KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2016 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2016 Jun 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 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Jun 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.
Q1Who are the possible parties to a crime ? Discuss.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why a crime may have many parties; the common law's four classes (principals of the first and second degree, accessories before and after the fact) and how the Indian Penal Code reaches each without using those names; one crime followed through its parties: the instigator, the conspirators, the supplier of the weapon, the one who strikes, the one who holds the victim, the lookout, the gang, and those who help afterwards; how the liability of each varies: joint liability (sections 34 to 38, Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli), the abettor (sections 107 to 117, Jamuna Singh), conspiracy (section 120B), the unlawful assembly (section 149), and the accessory after the fact (sections 201, 212 and 411, Palvinder Kaur); a table; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Many hands in one crime
A serious crime is rarely the work of one person. One urges it, others plan it, someone supplies the means, one or more carry it out, and others help afterwards. The law must decide who among them is guilty, and of what. The answer depends on each person's role and state of mind.
The common law classification
English law, from which the Code's draftsmen drew, divided the parties into four classes.
- Principal in the first degree: the person who actually commits the crime with his own hands.
- Principal in the second degree: one present at the crime who aids or encourages it, such as a lookout.
- Accessory before the fact: one who, though absent, procures, counsels or helps before the crime.
- Accessory after the fact: one who, knowing a crime has been committed, helps the offender escape justice.
The Indian Penal Code does not use these labels. It reaches every one of these persons through its own provisions.
One crime and its parties
Take one crime. A gang robs a jeweller's shop at night and the jeweller is shot dead.
- Ravi, the instigator. Ravi urges Suresh to rob the jeweller and promises a share. He stays at home. He is an abettor by instigation under section 107. Because the robbery was committed as a result, section 109 makes him liable to the punishment for it.
- Ravi and Suresh, the conspirators. They agreed on the robbery a week earlier. That agreement is a criminal conspiracy under section 120A, punishable under section 120B, whether or not the robbery was carried out.
- Gopal, the supplier. Gopal, knowing the plan, lends Suresh his pistol. He intentionally aids the crime and is an abettor by aid.
- Suresh, the one who shoots. Suresh shoots the jeweller. He is the principal offender, liable for murder.
- Mohan, who holds the jeweller. Mohan pins the jeweller's arms while Suresh takes the cash. Under section 34, he is liable for the act done in furtherance of their common intention, as if he had done it alone.
- Kiran, the lookout. Kiran stands at the door to warn of the police. He is present and participating, so section 34 applies to him too. Section 114 adds that an abettor present at the offence is deemed to have committed it.
- The gang of five. If five or more took part, the robbery is dacoity, and dacoity with murder under section 396 makes every member liable for the murder.
- After the crime. Lata hides Suresh in her house to save him from arrest: harbouring an offender under section 212. Babu buys the stolen jewels knowing they are stolen: section 411, or section 412 for property from a dacoity. Hari washes the blood from the shop and burns the clothes to screen the gang: causing disappearance of evidence under section 201.
How the liability of each varies
1. Joint perpetrators: sections 34 to 38. Those who take part in a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention are each liable for the whole act. But section 35 judges each by his own knowledge or intention. Section 38 lets them be guilty of different offences, as where one acted under provocation and another out of ill-will.
The line between perpetrator and abettor. In Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287, decided on 22 December 1954, an officer in charge of a stores depot was tried with others for criminal breach of trust. He was not present when the goods were taken out. The Supreme Court held that section 34 needs presence at the actual commission and participation, though it may be passive. Planning from behind the screen is abetment, dealt with by section 109. So Kiran at the door is a joint perpetrator, but Ravi at home is an abettor.
2. The abettor: sections 107 to 117. His liability depends on what follows.
- If the offence is committed, he gets its punishment (section 109).
- If a different act is done, he is liable if it was a probable consequence (section 111). If a different effect follows, he is liable if he knew it was likely (section 113).
- If the offence is not committed, he still commits abetment, with lesser punishment (sections 115 and 116).
Facts. In Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553, decided on 22 September 1966, the appellant was said to have instigated a co-accused to set fire to a hut. The High Court acquitted the co-accused but upheld the appellant's conviction for abetment.
Held. An abettor may be convicted though the principal is acquitted. Abetment by instigation or conspiracy is complete whether or not the offence is committed.
3. Conspirators: section 120B. Where the object is a serious offence, a conspirator is punished as if he had abetted it. Otherwise the limit is six months.
4. Members of an unlawful assembly: section 149. Each member is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object, or one the members knew was likely.
5. The accessory after the fact. He is not guilty of the main crime. He is punished for his own separate offence, and the punishment is graded by the seriousness of the crime he helped hide.
- Under section 201, if the crime was punishable with death, causing disappearance of its evidence carries up to seven years. For an offence punishable with life imprisonment or ten years, it carries up to three years.
- Under section 212, harbouring a person who committed a capital offence carries up to five years. The Exception spares a husband or wife who harbours the offender.
What must be proved against him. In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, decided on 22 October 1952, a woman helped place her husband's body in a trunk and throw it into a well. The Supreme Court set aside her conviction under section 201. The prosecution had to prove that an offence was in fact committed, and that she knew or had reason to believe it. The cause of death was never proved, so mere suspicion was not enough.
The parties at a glance
| Common law class | Example | Provision in the Code | Liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| principal, first degree | Suresh, who shoots | the offence itself | full |
| principal, second degree | Mohan, Kiran | sections 34 and 114 | full, as if each did it |
| accessory before the fact | Ravi, Gopal | sections 107, 109, 120B | depends on what follows |
| Common law class | Example | Provision in the Code | Liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| member of a gang | the five robbers | sections 149, 396 | for offences within the common object or known likely |
| accessory after the fact | Lata, Babu, Hari | sections 201, 212, 411 | a separate, lesser offence |
Under the Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps the scheme. Joint liability is in section 3(5) to 3(9). Abetment is in sections 45 to 60, conspiracy in section 61, and the unlawful assembly rule in section 190. The accessory after the fact is reached by section 238 (old section 201) and section 249 (old section 212). Receiving stolen property is section 317 (old sections 411 and 412).
Conclusion. The possible parties to a crime are those who commit it and those present who help. They also include those who instigate, conspire or aid beforehand, and those who help the offender afterwards. The Code reaches them without the common law labels. It does so through joint liability (sections 34 to 38), abetment (sections 107 to 117) and conspiracy (section 120B). It adds the unlawful assembly rule (section 149) and separate offences after the fact (sections 201, 212, 411). Liability varies with role and mind. Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli separates the perpetrator present from the abettor behind the screen. Jamuna Singh lets the abettor be convicted alone, and Palvinder Kaur requires proof of the main offence before an accessory is punished.
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.