CLAT  >  Legal Reasoning for CLAT  >  Test: Criminal Law - 3 Download as PDF

Test: Criminal Law - 3


Test Description

50 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Test: Criminal Law - 3

Test: Criminal Law - 3 for CLAT 2022 is part of Legal Reasoning for CLAT preparation. The Test: Criminal Law - 3 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus.The Test: Criminal Law - 3 MCQs are made for CLAT 2022 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: Criminal Law - 3 below.
Solutions of Test: Criminal Law - 3 questions in English are available as part of our Legal Reasoning for CLAT for CLAT & Test: Criminal Law - 3 solutions in Hindi for Legal Reasoning for CLAT course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free. Attempt Test: Criminal Law - 3 | 50 questions in 30 minutes | Mock test for CLAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Legal Reasoning for CLAT for CLAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?
Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 1

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it.

Facts: A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 2

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it.

Facts: A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry believing Z to be Y, arrest Z.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 3

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: Z is carried off by a tiger. A fired at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's ball give Z a mortal wound.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 4

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending of good faith, the child's benefit.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 5

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 6

Principle: If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender is so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm of an innocent person; his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Facts: A is attacked by a mob who attempts to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. 

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 7

Principle: (I) Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person

(II) However the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger

Facts: Varun was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Varun, "Your life or your purse". Varun pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Varun shot Maniyan in his legs. Decide.

Detailed Solution for Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 7

The force employed was way more than the danger level as Maniyan started to run away from Krishna. As the threat was reduced and was continuously reducing, there was no need to shoot Maniyan in the Legs.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 8

Principle: one has right to defend his life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.

Facts: The farm of X on the outskirts of the Delhi was attacked by a gang of armed robbers. X without informing the police, at first warned the robbers by firing in the air. As they were fleeing from the farm, he fired and killed one of them. At the trial-

I. X can avail the right of private defence as he was defending his life and property
II. X cannot avail the right as he failed to inform the police
III. X cannot avail the right as he caused more harm than was necessary to ward off the danger
IV. X can avail of the right as at first he only fired in the air.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 9

Principle: A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- 

First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of the thing.

Explanation 1: A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes of procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Principle: A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 

Explanation 1: The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2: To constitute that offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Facts: A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 10

Principle: A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- 

First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of the thing.

Explanation 1: A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes of procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Principle: A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 

Explanation 1: The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2: To constitute that offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Facts: A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 11

Assertion: crime is punishable because it is provided in the law

Reason: crime is revolting to the moral sense of the society.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 12

Principle: Doctrine of double jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice

Facts: Manav bought some gold into India without making any declaration to custom department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the sea customs act. Manav was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign exchange regulation act (FERA).

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 13

Assertion: every person should have the freedom of speech and expression.

Reason: if a person is stopped from speaking then mankind will lose the truth

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 14

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 15

A denied food to his wife B for several days by keeping her confined in a room with an intention to accelerate her death. B ultimately managed to escape.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 16

X having sufficient food does not provide some food to a beggar who dies of hunger. X is the guilty of 

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 17

X along with four others armed hoodlums seizes the child of Y and threatens to kill him unless Y parts with his watch and diamond ring. X has committed the offence of 

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 18

A is invited by B for a cup of tea. While B is in the kitchen preparing tea, A finds a golden ring on the table. He picks it up and places it somewhere in the room with the intention of dishonestly taking it away some time later. A commits

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 19

Assertion: A person is not guilty of Dacoity unless he has committed, attempted to commit or aided in committing Robbery.

Reason: when two persons conjointly commit Robbery, then every person so committing Robbery is said to commit Dacoity

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 20

The offence of theft becomes robbery when it is

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 21

A and B, who are cadets in the Indian Air Force, take out from the Bangalore aerodrome an aircraft without the authority of commandant and fly it away to Pakistan. What offence has been committed by them

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 22

X sends through his servant a typewriter to be delivered to Y, his friend. The servant takes the typewriter and uses it over a period of time. The servant is guilty of

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 23

X, a Doctor, informs his patient Y that he was suffering from cancer. Hearing this Y dies of heart failure. X has not committed any offence because 

Detailed Solution for Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 23

C is the correct option. X has not committed any offence because he tells him in good faith as there is no mala fide intention. 

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 24

Z under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A. A hits Z with an iron rod seriously injuring him. in this context which one is correct?

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 25

A instigates his six year old daughter B to take away from C, a purse containing Rs. 5000. In this case 

Detailed Solution for Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 25 It is the case of abetment so A will be liable for abetment not his daughter as she doesn't have any intention to steal..
Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 26

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 27

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. A dishonestly removes it………….

Detailed Solution for Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 27

The correct option is A.
According to the section 378 of IPC, illustration (f) states  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, A commits theft.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 28

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…….

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 29

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 30

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 31

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 32

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 33

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 34

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 35

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 36

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 37

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 38

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".

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 39

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……

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 40

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…………..

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 41

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 42

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 43

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 44

The right of private defence

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 45

The right of private defence of property

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 46

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 47

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 48

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.

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 49

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

Test: Criminal Law - 3 - Question 50

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?

74 videos|103 docs|57 tests
Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF
Use Coupon Code
Information about Test: Criminal Law - 3 Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: Criminal Law - 3 solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: Criminal Law - 3, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice