KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2026 Jan (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2026 Jan (100 marks) 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 2026 Jan (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2026 Jan (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2026 Jan (100 marks) 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.
Q1Explain possible parties to the crime. How the liabilities of the parties varies ?[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the four parties to a crime in the common law classification; how the Sanhita deals with each, without using those labels; the perpetrator and joint perpetrators (sections 3(5) to 3(9)); the abettor (sections 45, 46 and 54) and the rules on how his liability varies (sections 49 to 53); members of an unlawful assembly (section 190) and conspirators (section 61); the accessory after the fact, punished by separate offences (sections 238, 249 and 317); Barendra Kumar Ghosh, Mahbub Shah and Pandurang; a table; a conclusion.
The idea of parties to a crime
A crime is often the work of more than one person. One man fires the shot, another holds the victim, a third planned it the week before, and a fourth hides the gun afterwards. The law must say who is liable, and for what. The answer depends on each person's part and his state of mind.
The common law classification
English common law, which Indian textbooks still use for teaching, sorted the parties into four classes.
- Principal in the first degree. The person who actually commits the crime with his own hand, or through an innocent agent such as a child.
- Principal in the second degree. A person who is present at the scene and aids or encourages the crime at the time it is committed, for example a lookout.
- Accessory before the fact. A person who instigates, advises or helps before the crime, but is not present when it is committed.
- Accessory after the fact. A person who, knowing a crime has been committed, receives, hides or helps the offender to escape justice.
The Indian Penal Code, and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, do not use these labels. But each class has a counterpart in the Sanhita.
The perpetrator and joint perpetrators
The perpetrator is liable under the section defining the offence. Where several persons act together, the general explanations in section 3 apply.
- Section 3(5), formerly section 34 of the Code. A criminal act may be done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. Each of them is then liable as if he had done it alone.
- Section 3(8), formerly section 37. Whoever intentionally co-operates in an offence by doing any one of several acts that make it up commits the offence.
- Section 3(9), formerly section 38. Persons engaged in one criminal act may be guilty of different offences. In the illustration, A kills Z under grave provocation and is guilty only of culpable homicide. B helps out of ill-will and was not provoked, so B is guilty of murder.
Common intention: the cases
Facts. In The King Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose, AIR 1924 Cal 257, decided on 26 September 1923, four armed men robbed a post office. Three of them, including the accused, stood before the postmaster and fired, and he died. The accused said he had not fired the fatal shot.
Held. The Full Bench upheld the murder conviction. A person present and taking part in the criminal act, in furtherance of the common intention of all, is liable for the whole. It need not be shown which participant struck the fatal blow.
Facts. In Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941, decided on 31 January 1945, a quarrel broke out over reeds. Wali Shah and the appellant came up with guns. Wali Shah shot one man dead, and the appellant shot and injured another.
Held. The Privy Council set aside the appellant's murder conviction. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, and the act must be done in concert under that plan. "Same or similar intention" must not be confused with common intention.
Facts. In Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216, decided on 3 December 1954, five men attacked a farmer with axes and sticks, and he died at once.
Held. The plan need not be elaborate. It may be formed suddenly, as where bystanders join one man's call to kill. But some pre-arrangement there must be. Without it, each person is liable only for the injury he himself caused.
Why they bear. These cases mark out the joint perpetrator, the modern principal. The words of section 3(5) are those of section 34, so the cases apply unchanged.
The abettor
Section 45, formerly section 107, says a person abets the doing of a thing in three ways.
- By instigating any person to do it.
- By engaging in a conspiracy for doing it, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy.
- By intentionally aiding its doing, by an act or illegal omission.
Section 46 (formerly section 108) defines the abettor of an offence. The abettor covers the accessory before the fact. Section 54 (formerly section 114) covers the principal in the second degree. If an abettor is present when the offence is committed, he is deemed to have committed it.
How the abettor's liability varies
The Sanhita does not give every abettor the same punishment. It varies with what actually happens.
- The act is done (section 49). If the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, the abettor gets the punishment for the offence itself.
- A different intention (section 50). The person abetted may act with a different intention or knowledge. The abettor is then punished as if the act had been done with his own intention.
- A different act (section 51). Suppose one act is abetted and a different act is done. The abettor is liable for it if it was a probable consequence of the abetment. He is not liable if it was done independently.
- Cumulative liability (section 52). If the act done is in addition to the act abetted and is a distinct offence, he is liable for both.
- A different effect (section 53). If the act abetted causes a different effect, he is liable for it, provided he knew it was likely.
- The act is not done. The abetment is still an offence. Its punishment depends on the gravity of the offence abetted, for example section 55 for an offence punishable with death or life.
Members of an unlawful assembly and conspirators
- Section 190, formerly section 149. If a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object, every member at that time is guilty of it. Unlike section 3(5), it needs no prior meeting of minds, only membership with a shared object. As Lord Sumner said in Barendra Kumar Ghosh, as quoted in Pandurang, section 149 creates a specific offence.
- Section 61, formerly sections 120A and 120B. A conspirator is liable for the agreement itself, even if nothing is done, where the object is an offence.
The accessory after the fact
The Sanhita does not make a person who helps after the crime a party to it. It punishes his own conduct as a separate offence.
- Section 238. Causing evidence of an offence to disappear, or giving false information, to screen the offender.
- Section 249. Harbouring or concealing an offender to screen him from punishment. The Exception exempts the offender's spouse.
- Section 317. Dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property.
The parties at a glance
| Common law class | Example | Provision in the Sanhita | Liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal, first degree | fires the shot | the offence section; s.3(5) if joint | full punishment for the offence |
| Principal, second degree | lookout at the scene | s.54 (abettor present); s.3(5) | deemed to have committed the offence |
| Accessory before the fact | instigates or plans | ss.45, 46, 49 to 55; s.61 | as abettor; full punishment if the act is done |
| Accessory after the fact | hides the offender | ss.238, 249, 317 | a separate, lesser offence |
| Member of an unlawful assembly | one of a mob of five or more | s.190 | guilty of the offence if within the common object |
Conclusion. The possible parties to a crime are the perpetrator, those present and helping, those who abet beforehand, and those who help afterwards. The Sanhita drops the common law labels but deals with each. Joint perpetrators are liable under section 3(5), on the pre-arranged plan required by Mahbub Shah and Pandurang. Abettors are liable under sections 45 to 55, and the abettor present is deemed the perpetrator under section 54. Members of an unlawful assembly are liable under section 190 and conspirators under section 61. The helper after the fact commits his own lesser offence under sections 238, 249 or 317. Liability varies with each person's act and intention, and with whether the crime is actually committed.
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.