Question Description
Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.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 Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.Facts: X had gone to a friend Ys place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, andtherefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.a)Not liable, since he didn;t intend the death, and therefore hadn't the requisite mensrea.b)Liable, since the act of throwing the bottle showed that he wished to hit the bartender and injure him.c)Liable for culpable homicide, since his actions lead to the death of the bartender.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.