Whether the appellant is liable for attempting to commit an offense as laid down in section 511 of the IPC?
Attempt to commit an offense can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offense and which is a step towards the commission of the offense. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offense.
Whether the appellant can be held liable for attempting to obtain the insurance money on false pretense when the police had intervened and prevented its execution?
An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted.
Whether the appellant could be held liable for an impossible offense as the substance was not a drug and the only vegetable matter?
The statutory offense of attempt under Section 1 of the 1981 Act requires:
(1) an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence and
(2) the accused intended to commit an offense.
Whether the appellant could be held liable for the offense of Murder?
It was also argued by the appellant’s side that if the court holds that the section 34 is so important, then section 149 should be regarded as an otiose. But the court held that the two sections i.e. section 34 and section 149 may be overlapping but are not exactly the same hence one cannot replace the other.
Whether the appellant has been rightly convicted of murder upon the true construction of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
The essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
Whether a lady can be prosecuted for gang rape?
The sine qua non for bringing in the application of Section 34 IPC is that the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention to do a criminal act. The expression "in furtherance of their common intention" as appearing in the explanation to Section 376(2) relates to intention to commit rape and a woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit rape.
Whether all the members of the assembly could be held equally liable for the murder of the constables?
Section 149 applies not only to offences actually committed in pursuance of the common object but also to offences that members of the assembly know are likely to be committed.
Whether the accused can be held guilty for the murder of Rajalakshmi?
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. It is to be observed that the section does not require that the offender should intend to kill any particular person. It is enough if he causes the death of any one by doing an act with the intention of causing death to any one, whether the person intended to be killed or any one else.
Whether the wound inflicted by the appellant was the cause of death or her refusing to the blood transfusion acted as a Novus actus interveniens and so broke the chain of causation?
If at the time of death the original wound is still the operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death is also operating.