CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle: No offence is committed by a perso... Start Learning for Free
Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.
Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?
  • a)
    Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.
  • b)
    Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him. 
  • c)
    Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime. 
  • d)
    Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, i...
Union Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, i...
Principle:
No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.

Facts:
Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend.

Explanation:
The principle states that if a person is intoxicated and incapable of knowing the nature of the act or its wrongfulness, they cannot be held liable for any offence committed during that state of intoxication. However, this principle also includes an exception that if the intoxicating substance was consumed voluntarily and the person was aware of its consequences, they can still be held liable for their actions.

In this case, Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy, which was different from his usual drink of vodka. By consuming the brandy voluntarily, Kamath was aware of the consequences it could have on his behavior. Therefore, he cannot claim that he was unaware of the nature of his act or its wrongfulness due to intoxication.

Conclusion:
Based on the above explanation, option 'C' is the correct answer. Kamath would be held liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.
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.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?a)Kamath is liable since he committed the act in a state of intoxication.b)Kamath is not liable as he was unaware that brandy would have this effect on him.c)Kamath is liable as he consumed brandy voluntarily and was fully aware of the consequences of his crime.d)Kamath is not liable as he did not consume his customary drink and committed the act under the influence of alcohol.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
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