CLAT Legal Reasoning
As the name indicates, CLAT Legal Reasoning section has a distinct element of law. To crack these questions, ideally, a candidate has to keep reading any news and opinion articles from at least one newspaper. A basic idea regarding the Current Affairs of legal issues will drastically improve the reading speed and comprehension. Though deeper understanding of law is not mandatory, keeping oneself abreast of the current happenings will prove to a competitive edge. The passages have been selected carefully to encompass a legal context in them.
As with the CLAT Logical Reasoning section and the CLAT English Language section, adequate attention has been given to ensure the passages are from a range of topics. Needless to say, the questions are pegged exactly at the level of difficulty of CLAT, with an eye on the samples published by the Consortium of NLUs.
Enough said. In for some serious Legal Reasoning? Let’s get cracking!
CLAT 2020 Legal Reasoning: Common and Similar Intention
Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan.
Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act, which need not be a
long gap. To bring common intention into effect a pre-concert is not necessarily be proved,
but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons and could be inferred
from facts and circumstances of each case. For example A and B caught hold of C where
only B stabbed C with a knife but A is also liable for murder as there was a pre concerted
action. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, Supreme court emphasized on this point
that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could
well be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.
Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To constitute common
intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them
and shared by them. In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Supreme
Court, held that: “Common intention which developed at the spur of the moment is different
from the similar intention actuated a number of person at the same time….the distinction
between a common intention and similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one
and if overlooked, may lead to miscarriage of justice….” The mere presence of accused
together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the common intention to commit the offence
in question. It is necessary that the intention of each one of 'several persons' be known to
each other for constituting common intention.
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the difference between common intention and similar intention?
- The intention of the accused and co-accused can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.
- Under common intention, it is considered that all the accused have jointly committed the offence themselves and are jointly liable.
- Each accused is liable for the offence he has actually committed, if the common intention cannot be proved.
- All of the above.
Explanatory Answer
Option (a) is a statement from a previous question and is true. Option (b) restates the very definition of ‘common intention’. In case, there is not enough evidence to prove common intention, the accused persons will have to be punished according to their actual deeds
CAT Coaching in Chennai
CAT 2021
Enroll at 49,000/-
44,000/-
Online Classroom Batches Starting Now!