Principle andndash; No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle – No offence is committed by ...

Join the Discussion on the App

Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?

a)
Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.
b)
Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.
c)
Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.
d)
Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Legal Reasoning - 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that ...

Kamath had voluntarily consumed alcohol and he would be held liable for any consequent acts committed by him under the influence of the alcohol consumed. In this case, he would be held liable for attempting to strangle his friend.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?

View answer

General defenses available under the IPC are as follows:- Mistake of fact- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do such an act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act.Accident- Includes an Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy- It includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion.Insanity- Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing 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.Intoxication- Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered involuntarily without his will or knowledge.Q. Gary sees a person walking out of a departmental store. Gary thinks that the person is the same who had committed murder a week back, so Gary captures him and takes him to the police station. The person files a case of assault against Gary. Will Gary be liable for his acts?

View answer

General defenses available under the IPC are as follows:- Mistake of fact- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do such an act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act.Accident- Includes an Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy- It includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion.Insanity- Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing 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.Intoxication- Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered involuntarily without his will or knowledge.Q. Giriraj goes to a party and his friends force him to drink. Initially he refuses but later he agrees to drink. He gets sloshed, while returning from the party he knocks down a person with his car. Will he be liable?

View answer

General defenses available under the IPC are as follows:- Mistake of fact- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do such an act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act.Accident- Includes an Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy- It includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion.Insanity- Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing 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.Intoxication- Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered involuntarily without his will or knowledge.Q. Manish goes to a shooting range to practice his aim. He takes a gun and starts firing at the target boards. One of the bullets misses the board and deflects from the metal pipe and injures a person. Will Manish be liable for his acts?

View answer

General defenses available under the IPC are as follows:- Mistake of fact- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do such an act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act.Accident- Includes an Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy- It includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion.Insanity- Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing 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.Intoxication- Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered involuntarily without his will or knowledge.Q. Girish works in a mental asylum. He is annoyed with the behavior and the functioning of the village sarpanch so he goes and beats him with a lathi. The sarpanch files a complaint against him. Will Girish be liable?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act ina state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware thatbrandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandyvoluntarily and was fully aware of theconsequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consumehis customary drink and committed the actunder the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam