceased refused to comply with their
demand, they attacked her and her brother armed with sharp weapons.
 Four accused gave blow at exclusive parts of the body. One gave blow on the right
facet of the head of the deceased with aruval. This damage proved to be fatal.
 Holding all the accused dependable for homicide under Section 302 read with Section
34 the Supreme Court held that when numerous persons take part in a criminal act
with common intention it is irrelevant what was once the individual function of a
participant. All would be held in charge for the crime as if it was once finished by
using him alone.

A2)
PUNISHMENT:-
 Under the sanction of the law, punishment is retribution on the perpetrator to the
suffering of man or woman or property which is inflicted via the offender.
 Punishment is the way via which an offender can be stopped from doing offences
towards person, property, and government.
 Therefore, punishments can be of a number of types like deterrent, rehabilitative,
restorative and retributive.
Section 53 of IPC
 Section 53, particularly offers with one of a variety sorts of punishments which can be given
by means of the Criminal Courts if the man or girl is held in charge beneath the Code.
There are 5 sorts of punishments recognized under Section 53 of IPC :-
 Death
 Imprisonment for life;
 Imprisonment:
 Rigorous Imprisonment; or
 Simple Imprisonment.
 Forfeiture of property;
 Fine.
Considering the above punishments, the courts are supposed to observe the techniques and
provisions which are prescribed below distinctive adjective and super laws.
The various theories of punishment are:
1. Deterrent theory: According to this theory, the object of punishment is no longer
to solely prevent the offender from doing a incorrect subsequent time and additionally
to set an example for others who have a tendency to commit crime. It supports
infliction of severe punishment.
2. Retributive theory: In Primitive society punishment was once normally
retributive. The individual wronged used to be allowed to have revenge towards the
wrongdoer. This theory follows the Principle of ‘an eye for an eye’, ‘a teeth for a
enamel ‘, a nail for nail’, ‘limb for limb’. The idea says that a crook deserves to suffer
punishment.
3. Preventive theory: Another object of punishment is to forestall or disable. The
offenders are disabled from repeating the crime by means of punishment like death,
exile or forfeiture of an office. The aim of this principle is to disable the criminal. By
placing the crook in jail, he is averted from committing every other crime.
4. Expiatory theory: Expiatory idea of Punishment is primarily based on morals. If
the culprit expiates or repents, he must be forgiven.
5. Theory of compensation: According to the theory of Compensation the object of
punishment have to no longer be solely to stop similarly crimes however additionally
to compensate the victim.
6. Reformative theory: According to Reformative theory, the object is of punishment
is the reformation of criminals. The thinking behind this concept is that- “no one is a
born Criminal and criminals are additionally humans”.

 In the given scenario, Rahul is a juvenile who has molested and sexually assaulted a
lady of sixteen years of age.
 The theories like retributive and expiatory are primitive theories and are no longer
applied due to their primitive nature.
 Theory of compensation cannot be utilized as it truly leaves the crook besides
bringing a change.
 It oversimplifies the intent of crime.
 Not each and every crime is economic in nature provided serious crimes such as try to
rape and sexual assault.
 Preventive idea can’t be applied as preventive punishment has the undesirable impact
of hardening the first-time offenders or juvenile offenders by placing them in the
association of hardened criminals.
 The strategy surely observed is “multiple approach theory”.
 The theories of punishment are now not mutually specific and for this reason a
mixture of these theories maintaining in idea the records of the case ought to be
applied.
 The two theories which can be applied here are: deterrence and reformative
( focusing greater on reformative).
 Reformative idea states that The object of the punishment ought to be to convey
about a moral reform of the offender.
 While awarding punishment, the choose need to find out about the character,
antecedents and age of the offender, his household background, education and
environment, the circumstances below which he dedicated the crime, the rationale
which precipitated him to indulge in crook activities etc. crook is to be punished but
additionally a affected person to be treated.
 Punishment be in share to the gravity of crime. First time offenders ought to be treated
leniently.
 Special treatment must be given to juvenile delinquents. Special courts need to be set
up for the trial of adolescents and these in cost of them should attempt to locate out
approaches and capability of reforming them and not punishing them.
 A crook be in a position to invulnerable his release by way of displaying improvement
in his conduct.
 The object of the concession, given to an offender, is to persuade him that a lifestyles
free of crime is higher than the lifestyles in jail.
 But additionally crimes like rape and try to rape are heinous and need serious action.
 Deterrence concept states that Law needs that the offender must be effectively
punished for the crime, so that it can deter the culprit and different men and women
from committing similar offences.
 Nature of the offence has to be seen. To supply a lesser punishment to the appellants
would be to make the justice machine of this country questionable and as a result in
instances which are a mixture of aspects such as severity of crime: molestation and
attempt to rape and sexual assault and which also questions the age of the offender, a
mixture of reformative and deterrence has to be kept in mind, differing from case to
case.
 As in this case, reformation was once accompanied to transform Rahul, who is a
juvenile.