Question

Principle : Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts : A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts
• B. Only the fact that A is accused of committing murder of B is relevant
• C. Only the fact that A is accused of conspiracy hatched in England is relevant
• D. A citizen of England cannot be tried in India

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts.

Answer 2

The principle says the existence of all alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. A, a citizen of England, is accused of taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England, and of murdering B in India as a result. Let's check each option.

1. Option A: The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts: The conspiracy happened in England and the murder happened in India, different places entirely. The principle expressly says that a difference in location does not stop both connected facts from being relevant, so both the murder and the conspiracy remain relevant here.
2. Option B: Only the fact that A is accused of committing murder of B is relevant: This leaves out the conspiracy fact entirely, but the principle says facts at different places are still relevant, so the conspiracy in England cannot simply be excluded.
3. Option C: Only the fact that A is accused of conspiracy hatched in England is relevant: This drops the murder fact instead, ignoring that the principle keeps both facts relevant regardless of where each occurred.
4. Option D: A citizen of England cannot be tried in India: The principle is about which facts are relevant to the case, it says nothing about jurisdiction or nationality barring a trial, so this option answers a question the principle was never addressing.

Since the conspiracy and the murder are connected facts that simply occurred in different places, the principle keeps both of them relevant together.

Therefore, the correct answer is The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts.

Answer 3

Break this into a short test: identify the connected facts alleged, note that they occurred at different times and places, and apply the rule that such a difference does not strip relevance from either fact.

1. The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts: The conspiracy in England and the murder in India are connected facts occurring at different places, and applying the test, a difference in location does not remove relevance from either one, so both stay relevant together.
2. Only the fact that A is accused of committing murder of B is relevant: This drops the conspiracy fact, but the test says a difference in place does not strip relevance from a connected fact, so excluding the conspiracy this way does not hold up.
3. Only the fact that A is accused of conspiracy hatched in England is relevant: This drops the murder fact instead, for the same flawed reasoning, ignoring that both connected facts remain relevant regardless of where each occurred.
4. A citizen of England cannot be tried in India: This does not engage the test at all, the principle is about which facts are relevant to the case, not about jurisdiction or nationality barring a trial.

Testing the two facts against the principle's rule on time and place, both the conspiracy and the murder remain connected and relevant together, since their difference in location does not exclude either.

Therefore, the correct answer is The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts.