Important Questions of Legal - Aptitude and Reasoning Legal Aptitude | Zigya

Previous Year Papers

Download Solved Question Papers Free for Offline Practice and view Solutions Online.

Test Series

Take Zigya Full and Sectional Test Series. Time it out for real assessment and get your results instantly.

Test Yourself

Practice and master your preparation for a specific topic or chapter. Check you scores at the end of the test.
Advertisement

 Multiple Choice QuestionsMultiple Choice Questions

Advertisement
141.

PRINCIPLE 1: Bigamy is not permitted under Hindu Marriage Act.
PRINCIPLE 2: A Hindu person of sound mind can adopt a child of the gender they don’t already have a child of.
FACTS: Pritam is part of a Hindu Vaishnav family where all the male members have more than one wife. He married Sona in 2006 and has a son with her, called Pyaare. 

Using the fact situation in the previous question, can Pritam adopt a son with Mona?

  • Yes, since he and Mona have no children
  • No, since Pritam already has a son
  • Yes, because he is legally entitled to adopt, since he is of sound mind and has the consent of his spouse
  • Yes, because he is legally entitled to adopt, since he is of sound mind and has the consent of his spouse
26 Views

142.

 PRINCIPLE: Whoever stores a substance that could potentially cause damage on escape shall be absolutely liable for any damage caused by the escape of the substance from its premises. The person will be liable for the tort of negligence.

FACTS: Jack and Sparrow are two scientists and they develop a pill that has multiple functions, including radioactive properties. However, they are still experimenting on it, and hence, the pill is stored safely in a glass container, which is kept in their lab. Only Jack and Sparrow have access to the lab. One day, there was an earthquake, measuring 7 on the Richter scale. The effects were felt in the Lab as well. As a result of the quake, the glass container falls and breaks, thereby releasing the capsule, which on reacting with the hydrogen in the air, started shooting sparks and bursts into a flame, releasing gases. William, who lives nearby, hears the commotion in the Lab and goes in to see what is happening. Later, he sues the two scientists, holding them responsible for his exposure to the fumes in the Lab, due to the Pill. Will he succeed?

  • Yes, he suffered due to the escape of the Pill
  • No, it was an Act of God
  • Yes, the two scientists should be held guilty for the tort of negligence and should compensate William
  • Yes, the two scientists should be held guilty for the tort of negligence and should compensate William
23 Views

143.

PRINCIPLE: Injuria Sine Damnum.

FACTS: Bikram was an officer in charge of the polling booths. His duty was to assist the people in casting their votes. Basanti, one of the villagers, came to the booth to cast her vote, but she was refused admission inside the booth by Bikram and his men. She wanted to vote for Bankeram. Dejected, she returned home. The next day she complained against Bikram and his men since they violated her right to vote. When the election results were declared, it was discovered that Bankeram received the highest number of votes. Was Basanti’s right violated?

  •  No, because Bikram was an officer and could stop anyone from voting
  • Yes, because the right to vote is a legal right, which was violated, although there was no other damage
  • No, because ultimately Bankeram won
  • No, because ultimately Bankeram won
24 Views

144.

 PRINCIPLE: Conversion to another religion solely for the purpose of marriage is not lawful, and such marriage will be deemed to be void from the beginning.

FACTS: Ravi Narayan was born in a Hindu family in Varanasi. His family shifted to a Muzaffarnagar when he was five. Most of Ravi’s school friends were Muslims and since he spent a considerable amount of time with them, he started admiring their customs, the Islamic religion, practices, festivals, etc. He was married off to Raveena soon after he graduated, and they had a son a year after that. Ravi decided to formally convert to Islam on his son’s second birthday.
A few years into his marriage with Raveena, they started having problems and fought often. Tired of this, Ravi started spending most of his time outside home. He would frequent bars and in the process, he met Karishma and fell in love with her. He decided to get married to her, though his marriage with Raveena subsisted. Is his second marriage legal?

  • Yes, since he did not convert to Islam solely for the purpose of marriage
  • No, religion is not a joke and should not be changed as and when one pleases
  • Yes, it is perfectly acceptable since a lot of actors and actresses have done the same too
  • Yes, it is perfectly acceptable since a lot of actors and actresses have done the same too
25 Views

Advertisement
145.

 PRINCIPLE 1: Culpable homicide occurs when a person causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death.

PRINCIPLE 2: Intention is a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct could lead to the death of a person.

FACTS: Mrityunjay Dutt was fond of hunting, and in the game season went to the dense forests of Madhya Pradesh along with a few close friends to indulge in his favorite sport. For three days, he found no game, and returned to his tent disappointed. However, on the fourth day, he went to the forest early in the morning. He saw some movement in the bushes and this was accompanied by the sound of rustling of leaves. Certain that he had finally spotted a deer, he thanked his luck and shot at the bush.
However, when he went closer, he discovered that he had shot a human. Feeling guilty for his act, he immediately intimated the forest officers, who confirmed that the man who was shot was a poacher, and the police were in search of him. They rewarded Mrityunjay for his act and commended his bravery.
Is Mrityunjay to be held responsible for culpable homicide?

  • Yes, since he killed a person
  •  No, since he helped the police by killing the poacher
  • Yes, since he should have checked whether it was a deer or a human
  • Yes, since he should have checked whether it was a deer or a human
26 Views

146.

PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence if it is not intended to cause death, and is done by a person in good faith, for the benefit of another.

EXPLANATION: The person on whom the particular act is done must have consented to the commission of that act, with all the associated risks, whether expressly or impliedly.

FACTS: The Great Bali is a famous athlete, from Jamaica. He suffered some injuries in his last sprint in the Olympics. When he went for a check up, it was discovered that he his leg had been infected by some sort of rare pathogen, and had to be removed immediately before it spread to the rest of his body. Dr. Mustafa is a renowned surgeon and Bali requests him to perform the surgery. Before the surgery, Bali is sensitized about the procedure, and all the associated risks, including death and he consents to the surgery. After the surgery, Bali discovers that his infected leg has been amputated, and that his running career is over. He files a suit for medical negligence against the doctor. However, the doctor claims that the amputation was essential to prevent other complications, which involved the spread of the pathogen to the heart, thereby resulting in coma or death. Decide.

  • The doctor did right in amputating Bali’s leg since wanted to save his life
  • The doctor had no intention of causing death, and performed the surgery and amputation in good faith, in order to prevent a greater harm
  • Bali had consented to the surgery, even after being told all the possible risks, including death
  • Bali had consented to the surgery, even after being told all the possible risks, including death
24 Views

147.

PRINCIPLE :- Preparation is not an offence except the preparation of some special offences.
Facts:-Rameshwar keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to a party and to whom he wishes to give it. Unknown to Rmeshwar, his only son takes the halua and dies. In this case

  • Rameshwar is liable for the murder.

  • He is not liable for murder since t is a preparation alone.

  • He is liable for culpable homicide

  • He is liable for culpable homicide

25 Views

148.

PRINCIPLE:- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object:-
FACT:-A, -along with eight others went to a near village to beat some of his enemies. In this fight A was injuredi The members of the opposite party ran away. Thereafter A's friends followed the opponents and
killed one of them.

  • A and his companions are liable to be punished for the murder.

  • Only A is liable ,others are liable for minor offences only

  • No one is liable since they exercised the private defence

  • No one is liable since they exercised the private defence

25 Views

Advertisement
149.

PRINCIPLE- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that 26person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
FACTS:- A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning B unless B gives Rs.5 lakhS. A induces B to give money.

  • A is guilty of defamation

  • A is guilty of extortion

  • A is not guilty since it is a preparation only

  • A is not guilty since it is a preparation only

24 Views

150.

PRINCIPLE:-Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm
FACTS:- A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an ordinary knife. The man died of haemorrahage.

  • Doctor is guilty of murder

  • Doctor is not guilty

  • Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

  • Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

24 Views

Advertisement