KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2016 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2016 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Define unlawful assembly. Explain the scope of liability of a member of such an unlawful assembly for any unlawful act.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, the definition of unlawful assembly in section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (now section 189(1) of the Sanhita), in brief, with membership (section 142) and the Explanation. Part B, the scope of a member's liability: the offences of membership itself (sections 143, 144, 145, 150 and 151); liability for what another member does, under section 149 (now section 190), and its conditions; its first limb, the common object, and its second, an offence known to be likely, with a case on each side of the line (Mizaji, Roy Fernandes); the point that liability may differ between members; no overt act needed (Lalji), but no liability for the bystander (Subal Ghorai); the effect of fewer than five (Achhey Lal); section 149 and section 34 contrasted; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Part A: the unlawful assembly
The definition
Under section 141, an assembly of five or more persons is an "unlawful assembly" if their common object is one of five things. The first is to overawe a Government, a Legislature or a public servant by criminal force or its show. The second is to resist the execution of a law or legal process. The third is to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence. The fourth is to use criminal force or its show to take property or enforce a right. The fifth is to compel a person, by criminal force or its show, to do or omit something.
The Explanation adds that an assembly lawful when it gathered may later become unlawful.
Who is a member
Section 142 says a person is a member if, aware of the facts that make the assembly unlawful, he "intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it". Knowledge and intention are both required.
Part B: the scope of a member's liability
1. Liability for membership itself
A member is liable merely for being in the assembly, even if nothing more happens.
| Section | Conduct | Maximum punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 143 | being a member of an unlawful assembly | six months, or fine, or both |
| 144 | joining it armed with a deadly weapon | two years, or fine, or both |
| 145 | joining or continuing after it is lawfully commanded to disperse | two years, or fine, or both |
| 150 | hiring or conniving at hiring persons to join it | as a member, and for their offences |
| 151 | staying in an assembly of five or more after a command to disperse | six months, or fine, or both |
2. Liability for what another member does: section 149
Section 149 deals with an offence committed by any member "in prosecution of the common object" of the assembly. It also covers an offence that the members "knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object". In either case, every person who is a member at that time is guilty of that offence.
Its conditions.
- An unlawful assembly existed, with five or more members.
- An offence was committed by one of its members.
- The offence falls within one of two limbs. It was committed in prosecution of the common object, or it was one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of it.
- The accused was a member at the time the offence was committed.
Section 149 creates no new offence of its own. It makes each member guilty of the offence actually committed, by construction.
The first limb: in prosecution of the common object
The offence must be committed to achieve the shared aim, not for a member's private purpose. If the object is to beat up a rival and one member beats him, every member is guilty of the hurt.
The second limb: an offence the members knew was likely
This limb reaches further. An offence outside the common object still binds every member if they knew it was likely to be committed in pursuing that object.
Facts. In Mizaji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 572, decided on 18 December 1958, five men went armed to a disputed field to plough up the sown crop and take possession. One carried a pistol and the others lathis. When the other side protested, one shot a man dead.
Held. All five were guilty of murder with section 149. Even if killing was not their common object, they knew from the weapons they carried that murder was likely in taking forcible possession. That brought the case within the second limb.
The other side of the line.
Facts. In Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2012) 3 SCC 221, decided on 1 February 2012, a group of five arrived by van at a chapel in Goa. They came to stop the deceased's party from fencing a disputed path. The appellant punched two men. Another member suddenly drew a knife and stabbed the deceased in the thigh, cutting an artery, and he died. All were convicted of murder with section 149.
Held. The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction. The common object was to stop the fencing. There was no evidence that the appellant knew murder was likely, or even that his companion carried a knife. His convictions for hurt and grievous hurt stood.
Why they bear. The difference between the two cases lies in what the members knew. Pistols and lathis carried to seize land make death foreseeable. A hidden knife in a scuffle over a fence does not.
Liability may differ between members
Roy Fernandes also notes that the effect of section 149 may differ for different members of the same assembly. It depends on how far each shares the common object and what each knows. One member may be liable for murder and another only for hurt.
No overt act needed, but presence alone is not membership
Facts. In Lalji v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 754, decided on 17 January 1989, four men convicted of murder with section 149 argued that no specific act was proved against each of them.
Held. Their appeal failed. Not every member need do an overt act. Presence in the assembly with the common object, or with the required knowledge, is enough.
The bystander. In Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607, decided on 2 April 2013, the Supreme Court added a rule of caution. People who gather out of curiosity are not members. The prosecution must prove that each accused was a member at the crucial stages and shared the common object.
Fewer than five
There can be no unlawful assembly, and so no liability under section 149, unless five or more persons took part. In Achhey Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1233, decided on 21 February 1978, fourteen of fifteen named accused were acquitted. The High Court made no finding that five or more, known or unknown, took part. The last accused's conviction with sections 147 and 149 could not stand.
Section 149 and section 34
| Point | Section 149 | Section 34 |
|---|---|---|
| number | five or more | two or more |
| bond | a common object | a common intention, a shared plan |
| meeting of minds | not necessary | necessary |
| Point | Section 149 | Section 34 |
|---|---|---|
| nature | creates liability by membership | a rule of joint liability |
| participation | membership at the time is enough | some participation in the act is needed |
Under the Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 places these rules in sections 189 and 190. Section 189(1) repeats section 141, and section 189(2) to (9) carry the membership offences and punishments. Section 190 repeats section 149 word for word.
Conclusion. An unlawful assembly under section 141, now section 189(1) of the Sanhita, is five or more persons with one of five listed common objects. A member is punishable for membership itself, and more if armed or defying a command to disperse. Under section 149, now section 190, he is guilty of any offence a member commits in prosecution of the common object. He is also guilty of one the members knew was likely, as in Mizaji. Liability stops where knowledge stops, as Roy Fernandes shows. No overt act is needed (Lalji), but bystanders are not members (Subal Ghorai), and there must be five (Achhey Lal).
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.