All questions of Unit 2 - Topics of Law (Introduction to Criminal Laws) for Humanities/Arts Exam

Option C

Option c

Option A

Binary compound?

A binary compound is a type of chemical compound that contains exactly two different elements. Examples include water (H2O), sodium chloride (NaCl), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the answer to the question depends on which options are given.

Theory of Retribution and its Meaning

Theory of Retribution:
The theory of retribution is a philosophical concept that deals with the idea of punishment as a way of righting a balance that has been upset by an offense committed by an individual. It is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth" and is considered one of the oldest theories of criminal justice.

Meaning of Retribution:
Retribution is a form of punishment that is intended to make the offender pay for their wrongdoing. It is based on the idea that the punishment should fit the crime, and that the offender should receive a punishment that is proportionate to the harm they have caused.

The Purpose of Retribution:
The purpose of retribution is to restore the balance that has been upset by the offender's actions. It is intended to make the offender pay for their wrongdoing and to deter others from committing similar offenses. Retribution is also seen as a way of providing closure to the victims of a crime, as it gives them a sense of justice and closure.

Retribution and Criminal Justice:
Retribution is an important concept in criminal justice, as it is one of the primary justifications for punishment. It is seen as a way of maintaining social order and ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions. Retribution is also used as a way of deterring future crime, as it sends a message to would-be offenders that their actions will not be tolerated.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the theory of retribution is a philosophical concept that deals with the idea of punishment as a way of righting a balance that has been upset by an offense committed by an individual. It is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth" and is considered one of the oldest theories of criminal justice. Retribution is an important concept in criminal justice, as it is one of the primary justifications for punishment. It is intended to restore the balance that has been upset by the offender's actions, make the offender pay for their wrongdoing, and deter others from committing similar offenses.

Sources of Criminal Law: Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act is a primary source of Criminal Law in India. It is an Act of the Parliament of India that determines the admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts of law. It provides a set of rules and guidelines that must be followed during the trial of a criminal case.

Importance of Indian Evidence Act in Criminal Law

The Indian Evidence Act is important in criminal law because it:
- Determines what evidence can be presented in court and how it can be presented
- Ensures that the evidence presented in court is reliable and trustworthy
- Protects the rights of the accused and the prosecution by setting out clear rules for evidence presentation
- Provides clear guidelines for the admission of electronic evidence
- Determines the burden of proof in criminal cases

Sections of Indian Evidence Act relevant to Criminal Law

Some of the sections of the Indian Evidence Act that are relevant to criminal law include:
- Section 3: Interpretation Clause
- Section 4: May Presume
- Section 5: Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts
- Section 6: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction
- Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue
- Section 8: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
- Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue
- Section 10: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
- Section 11: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
- Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceedings
- Section 25: Confession to police officer not to be proved
- Section 26: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him
- Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved
- Section 28: Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant
- Section 29: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Indian Evidence Act is a crucial source of criminal law in India. It provides clear guidelines for the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases and ensures that the evidence presented in court is reliable and trustworthy. The sections of the Act that are relevant to criminal law outline the rules and guidelines that must be followed during the trial of a criminal case, and determine the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Offence of Travelling without a Ticket

Explanation:
Travelling without a ticket is an offence under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The person who commits this offence is liable to pay a fine.

Compoundable Offence:
Travelling without a ticket is a compoundable offence, which means that the person who commits this offence can avoid prosecution by paying a fine to the ticket checker. The amount of fine depends on the class of travel and the distance travelled.

Bailable Offence:
Travelling without a ticket is a bailable offence, which means that the person who commits this offence can apply for bail and can be released from custody. The person may have to provide a surety or a personal bond to secure his/her release.

Non-Bailable Offence:
Non-bailable offences are the ones in which the accused cannot be released on bail except under special circumstances. Travelling without a ticket is not a non-bailable offence.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, travelling without a ticket is a compoundable and bailable offence. The person who commits this offence can avoid prosecution by paying a fine and can apply for bail to secure his/her release.

Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that an illegal omission can be considered a crime. This means that failure to perform an act required by law can lead to criminal liability just as much as an act that is forbidden by law. Let's break this down further.

Understanding Section 33 of IPC

The section begins by defining what is meant by an illegal omission. It states that "the word 'act' denotes as well a series of acts as a single act; the word 'omission' denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission." This means that both acts and omissions can be considered for criminal liability.

Further, the section explains that if a person is bound by law to do a certain act and fails to do so, they can be held criminally liable. For example, if a doctor fails to treat a patient in an emergency situation, they can be charged with a crime for their illegal omission.

Exceptions to Section 33

However, there are certain exceptions to this section. For instance, if a person is unable to perform the required act due to circumstances beyond their control, they may not be held liable. Similarly, if a person is not obligated by law to perform a certain act, they cannot be held criminally liable for failing to do so.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Section 33 of the IPC is an important provision that recognizes the role of illegal omission in criminal liability. It emphasizes that both acts and omissions can lead to criminal charges and reinforces the importance of following the law. However, it also recognizes that there may be certain circumstances where a person cannot be held liable for their failure to act.

Explanation:

Self-defence and Revenge

Self-defence and revenge are two different concepts that are often confused with each other. Self-defence is a legal term that refers to the use of force to protect oneself or others from harm. On the other hand, revenge is an act of retaliation against someone who has wronged you.

Injury caused in self-defence is not a crime

When someone is acting in self-defence, they are not committing a crime. Self-defence is a legal defence against a charge of assault or murder. This means that if someone injures or kills another person while acting in self-defence, they will not be charged with a crime.

Injury caused in revenge is a crime

On the other hand, if someone injures or kills another person out of revenge, they are committing a crime. Revenge is not a legal defence against a charge of assault or murder. If someone injures or kills another person out of revenge, they will be charged with a crime and may face legal consequences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, an injury caused in self-defence is not a crime, while an injury caused in revenge is a crime. It is important to understand the difference between self-defence and revenge and to act accordingly. Self-defence is a legal defence that can be used to protect oneself or others, while revenge is an act of retaliation that can result in legal consequences.