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  >  Direction:The question is based on the reason... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Direction: 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.''
General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.
Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83
Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.
Q. The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.
  • a)
    The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.
  • b)
    The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.
  • c)
    The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.
  • d)
    The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.
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
Direction:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or fac...
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 act. The soldiers were bound by the commanding officer's order and hence, they can claim the defence under Section 76.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.Jon is 11 years old and is the son of Rhaegar. Rhaegar teaches Jon sword fighting every morning. But he is a crooked father who will always beat Jon whenever he commits any mistake. One day Jon got very angry and he killed Rhaegar with his sword and ran away fearing jail time. Can he claim any defence?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Can the soldiers defend themselves against the case filed by human rights organizations after they followed orders to fire on a protesting crowd sent by the government to suppress dissent in response to a controversial new Act?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.The Hindu Marriage Act was used to legally wed Ravi and Radha, and their union was still going strong. Later, without getting a divorce from Radha, Ravi wed Meera, another woman. What are Ravis bigamys legal repercussions?

Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?

Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 per cent leadership and only 10 to 30 per cent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those burrreaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programmes, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures an smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.In the passage, management is equated with

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct 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 Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct 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 Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct 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: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: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.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. 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 act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. 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 under Section 80, 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 - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 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. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 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. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an 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.Q.The government passed a new controversial Act. In order to protest the same, a lot of people were on the streets. The government did not want any dissent and hence, sent the army to curb the protest. The commanding army officer ordered the soldiers to fire on the crowd, and the soldiers complied with. After this incident, many human rights organisations filed a case against the soldiers. Decide whether they can defend themselves.a)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as it was a case of mistake of facts.b)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they violated human right laws.c)The soldiers cannot claim any defence as they were under mistake of law and not mistake of fact.d)The soldiers can claim defence under Section 76, as they were following orders.Correct 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
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup