Explore Exams
Login Signup
Sign in Open App
CLAT PG Exam  >  CLAT PG Test  >  Criminal Law  >  Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - CLAT PG MCQ

Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Free MCQ Practice Test with solutions,


MCQ Practice Test & Solutions: Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law (20 Questions)

You can prepare effectively for CLAT PG Criminal Law with this dedicated MCQ Practice Test (available with solutions) on the important topic of "Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law". These 20 questions have been designed by the experts with the latest curriculum of CLAT PG 2026, to help you master the concept.

Test Highlights:

  • - Format: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ)
  • - Duration: 20 minutes
  • - Number of Questions: 20

Sign up on EduRev for free to attempt this test and track your preparation progress.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 1
Save

How did the Supreme Court describe the relationship between culpable homicide and murder in Rayavarapu Punnayya’s case?

Detailed Solution: Question 1

The Court stated, “Culpable homicide is the genus and murder its species.” This means murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 2
Save

Which of the following is NOT part of the four-part test in Virsa Singh’s case?

Detailed Solution: Question 2

The Court clearly held that intention to kill is not required. What is required is intention to cause the specific injury that leads to death.

Clear all your doubts with EduRev
Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 3
Save

Section 377 IPC was read down in:

Detailed Solution: Question 3

Consensual adult relationships were decriminalised.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 4
Save

In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of grave and sudden provocation mainly because:

Detailed Solution: Question 4

The Court observed that Nanavati did not act instantly after discovering the affair. He went to his ship, obtained a revolver on a false excuse, and then went to the victim’s office. This time gap allowed for “cooling off” and the act of procuring the weapon showed deliberation, not sudden loss of self-control. Hence, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC was rejected.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 5
Save

The main factor distinguishing murder from culpable homicide is:

Detailed Solution: Question 5

The Court emphasised that intention, knowledge and the seriousness of risk to life determine whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 6
Save

Forced narco-analysis violates:

Detailed Solution: Question 6

It amounts to testimonial compulsion.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 7
Save

The “rarest of rare” doctrine was laid down in:

Detailed Solution: Question 7

This case limited the death penalty to exceptional cases only.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 8
Save

Which statement best explains the difference between “same intention” and “common intention”?

Detailed Solution: Question 8

“Common intention” involves coordinated action before or during commission.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 9
Save

In Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, "common intention" requires:

Detailed Solution: Question 9

The Court held that common intention requires pre-arranged planning, proven through evidence.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 10
Save

Section 34 IPC fixes criminal liability on:

Detailed Solution: Question 10

The law punishes participation in a shared criminal plan, not merely who committed the last act.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 11
Save

Custodial torture violates which Article?

Detailed Solution: Question 11

It violates personal liberty and dignity.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 12
Save

D.K. Basu case relates to:

Detailed Solution: Question 12

The Court laid down arrest and detention procedures to prevent torture.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 13
Save

Under which provision must police issue notice instead of arrest?

Detailed Solution: Question 13

Section 41A CrPC mandates notice where arrest is unnecessary.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 14
Save

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar restricted:

Detailed Solution: Question 14

Arrest must be justified and cannot be automatic.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 15
Save

Which legal exception did Nanavati invoke to downgrade the offence from murder to culpable homicide?

Detailed Solution: Question 15

Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC deals with grave and sudden provocation. Nanavati argued that his emotional shock on discovering his wife’s affair provoked him into killing without premeditation.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 16
Save

Section 354(3) CrPC requires courts to:

Detailed Solution: Question 16

Special reasons are mandatory for capital punishment.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 17
Save

What essential requirement must be proved under Section 300 “Thirdly” as clarified in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab?

Detailed Solution: Question 17

The Court ruled that what matters is the intention to inflict the specific injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused need not intend death itself.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 18
Save

Adultery was decriminalised in:

Detailed Solution: Question 18

Section 497 IPC was struck down as discriminatory.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 19
Save

According to Bachan Singh, the normal punishment for murder is:

Detailed Solution: Question 19

Life imprisonment is the rule; death is an exception.

Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law - Question 20
Save

In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, why was Barendra convicted even though he did not fire the shot?

Detailed Solution: Question 20

Under Section 34 IPC, if multiple persons act with common intention, each is liable for the act of the other.

127 docs|31 tests
Join Course
Information about Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice
127 docs|31 tests
Join Course
Download as PDF

About this CLAT PG Practice Test

This test contains 20 MCQs on Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law with detailed solutions for each question. It is part of the Criminal Law course on EduRev, designed to align with the current CLAT PG syllabus. Each solution explains not just the correct answer but also gives you an understanding of the topic — not just to attempt the question but also help you prepare for the exam with practice.

Explore more CLAT PG Study Resources

If you found this Landmark Judgments in Criminal Law MCQ Test helpful, you can further enhance your CLAT PG preparation with in-depth courses on EduRev, for all the subjects and topics available in Criminal Law course. The course offers:
  • Video Lectures: covering all the topics of Criminal Law
  • Notes for Revision: offering revision notes, important questions, summaries, flashcards, cheatsheets & more for CLAT PG preparation
  • MCQ Test: variety of questions as per the pattern of CLAT PG exam
Signup on EduRev and stay on top of your study goals
10M+ students crushing their study goals daily