Criminal Law Test-1


50 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Criminal Law Test-1


Description
This mock test of Criminal Law Test-1 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 50 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Criminal Law Test-1 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Criminal Law Test-1 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Criminal Law Test-1 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Criminal Law Test-1 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts: A cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z's possession without Z's consent.

Solution:

Here A cuts down tree after cutting it turns into movable property he do this with wrong intension hence as he cuts down tree it became movable and this is theft

QUESTION: 2

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts:  A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonest­ly removes it

Solution:

The answer is A because A dishonestly removes it from ownership of Z.

QUESTION: 3

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts: A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it commits…….

Solution:
QUESTION: 4

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts: If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z's possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt.

Solution:

Taking the current situation, i.e., the watch was in Z's possession and he owned it until A does not pay the money for its repairment. Now, A has moved a movable property (watch) out of Z's (owner's) possession without his consent (secretly) with dishonest intention (so that A need not pay the money), A is liable to theft. So, the correct answer is option D.

QUESTION: 5

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being moveable property is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being he subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Facts: A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own property, takes that property out of Z's possession.

Solution:
QUESTION: 6

Principle: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person 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 Z unless Z gives him money

Solution:

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense.

QUESTION: 7

Principle: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".

Facts: A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A.

Solution:
QUESTION: 8

Principle: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".

Facts: A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement; unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note.

Solution:

A has committed extortion as he put Z in fear by threatening Z's child for wrongful confinement and dishonestly induces him and put in fear for delivering a promissory note

QUESTION: 9

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Facts: A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent.

Solution:
QUESTION: 10

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Facts: A meets Z on the high roads, show a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse.

Solution:
QUESTION: 11

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Facts: A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse.

Solution:

The difference between theft and extortion is very simple. Theft is when one person takes away from another without his willingness an object which was in his possession without the other being aware. Extortion. is when an individual is forced by another to give something up by unlawful means. The principle explains these 2 sentences and uses the word robbery, but that does not change their definition. In the facts provided, A used unlawful means to obtain consent from Z to deliver a purse. Hence, it is extortion or robbery.

QUESTION: 12

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Facts: A obtains property from Z by saying--"Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees".

Solution:

In the given principles extortion is the most suitable because there is no fear of instant death of his child given in the fact so it is not a robbery but it is an extortion

QUESTION: 13

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

Principle: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

Principle: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Facts: A guard of the ATM booth looted ATM machine after locking up the mechanic who came to repair the machine. Here the guard is committed……

Solution:

Guard has committed roberry and locked up the mechanic inside the booth,then he has entered into the booth without any permission.So he has committed all 3 things

QUESTION: 14

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

Principle: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

Principle: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Facts: A lady is walking on a road. Suddenly two boys came on a bike and snatched the gold chain of the lady. Here boys have committed the offence of…………..

Solution:

In the principal it is mentioned that robbery can be committed through theft or extortion. This robbery included theft only since extortion means using force and threat to get what one wants but with the other person's consent. Blackmailing is a form of extortion. Here theft is committed where the chain is taken involuntarily thus causing hurt voluntarily.

QUESTION: 15

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.

Facts: A and B, being joint owners of a horse. A takes the horse out of B's possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use.

Solution:

Answer must be A as per the stated principle. Here A did not commit crime till he takes out horse from B's possession as both owed that horse BUT selling and appropriating the whole proceeds to his "own use" is a crime of criminal misrepresentation.It will be called as no crime if A sells with consent of B.

QUESTION: 16

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.

Facts : A being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a book without Z's express consent. Here, A was under the impression that he had Z's implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it.

Solution:
QUESTION: 17

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.

Facts: A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use

Solution:

A finds the purse and initially not knowing to whom it belonged but then he started using it after knowing that belonged to z and so he converts it to his own use so A is guilty of criminal misappropriation of property.

QUESTION: 18

Principle: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharge, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commit "criminal breach of trust".

Facts: A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods.

Solution:

As this condition was already in knowledge of A so A has committed  criminal breach of trust

QUESTION: 19

Principle: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharge, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commit "criminal breach of trust".

Facts: A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money.

Solution:

Since A has illegally displaced the public money which was entrusted to him by the govt. on the basis of trust over his position as a revenue officer doing such act he does commits "Criminal breach of trust".

QUESTION: 20

Principle: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharge, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commit "criminal breach of trust".

Facts: A, being executor to will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effect according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use.

Solution:

Criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation (under Section 403) is distinguished from each other in terms of the fact that in criminal breach of trust, the accused is entrusted with property or with dominion or control over the property. 

QUESTION: 21

Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of land constitutes the tort of trespass

Facts: V, a class 10 student, is riding his bicycle back home at night after tuitions. Since he is getting late for dinner, he decides to take a shortcut and thinking that he is passing through his father’s property, ends up passing through S’s property. S sees him and sues him for trespass.

Solution:
QUESTION: 22

In kidnapping, the consent of the minor is –

Solution:

On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial: it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section."

QUESTION: 23

Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.
Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

Facts: Prateek, who is Prakha’s younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakha’s boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateek’s head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?

Solution:
QUESTION: 24

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 a kitchen ordinary knife. The man died of hemorrhage.

Solution:
QUESTION: 25

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: Dr Mortimer performed a kidney operation upon James for removal of kidney stones. James was already affected by HIV. Dr Mortimer had warned James of all the possible risks. James, out of his own volition, decided to undertake the risks and signed a bond certifying the same. James died of hemorrhage as a result of the operation.

Solution:

Doctor had already warned James about his condition. It shows doctor has no intention to kill james and whatever he did was only after the approval of James and hence he was not guilty.

QUESTION: 26

Principle: Every person who commits an offence in the territory of India shall be guilty within the meaning of Indian Penal Code.

Facts: John, a citizen of France commits murder in Madras. In this case

Solution:

The principle states that every person who commits an offence in the territory of India is guilty under the meaning of IPC.

Now John, a French person, commits murder in Madras

Clearly, John is guilty of murder by IPC because Madras is in the territory of India and the principle has no exception for foreigners, hence John is guilty and the answer is B

QUESTION: 27

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident, and without any criminal intention.

Facts: Aneez fires a revolver in the air. Ahmad, who is coming down by a parachute is hit and killed. In this case

Solution:
QUESTION: 28

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person, against any offence committed by anybody.

Facts: Vasu, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Venkatesh. Venkatesh, defending himself against Vasu's attacks, kills Vasu. In the present case,

Solution:

He is not guilty because he did so for self defence not by murdering intention and according to principle given, one have right to protect himself from anyones offence.

QUESTION: 29

Principle: A person who instigates another person to commit an offence is said to abet the said offence.

Facts: Vidhu instigates Bhaskar to murder Shobhit. Bhaskar, in pursuance of the instigation, stabs Shobhit. Shobhit subsequently recovers from the wound. In the present case

Solution:
QUESTION: 30

Principle: A person is guilty of cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter's property to him.

Facts: Vimal falsely represented to Kamal, a shop owner that he was an officer from the Commercial Tax Department. While examining the accounts of the shop, Vimal showed interest in buying a microwave oven on instalment basis. Kamal readily agreed with the hope that he would get a favorable assessment from Vimal regards his tax liability. Vimal paid the first installment, took the microwave oven and disappeared from the scene. The police, however, managed to catch hold of Vimal and prosecute him for cheating.

Solution:

As according to principle and fact it is clear that VIMAL misrepresented himself as an income tax officer and under which he gain wrongfully the property of kamal.
kamal was gave article under impression that Vimal was an income tax officer.

QUESTION: 31

In which of the following cases has the supreme court allowed for passive euthanasia under certain circumstances?

Solution:

On 9 March 2018 the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) until her death in 2015.

QUESTION: 32

In which of the following cases mens rea is an essential ingredient?

Solution:
QUESTION: 33

The right of private defence

Solution:

IPC Section 96 to 106 of the penal code states the law relating to the right of private defence of person and property. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of force to protect one's property and person is called the right of private defence.

QUESTION: 34

The right of private defence of property

Solution:
QUESTION: 35

In which of the following cases did the Supreme court life the ban on dance bars imposed by state of Maharashtra?

Solution:

The Bombay Police Act, 1951 was amended in 2005 with the object of securing public order, morality, dignity of women, and reducing exploitation of women including trafficking of minor girls. Section 33A was inserted that prohibited performance of all types of dance in eating houses or permit rooms or beer bars. Section 33B was inserted that permitted three star hotels and Government associated places of entertainment to hold dance performances. The Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association filed a writ petition challenging Section 33A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 before the Bombay High Court on the grounds that such prohibition: (a) discriminates against women employed to dance in eateries and bars and those employed to dance in three star hotels and government establishments; (b) interferes with their right to work and right to earn a livelihood, and thus is violative of the Indian Constitution. The Bombay High Court held that Section 33A is violative of Articles 14 (equality) and 19(1)(g) (right to work), of the Indian Constitution. The Government of Maharashtra filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and prayed that the terms “All dance” found in Section 33A be read down to mean “dances which are obscene and derogatory to the dignity of women” instead of striking it off altogether to ensure that the right to work of women is not interfered with. The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Bombay High Court. It declared that Section 33A violates Article 14 the Constitution of India on the ground that such law is based on an unacceptable presumption that the so-called elite (i.e. rich and the famous) have higher standards of decency, morality or strength of character than their counterparts who have to content themselves with lesser facilities of inferior quality in the dance bars. It declared that Section 33A violates Article 19(1)(g) on the ground that it interferes with the right of women to work and that, contrary to the ban’s purpose, it resulted in forcing some women into prostitution. The Court further urged the government to take affirmative action to ensure the safety and improve the working conditions of the persons working as bar dancers who primarily constitute of women.

QUESTION: 36

Which of the following factor is not essential for offence of theft under IPC?

Solution:
QUESTION: 37

A had an argument with B and asked her to go leave him alone and go home. B refused and A struck her on the head and rendered her unconscious. A dragged B to the parking lot during which B’s head hit the pavement which caused her death.

Solution:

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death iscaused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing.

QUESTION: 38

X an employee of Y was driving the vehicle which was without insurance. Y was convicted for violation of road traffic act 1988 who was not even driving the vehicle at that time. Y appealed against it in the court.

Solution:

because the vehicle was not insured and x was merely working in the course of his employment.
OR
Set aside occurs when a judge annuls or negates a court order or judgment by another court. When a criminal conviction is set aside, the person is considered not to have been previously convicted, although sex offender registration requirements may still apply.

QUESTION: 39

In case same set of facts attracts a civil suit and also a criminal trial, what should be done?

Solution:
QUESTION: 40

A is beating Z and Y jumps in to stop beating. In the process A intentionally strikes Y. which of the following should be the punishment?

Solution:

A is liable to both the punishments because first of all A is beating Z for which he should be punished and when Y jumps in, A intentionally strikes y so he should be punished for this too.

QUESTION: 41

Principle: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Facts: 'A', a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock.

Solution:

Any communication made in good faith and for the benefit of person and if any harm is caused due to such communication, then it is no offence. This provision is for the defence of person who made communication in good faith no matter such communications causes harm. 

QUESTION: 42

Two parties A and B gather together for free fight in order to settle a land dispute and in the process end up inflicting injuries on one another. Here:

Solution:
QUESTION: 43

Z under the influence of madness attempts to kill A.

Solution:

Section 98 in The Indian Penal Code

98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.—When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Illustrations

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

QUESTION: 44

A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Z in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.

Solution:
QUESTION: 45

A voluntary burns a valuable security belonging to B intending to cause wrongful loss to B.

Solution:

Offense defined.--A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he:
1. damages tangible property of another intentionally, recklessly, or by negligence in the employment of fire, explosives, or other dangerous means listed in section 3302(a) of this title (relating to causing or risking catastrophe);
2. intentionally or recklessly tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property;
3. intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or threat; or 4. intentionally defaces or otherwise damages tangible public property or tangible property of another with graffiti by use of any aerosol spray-paint can, broad-tipped indelible marker or similar marking device; or
5. intentionally damages real or personal property of another.

QUESTION: 46

Which of the following means that the prosecution has to prove the charge against the accused in criminal cases?

Solution:

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof.

QUESTION: 47

Y draws a picture of Z running away with C’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole C’s watch.

Solution:

If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatorystatement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law.

QUESTION: 48

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Facts: A is a nine year old boy who is jealous of his friend B’s many toys. One day while playing at B’s house, he steals one of the B’s smaller toys. Has he committed theft?

Solution:

A has not committed theft as while stealing he was not mature to understand the nature and consequences of the act. He has stolen toys just out of jealousy, he was unaware of the nature of the act.

QUESTION: 49

Principle: An abettor is liable for the crime of abetment only with regard to the crime which reasonably resulted from his abetment

Facts: A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there.

A is responsible for abetting which of the following crimes?

Solution:

The principle clearly states that abettor is liable for the crime of abetment only with the crime which resulted from his abetment. The facts state that A instigates B for Arson(burning) Z's house. B set the fire but he also committed theft which B did himself without any abetment bt A. Hence A is liable only for Arson not for the theft of property.

QUESTION: 50

A, enters a house with the intention of committing theft. But moved by the poverty of the house holder he drops a rupee note and left the place. In this case

Solution:

A actually entered the house without the permission of the owner and also had a 'mens rea' or an intention of committing theft, hence he is liable for criminal trespass irrespective of whether he left after leaving money.

Similar Content

Related tests