All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle:When an act, which would otherwise ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Principle: 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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. 
Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.
  • a)
    Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconception
  • b)
    Y is guilty
  • c)
    A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstance
  • d)
    Both A and C 
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Principle:When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is ...
Section 98 of IPC states that '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 misconcep�tion.'
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle:When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is ...
Principle Explanation:
- Principle: The principle states that if a person commits an act under certain conditions such as youth, lack of maturity, unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or misconception, and that act would not be considered an offense under normal circumstances, then the person has the right to private defense against any attack made on them as if the act were an offense.
- Facts: In this case, Y mistakenly attacks A, believing A to be a burglar when A legally enters the premises at night.

Analysis:
- Option A: Y has committed no offense as he acts under misconception. This is correct as Y's actions were based on a misconception, and he believed he was defending against a burglar.
- Option B: Y is guilty. This is not applicable as Y's actions were based on a genuine mistake and not with criminal intent.
- Option C: A has the same right of private defense against Y under the same circumstances. This is true as per the principle stated, A can defend himself against Y's attack even though Y did not commit an offense.
- Option D: Both A and C. This is the correct answer as both statements A and C are valid in this scenario.

In conclusion, based on the principle provided, A has the right to defend himself against Y's attack, even though Y's actions were a result of a misconception. Both options A and C are valid, making option D the correct choice.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.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.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.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.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Amit makes an attempt to assassinate Bhanu while he is insane. Bhanu kills Amit in order to protect himself. In the circumstances described, which of the following statements is true?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A man came to meet his friend at his house. His friend had a sixteen-year-old brother who was of unsound mind. On seeing the man, due to unsoundness, he perceived the man as a threat and tried to choke and kill him. The man while defending himself killed his friends brother. Will he be protected under private defence?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A robber entered a house at night inhabited by Karun and Sheila. The robber broke into the house, but had not stolen anything yet. Karun got furious and grabbed a bat and thrashed him, which resulted in the death of the robber. Was Karuns act justified under law?Decide.

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: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 to private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.Facts: A enters by night which he is legally entitled to enter Y, in good faith mistaking A to be a burglar attacks him.a)Y has committed no offence as he acts under misconceptionb)Y is guiltyc)A has the same right of private defence against Y under the same circumstanced)Both A and CCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup