KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2019 Dec (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2019 Dec (100 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 2 November 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 2019 Dec (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2019 Dec (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 Dec (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.
Q1"When a criminal act is done by several persons, it may be construed to be done alone". Discuss.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: where the statement comes from, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (now section 3(5) of the Sanhita); what "as if it were done by him alone" means, a rule of joint liability that creates no offence; the three things that must be shown: one criminal act, done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all; the "act" read with section 33 as acts of different kinds (Ramaswami Ayyangar); physical presence and participation, and why the planner behind the screen is left to section 109 (Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli); the limits of the rule: different intentions and different offences (sections 35 and 38), co-operation by separate acts (section 37), and acts outside the common intention; the place of section 149; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Where the statement comes from
The statement paraphrases section 34. "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." The statement is right. But it is right only when the conditions of the section are met, and only up to the limits the Code itself sets.
What "as if done by him alone" means
Ordinarily a person answers only for what he himself does. Section 34 is an exception. It makes each member of a group answer for the whole act, though his own hand did only a part. The man who held the victim is treated as if he had also struck the fatal blow.
Two points follow.
- It creates no offence. Section 34 is a rule of liability. It is always read with some offence, as in "section 302 read with section 34".
- It removes a difficulty of proof. In a group attack it is often impossible to say whose blow killed. The section makes that question unnecessary, once common intention and participation are shown.
What must be shown
- A criminal act. Something must have been done that amounts to an offence.
- Done by several persons. At least two must have taken part in doing it.
- In furtherance of the common intention of all. There must be a prior meeting of minds, and the act must advance it.
One act, many hands
Facts. Out of an old enmity, a group set on Kaliaperumal. Two of them cut him with aruvals on vital parts, and he died in hospital. A third, A-2, beat a man named in the record as PW 1 with a cross-staff as PW 1 ran to help. A-2 argued that his blow on PW 1 was a separate act, not part of the murder. The case is Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 2027, decided on 24 March 1976.
Held. His conviction for murder read with section 34 was upheld. Section 34 must be read with section 33, under which an "act" includes a series of acts. So, the Court said, "when a criminal act is done by several persons" may be construed as "when criminal acts are done by several persons". The confederates' acts may differ. One may only stand guard to stop anyone coming to the victim's help. Such a person also commits an "act" as much as those who strike.
Why it bears. This is the fullest sense of the statement. A-2 never touched the deceased. Yet, sharing the intention and doing his part, he was liable as if he had killed Kaliaperumal alone.
Presence and participation
Facts. Three officers of a military stores depot near Poona were tried by jury for criminal breach of trust. Iron stores worth about four thousand rupees had been passed out of the depot to an agent of a buyer. The commanding officer said he was not present when the goods were loaded or taken out. The judge told the jury that a man who stays "behind the screen" can still be convicted under section 34. The case is Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287, decided on 22 December 1954.
Held. That was a misdirection, and the conviction was quashed. It is the essence of section 34 that the person is physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be in the same room. He may stand guard at a gate, or wait in a car nearby to help the escape. But he must take part, actively or passively, at the time the crime is done.
Why it bears. The emphasis in section 34 is on the word "done". Planning, agreement and preparation belong to abetment under section 109. Section 34 governs the stage when the plan is carried out. So the planner who stays away is not liable "as if he did it alone" under section 34. He may still be liable as an abettor.
Where the rule stops
The Code itself marks the limits of the statement.
- Different intentions (section 35). Some acts are criminal only because of the knowledge or intention behind them. Here each person is liable as if he did the act alone, but with his own knowledge or intention. He does not take on another's guiltier state of mind.
- Different offences (section 38). Several persons engaged in one criminal act may be guilty of different offences. In its illustration, A kills Z under grave provocation and is guilty only of culpable homicide. B, who helps him out of ill-will without provocation, is guilty of murder.
- Separate acts of co-operation (section 37). Where an offence is made up of several acts, one who intentionally does any of them commits the offence. In its illustration, two persons agree to poison Z by small doses at different times. Both are guilty of murder.
- Acts outside the common intention. A member is not liable for an act that no one intended. Suppose three agree to beat a man, and one suddenly pulls a knife and kills him. The others may escape liability for murder unless the killing was within their shared plan.
The rule applied
- The lookout. X and Y plan to rob a jeweller. X goes in with a knife while Y watches the street from the shop door. Y never touches the jeweller or the jewels. Yet he is present, he is helping, and he shares the plan. He is liable for the robbery as if he had done it alone.
- The planner at home. Z draws the map of the shop and supplies the knife, but stays at home that night. He is not present when the act is done, so section 34 does not reach him. He is an abettor under section 109, as Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli explains.
- The man who goes too far. During the robbery X, without any plan to kill, stabs the jeweller to death in panic. Y is liable for the robbery. Whether he is liable for murder depends on whether killing, if resisted, was part of what they both intended.
Why the law takes this view
A group is more dangerous than a single person. Its members give each other courage, and they make resistance and rescue harder. The law also wants to stop each member from hiding behind the others. So it treats the shared act as each one's own act, while sections 35 to 38 keep the punishment fair.
Section 34 and section 149
Section 149 reaches further in one way. An unlawful assembly needs five or more persons. A member may be liable, by membership alone, for an offence committed in prosecution of its common object. Section 34 needs participation. In Ramaswami Ayyangar the High Court had also convicted for rioting. With only three assailants left, the Supreme Court held that no unlawful assembly could be found, and section 149 could not apply. Section 34 alone carried the murder convictions.
Under the Sanhita
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 repeats section 34 in the same words. Section 3(6) is the old section 35, section 3(8) the old section 37, and section 3(9) the old section 38. Section 190 is the old section 149.
Conclusion. The statement restates section 34 of the Code, now section 3(5) of the Sanhita. When several persons do a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable as if he did it alone. Ramaswami Ayyangar reads the "act" as the acts of all, so the man who keeps help away is a murderer with those who strike. But Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli requires presence and participation when the crime is done. The planner behind the screen is left to section 109. Sections 35, 37 and 38 keep each person's liability tied to his own state of mind. So the statement is true, within the limits the Code sets.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.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, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.