Test: Criminal Law - 7 - CLAT MCQ

Principle: Principle: Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against, and either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted Principle: whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished

Facts: B started from Delhi on his car to go to Gurgaon, at about 11:30 pm. He was driving at a reasonable speed and quiet carefully. But unfortunately on the way he knocked down two coolies who were lying and sleeping on the road itself. B is prosecuted for causing death of the two coolies by rash and negligent driving under Section 304 A IPC. Can B be convicted? Discuss

Principle: Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against, and either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted 
Principle: whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished

Facts: A was driving a tourist bus at a fast speed. When he was 100 yards away from a traffic crossing he saw a green signal. In a bid to cross the road, he enhanced the speed but before he could cross the road the green signal turned red, but A continued to drive on and hit B, a school child on the zebra crossing. For what offence can A be convicted?

Principle: Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against, and either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted 
Principle: whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished

Facts: X takes up a gun not knowing it is loaded. Points in sport at Y and pulls the trigger. Y is shot dead. Can X be convicted for causing death by rash and negligent act?

Principle: Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against, and either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted 
Principle: whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished

Facts: B was brought unconscious to a private nursing home. In the absence of the surgeon, his attendant, A, entered it as an emergency case and operated upon B’s stomach to extract undigested poisoned food. During the operation, B died. The postmortem report attributed B’s death to improper handling by A such cases independently yet he carried on the experiment as B needed an immediate treatment. Discuss the criminal liability of A.

Principle: Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and precaution to guard against, and either to the public in general or to an individual in particular, which a reasonable man would have adopted 
Principle: whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished

Facts: A carrying a loaded gun stood quietly in a corner of a public place and was watching a dramatic performance. One of the actors who was playing the part of a drunken dacoit, to enhance the effect of his acting approached A and grappled with him and in the course of the struggles the gun went off and the actor was killed. Is A guilty of negligently act?

Principle: Culpable homicide is not murder of the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

Facts: Sheila informed her friend Roma that her husband Ramu was staying in a local 5 star hotel. Roma took her car and left for the hotel with a revolver. Roma made enquiries from the reception and came to know the room where her husband was staying. Roma entered the room and saw her husband in a compromising position with a lady. Roma became angry and fired a shot at her husband from her revolver, but it missed and killed the lady sitting with Ramu. Roma pleaded the defence of grave and sudden provocation. Whether the accused is guilty of murder?

Principle: Culpable homicide is not murder of the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

Facts: A’s car slightly scratched B’s car on a red light. B shouted and grabbed A by the neck and a fight ensued between them. In the heat of the moment, B strangulated A to death. B is being prosecuted for murder.

Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.

Facts: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

Assertion (A): X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self defense and in order to ward off the attack, hits him thereby injuring him. Y has not committed an offence.

Reason (R): Y had a right of private defense against X under Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code.

Assertion (A): The essence of joint liability under section 149 of the IPC is that the criminal act must have been done with a view to fulfill the common object of an unlawful assembly.

Reason (R): Any sudden and provocative act done by a member of an unlawful assembly would render the other members of that assembly liable.

Y makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box and finds, after opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. Choose the appropriate answer.

Principle: 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, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

Facts: A takes his son B who is three years old for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good faith. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take a bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

Principle: Ignorance of law is no excuse but ignorance of fact is excused

Facts: George was a passenger from Zurich to manila in a Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Bombay on 28th Nov. 1962 it was found on search that George carried 34 kg of gold bars in person and that he had not declared it in the manifest for transit. On 26th Nov. 1962 GOI issued a notification and modified its earlier exemption and now it is necessary that the gold must be declared in the manifest of the aircraft.

Principle: Preparation is not an offence except the preparation of some special offences

Facts: A keeps poisoned halwa in his house, wishing to kill B whom he invited to a party and to who he wishes to give it. Unknown to A, his son takes the halwa and dies. In this case

Assertion: Attempt to commit an offence though does not result in any harm should also be punished

Reason: A person who tries to cause a prohibited harm and fails is in terms of moral culpability not materially different from the person who tries and succeeds

A with an intention to pick pocket puts his hand into B’s pocket. B had a loaded pistol in his pocket. The thief touches the pistol and trigger goes on, whereby B is shot dead.

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

Facts: Ms. Y came to Ms. P’s house. When Ms. Y returned, she realized that Ms. P had left her pen in Ms. Y’s book.

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm and to that end may use reasonable amount of force

Facts: X was passing by Y house. At that time Y dog ran out and bit X overcoat. X turned around and shot at the dog however the dog ran away while the dog was far away from X. X shot the dog dead as he believed that the dog had bitten other persons in the locality. Y filed a suit for damages as the dog was of a rare breed and worth Rs. 5000/-

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.

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.

In kidnapping, the consent of the minor is – 

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?

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

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

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,

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

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.