HP Judicial Services (Prelims) Mock - 1 (Criminal Law) - Judiciary Exams MCQ

The offence committed by 'A' in this scenario is the offence of fabricating false evidence.
Fabricating false evidence involves creating or producing false evidence with the intention of using it in a judicial proceeding or investigation. In this case, 'A' has placed the jewels in Z's box with the intention of causing 'Z' to be convicted of theft, knowing that the jewels were not stolen by 'Z'. Therefore, 'A' has committed the offence of fabricating false evidence.
Giving false evidence involves providing false testimony in a judicial proceeding, which is not the case in this scenario. Theft involves taking someone else's property without their consent, which 'A' has not done. Causing disappearance of evidence involves hiding or destroying evidence, which 'A' has also not done.

• Emasculation
• Permanent privation of the sight of either eye
• Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear
• Privation of any member or joint
• Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint
• Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
• Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth
• Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits

Sector 81 of the Indian Penal Code states that nothing is an offence merely by reason of it being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
In this scenario, 'Z' fired at the tiger with the intention of rescuing 'A' from danger. Although 'Z' knew it was likely that the shot might kill 'A', his intention was not to cause harm to 'A' but to save him. Therefore, 'Z' did not have the mens rea or intention to commit an offence against 'A'. Hence, based on the given facts, it can be concluded that 'Z' has not committed any offence.

According to Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity. Dacoity is a specific type of robbery that involves a group of five or more people committing or attempting to commit a robbery.
In the given scenario, X and four other armed associates seizes the child of Y and threatens to kill him unless Y parts with his watch and diamond ring, which amounts to robbery, and as it is committed by five persons, the offence committed is dacoity.

The definition stating that crime is an act forbidden by law and against moral sentiments of society, was given by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. He was an English lawyer, judge, and legal philosopher who provided this definition in his book titled "A History of the Criminal Law of England" published in 1883. This definition has been widely accepted and influenced the understanding of crime in both legal and moral contexts.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Salim Bhai Abdul Guffor Shaikh, the Supreme Court of India established a legal principle regarding the bail application of a person accused under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that if a person accused under POTA wishes to seek bail, they must first approach the special court designated to handle their case. Only after the special court refuses their bail application can the accused person approach the High Court for bail. This ruling ensures that the specialized procedures and provisions of POTA cases are followed and that the special courts have the opportunity to examine the bail application before it can be considered by the High Court. It also recognizes the expertise and authority of the special courts in dealing with terrorism-related offenses.