Test: Criminal Law - 3 - CLAT MCQ

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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 

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

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

The offence of theft becomes robbery when it is

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

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

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 

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?

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

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.

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………….

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…….

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.

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.