In a case P, a married lady was found in a pool of blood and lying on the ground. On the way to hospital in ambulance she breathed her last. It transpired in the evidence that when P was seated outside her jhuggi, her brother came near her and challenged as to why she made a complaint against her own brother R to the police, Her other brother R and Sharma too came. There was an altercation wherein Sharma stabbed her to death. Which of the following is true regarding this particular case?
A)As to the vicarious liability of R & C, that the accused Sharma was not carrying an open knife in his hand and there was no evidence to show that this fact was in the knowledge of the other accused.
B)Sharma had not given any call to his brothers that P should be stabbed to death. Otherwise all the accused had not come together and for that reason it is difficult to assume that all had a prior meeting of mind to cause the death of their sister.
C)The words used by C were to teach P a lesson for making false accusations. Keeping in view the close relationship, it is difficult to assume that all of them had shared the common intention to kill P. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to rope C and R by aid of Section 34, IPC and they were acquitted.
D)All of them

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statements collectively suggest that there was no premeditated plan or common intention among Sharma, R, and C to kill P, as evidenced by the lack of an open weapon, absence of a call to action by Sharma, and the context of the altercation. Therefore, R and C were acquitted due to insufficient evidence of a shared intent to commit the murder, aligning with the principles of vicarious liability and common intention under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In a Case P, a Married Lady Was Found in a Pool