Each 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. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles 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 interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

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.

The correct answer is: Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offence of murder of Darshan.

Understanding the Principle:
The legal principle given states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. This principle is the doctrine of Common Intention (analogous to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code).

The key insight here is that liability under this principle does not depend on who physically caused the harm — it depends on whether all persons shared a common intention at the time the criminal act was committed.

Applying the Principle to the Facts — Step by Step:

Step 1 — Identify the parties and their actions:
- Roshan, Tushar, and Tarang all went together to Darshan's house.
- Their stated purpose: to avenge an insult made by Darshan's brother.
- All three opened fire on members of Darshan's family.

Step 2 — Establish Common Intention:
Common intention requires a prior meeting of minds — a shared purpose before or during the act. Here, all three persons:
- Went to the house together with the same motive (revenge),
- All fired at Darshan's family members collectively.
This clearly demonstrates a pre-planned, shared criminal intention among all three.

Step 3 — Does individual contribution to the final result matter?
This is the critical point. The principle explicitly states each person is liable "in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
- Roshan's shots did not hit anyone.
- Tushar's and Tarang's shots killed Darshan.
However, under the doctrine of common intention, the physical outcome of each individual's act is irrelevant. Because all three shared the common intention and participated in the criminal act (firing), each is equally liable for the murder of Darshan.

Step 4 — Evaluate the wrong options:
- Option 1 (Roshan not liable because his shots missed): Incorrect. The principle does not require every participant's act to produce the harmful result individually.
- Option 2 (Only Tushar and Tarang liable): Incorrect. This ignores the doctrine of common intention entirely.
- Option 4 (Roshan liable to a lesser extent): Incorrect. The principle states liability is equal — "in the same manner" — regardless of degree of individual participation.

Conclusion:
Since all three — Roshan, Tushar, and Tarang — went together, shared the same intention of revenge, and all actively participated by opening fire, the doctrine of common intention makes all three equally liable for the murder of Darshan, even though Roshan's shots did not physically kill anyone. Therefore, Option 3 is the most reasonable conclusion.