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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Read the information given below carefully an...

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. Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.

a)
Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.
b)
Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.
c)
Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.
d)
Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following qu...

Mr. Sam's knowledge of Mr. Mac's condition shows that he did it with malicious intent to cause harm to Mr. Mac. Although option (4) can be a possible answer, option (2) is more accurate and logical as per the passage.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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.Mr. Mohan was returning from the local bazaar when all of a sudden his enemy, Billu Raja attacked him. Billu Raja hit him with a stick on his hip, due to which Mr. Mohan died on the spot. After seeing this, Billu Raja ran away. Mr. Mohans post mortem report showed that his past hip surgery played an important role in his death. Can Billu Raja be charged with murder? Decide.

View answer

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.Mr. X accidentally kills Mr. Y. When the case came to court, the defence council could not prove that the death was accidental. Decide what will happen.

View answer

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.Bill, the don, was escaping from the police lock-up. As he was running, he came to a dead end. The inspector took out his gun and asked Bill to surrender. But, Bill refused and instead started shooting. The inspector had no way out, so he started shooting and eventually killed Bill. Now, Bills relatives want to charge the inspector with murder. Decide.

View answer

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?

View answer

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.The definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC requires a person to abet the commission of an offence. This abetment may occur in any of the three methods that the provision prescribes.The Section says that abetment basically takes place when a person abets the doing of a thing by instigating a person to do that thing engaging with another person (or persons) in a conspiracy to do that thing intentionally aiding a person to do that thingWhen any of these requirements exists, the offence of abetment is complete. Sometimes a person may commit more than one of these three circumstances in a single offence.Abetment by Conspiracy:Conspiracy basically means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. Merely intending to commit an offence is not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, the conspirators must actively agree and prepare themselves to commit that offence. It becomes a conspiracy. Instigation basically means suggesting, encouraging or inciting a person to do or abstain from doing something. Instigation may take place either directly or indirectly, by written or oral words, or even by gestures and hints. The instigation must be sufficient to actively encourage a person to commit an offence. It should not be mere advice or a simple suggestion. The instigator need not even possess mens rea (a guilty intention to commit the crim e). Furthermore, the act which the conspirators conspire to commit itself must be illegal or punishable. For example, in dowry death cases, the in-laws of the victim are often guilty of abetment by conspiracy. They may do so by constantly taunting, torturing or instigating the victim. Even suicides may take place in this manner through abetment by conspiracy.Abetment by Aiding:The third manner in which abetment may take place is by intentionally aiding the offender in committing that offence. This generally happens when the abettor facilitates the crime or helps in committing it. The intention to aid the offender is very important. Explanation of this Section throws some lights on what instigation may mean in this context. It says that instigation may generally happen even by wilful misrepresentation; or by willful concealment of a material fact which a person is bound to disclose. The concept of abetment widens the horizons of criminal law to incorporate these criminal intentions and penalise them even when the person who bought the knife did not actually kill anyone but handed it over to someone else to do it. To explain the concept of abetment, the word abet should be given a deep scrutiny. In general use, it means to aid, advance, assist, help and promote.Q.Mr X had committed a murder and was on a run. He went to his friends house to seek shelter. His friend did not know that he had committed a murder and gave him shelter. But after two days, Mr Xs friend was watching TV, from which he got to know that Mr X had committed a murder, but he did not do anything.After a week of knowledge, X ran away. When the police arrived, they charged Mr X for murder and his friend for abetmentas they saw X running out of the house where he had hid himself. Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct 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.Mr. Mac had been suffering from a fragile heart condition for the past three months. Mr. Sam knew about this condition. One day, Mr. Sam scared Mr. Mac which killed Mr. Mac due to heart failure. Mr. Sam is charged with murder. Decide.a)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he could not have known the consequence of his action.b)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he could have known the consequence of his action.c)Mr. Sam cannot be charged with murder as he was acting in good faith.d)Mr. Sam can be charged with murder as he knew the heart condition of Mr. Mac.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam