Question Description
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.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.Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word morth where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.Q.What is culpable homicide as per your understanding of the passage?a)It is the same as murder.b)It is the killing of a person, but with a lesser degree of knowledge and intention.c)It is the killing of a person, but with a higher degree of knowledge rather than intention.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.