The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: 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.
Facts: Roshan along with two of his friends, Tushar and Tarang proceeded to the house of Darshan in order to avenge an insult made by the brother of Darshan. They opened fire on the members of Darshan's family. It was found that the shots of Roshan did not hit anyone, but the shots of Tushar and Tarang succeeded in killing Darshan.
Options
Roshan was not liable for the offence of murder of Darshan, as Roshan's shots did not hit Darshan
Only Tushar and Tarang were liable for the offence of murder of Darshan, as their shots hit Darshan
Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offense of murder of Darshan
Roshan was liable to a lesser extent compared to his friends for the offense of murder of Darshan, as Roshan's shots did not hit Darshan
Solution
Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offense of murder of Darshan
Explanation:
Section 34 of the Indian penal code enshrines this principle as 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.
In the present case, Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang is liable for the offense of murder of Darshan, because they went to Darshan's house in furtherance of common intention to avenge an insult made by the brother of Darshan.
