Question Description
Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect 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 Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: A principle principles and a fact situation are given in questions decide only on the basis of the principle(s).Principle 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 ...... . Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime. Self defence is not an excuse to private defence.Facts Akshay and Srijan go to a dhaba for lunch. Srijan orders for a couple of drinks for himself. He makes two drinks for himself and excuses himself to attend to a call. While away, Akshay doubles the alcohol content in both his drinks. Srijan does not realize the difference and continues drinking. This happens a couple of times and Srijan is in an extremely intoxicated state. In this state, he picks a knife and attempts to stab a fellow customer, Naveen. Naveen in order to protect himself brandishes his own knife. In the ensuing fight Naveen hurts Srijan. This makes Srijan put his knife away, but Naveen, suspecting some additional threat, inflicts another wound on Srijan's wrist.Q. Applying the three principlesa)Srijan was intoxicated and hence did not know the consequences of his act. Naveen would be liable for inflicting the wrist injuryb)Srijan cannot claim for compensation since Naveen was merely protecting himself from the inflicted injuryc)Srijan can claim compensation for the second injury, but not for the first since it was an act of private defenced)Naveen merely took precautions to ensure that he would not be attacked again and hence he is not liable for either of the woundsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.