Multiple Choice QuestionsPRINCIPLE: 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 FACT: 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. He exercised his right of private defence under a mistake of fact. He was under the belief that A and B were fighting. He is justified in exercising his right of private defence.
Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He exercised his right of private defence under a mistake of fact. He was under the belief that A and B were fighting. He is justified in exercising his right of private defence.
C.
Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He exercised his right of private defence under a mistake of fact. He was under the belief that A and B were fighting. He is justified in exercising his right of private defence.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
FACT: A finds a diamond ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. He sells it immediately to a jeweller.
A is guilty of Criminal Misappropriation
A is not guilty of Criminal Misappropriation
A is guilty of cheating
A is guilty of cheating
PRINCIPLE: voluntary drunkenness is not a Defence under ss.85 and 86 of the Code
FACT: A has in his possession a bottle of poisonous lotion for external application and a bottle of medicine for internal use. A in a drunken condition gives to his child an ounce of the poisonous lotion to drink as result of which the child died. Is A guilty of any offence?
)
A is guilty of’ death caused by rash and negligent act.
A is guilty of murder
A is not guilty since he is in a drunken state. A cannot take ‘drunkenness’ as a defence as voluntary drunkenness is not a Defence under ss.85 and 86 of the Code.
A is not guilty since he is in a drunken state. A cannot take ‘drunkenness’ as a defence as voluntary drunkenness is not a Defence under ss.85 and 86 of the Code.
PRINCIPLE: Attempt to murder is punishable under S.307 IPC but preparation is not an offence.
FACT: A mixes sugar, thinking that it was poison in the tea meant for B with an intention to cause his death. What offence, if any, has been committed by A?
(a)
(b)
(c)
A is not liable to be punished for any offence. ‘A’ has done only preparation, for the commission of crime
A is liable for attempt to murder
He is guilty of criminal conspiracy
He is guilty of criminal conspiracy
PRINCIPLE: By virtue of s. 330 of the Code, if a person voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting confession from the sufferer or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence, he shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine
FACT: X, a police officer tortures Y, to tell him where the stolen property was kept by him. Has A committed any offence?
X is not liable since he is discharging his duty.
X is liable since the custodial torture is not part of duty
X is not liable since the torture was to extract confession.
X is not liable since the torture was to extract confession.
PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation.”
FACT: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan’s delicate nature
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
PRINCIPLE: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
FACT: A places men with fire arms at the outlets of a building, and tells B that he will fire at, if B attempts to leave the building.
A is guilty of wrongful restraints
A is guilty of wrongful confinement
A is not guilty since it is a preparation only.
A is not guilty since it is a preparation only.
A promise not supported by consideration is called
Nudum pactum
Acceptance
Acceptance
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Switch
