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.

• 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

Hint:

In any case, all relevant facts must be considered, even if they occur at different times and places.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

According to the principle, all the facts that are alleged in a case are relevant, whether they occur at the same time and place or not. In this case, A is accused of murder in India and conspiracy that was hatched in England. The facts about both the murder and the conspiracy are relevant for the case.
Thus, the correct answer is (A). The facts that A is accused of committing murder and of conspiracy are relevant.
Option (B) is incorrect because it does not consider the fact of the conspiracy which is also relevant. Option (C) is incorrect because the facts related to both the murder and the conspiracy are relevant. Option (D) is incorrect because a citizen of England can be tried in India if the offense occurred in India.

Answer 2

The question is about which facts count as relevant when a crime and the conspiracy behind it happened in different countries. Let's weigh each option.

1. The facts that A is accused of murder and of conspiracy are both relevant: The principle says existence of alleged facts is relevant regardless of when or where they occurred. The murder happened in India and the conspiracy was hatched in England, but both are alleged facts connected to the same case, so both are relevant under the stated rule.
2. Only the fact that A is accused of murdering B is relevant: This drops the conspiracy out of the picture entirely. But the conspiracy is what allegedly ties A to the murder in the first place, and the principle does not restrict relevance to only the place where the final act occurred.
3. Only the fact that A is accused of conspiracy in England is relevant: This makes the opposite mistake, ignoring the murder itself. The murder is the actual offence charged, so leaving it out cannot be right either.
4. A citizen of England cannot be tried in India: Nationality does not shield a person from trial in the country where the offence took place. This option answers a different question, jurisdiction over the accused, rather than the relevance of facts, which is what the principle is about.

Because the principle treats every alleged fact as relevant irrespective of where or when it occurred, both the murder in India and the conspiracy in England count as relevant facts in the case.

So the correct answer is the facts that A is accused of murder and of conspiracy are both relevant.

Answer 3

This question is about scope: how much of the alleged conduct counts as relevant once it spans two countries and two points in time. Each wrong option narrows that scope in a way the principle does not permit.

1. The facts that A is accused of murder and of conspiracy are both relevant: This option keeps the full scope the principle demands, treating every alleged fact as relevant regardless of where or when it occurred, so both the murder and the conspiracy stay in the picture.
2. Only the fact that A is accused of murdering B is relevant: This option narrows the scope by dropping the conspiracy simply because it happened in a different country. The principle does not permit excluding a fact merely because it occurred elsewhere.
3. Only the fact that A is accused of conspiracy in England is relevant: This makes the mirror-image error, narrowing scope by dropping the murder, the very offence actually charged, because it took place in a different location from the conspiracy.
4. A citizen of England cannot be tried in India: This option does not narrow the scope of relevant facts at all; it substitutes an entirely different issue, jurisdiction over the person, for the question the principle is actually about, which is relevance of facts.

Since the principle keeps every alleged fact in scope irrespective of location or timing, both the India-based murder and the England-based conspiracy remain relevant together.

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