Principle: Whoever takes away anything from the land of any person without that person’s consent is said to commit theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree standing on the land of X with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of X’s possession without the consent of X. But Y is yet to take away the tree out of X’s possession

• Y has committed theft as soon as he came to the land of X

• Y has committed theft as soon as the tree has been completely cut down by him

• Y has committed theft as soon as he has started cutting down the tree

• Y has committed theft as soon as he has started cutting down the tree

Principle: res ipsa loquitur i.e. the thing speaks for itself.
Facts: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery

• Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error

• Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the court of law that the surgeon was grossly negligent.

• Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore.

• Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore.

363.

Principle: Whoever takes away with him any minor person less than sixteen years of age if a male, or less than eighteen years of age if a female out of the keeping of parents of such minor person without the consent of such parent, is said to kidnap such minor person.
Facts: A female born on January 01, 1995 got admitted to an undergraduate program of a reputed University on July 01, 2012. She became friendly with one of the boys, born on June 01, 1994, of her class. The boy and the girl decided to marry. The parents of the boy agreed but the family of the girl did not agree. On December 15, 2012 the girl made a call from her Blackberry to the boy.
The girl told the boy to come in his car at a particular place and time. The boy reached the stipulated place before the stipulated time. He waited there for about half an hour. The girl reached the stipulated place. She opened the door of the car and sat beside the boy who was on the driving seat. Without exchanging any pleasantries, the boy drove the car to an unknown place.
The father of the girl lodged an FIR in the nearest police station on January 20, 2013.

• The boy has committed the offence of kidnapping

• The boy has not committed the offence of kidnapping

• The boy has not committed the offence of kidnapping for there is a delay in filing the FIR

• The boy has not committed the offence of kidnapping for there is a delay in filing the FIR

Principle: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished.
Facts: Two adult men were found engaged in carnal intercourse by the police. The police arrested the men and produced them before the Court.

• Court will punish the police officer who arrested the men

• Court will not punish the men for they were adults

• Court will punish the men

• Court will punish the men

Principle: Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.
Facts: A intentionally omitted to give food to his father. He also used to beat his father. Consequently A’s father died

• A did not commit any offence

• A committed only the offence of omitting to give food to his father

• A committed only the offence of beating of his father

• A committed only the offence of beating of his father

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Facts: A, a child born on January 01, 2005 killed another child ‘B’ on December 30, 2011

• A has committed no offence.

• A has committed the offence as it is heinous crime

• Killing of one child by another child is not an offence

• Killing of one child by another child is not an offence

Principle: A pact, other than a pact to commit suicide, to suffer any harm is not an offence, provided the age of the person who has given his consent to suffer harm is above eighteen years.
Facts: A enters into a pact with B, a boy of less than 18 years of age, to fence with each other for amusement. They agreed to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play

• A, while playing fairly, hurts B, A commits no offence

• A, while playing only unfairly, hurts B, A commits an offence

• A, while playing fairly, hurts B, A commits an offence

• A, while playing fairly, hurts B, A commits an offence

Principle: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life causes grievous hurt to A.

• A has committed an offence

• A has not committed an offence

• B has committed an offence

• B has committed an offence

 P, Q and R made a joint promise to give S a sum of Rs.3000. S recovered the whole amount from P. Q was declared insolvent and cannot give anything. Which statement out of the following is correct?

•  P cannot get anything from R

•  P can recover Rs.1000 from R.

•  P can recover Rs.1500 from R 

•  P can recover Rs.1500 from R 

• A has committed fraud 

• A has committed misrepresentation 

•  There cannot be a fraud because A says nothing about the mental condition of the horse 

•  There cannot be a fraud because A says nothing about the mental condition of the horse