All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Directions: The question consists of two sta... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.
Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?
  • a)
    Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.
  • b)
    Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.
  • c)
    No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.
  • d)
    No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...
Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing is said to abet such a thing.
Facts:
L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement.
Explanation:

No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence:
- Living together without a nuptial bond is not a criminal offence in India.
- The Indian Penal Code does not prohibit adults from choosing to live together without getting married.
- L's comments expressing her views on this matter do not amount to abetting criminal confinement as it is a personal choice made by consenting adults.
- X's filing of a criminal complaint against L for expressing her opinion does not hold legal ground as it does not constitute a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code.
In conclusion, L cannot be prosecuted and convicted for abetting criminal confinement in this scenario because her comments in support of living together without marriage do not amount to any criminal offence as per the Indian Penal Code.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...
L cannot be prosecuted and convicted for the same because our law permits two adult people, who are wanting to live together and does not consider it an offence.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: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.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Mahesh tied Lalit, his nephew, to a tree in the village ground. Mahesh forgot to untie Lalit and he remained tied there for next three days. Lalit filed a case against Mahesh. Decide.

Directions: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.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Ram and Sham jointly own a pond, where they both catch fishes. They sell it in the market to earn their living. The pond is located at Rams premises. Ram, without any reason, denied Sham the access to the pond. Decide.

Directions: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.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Zarin obstructs the path to Abhis home which is through Zarins parking space. Abhi has the right to pass from that path as it is the only way to his home. Zarins obstruction is not done in food faith. Will this be considered wrongful restraint?

Directions: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.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?

Directions: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.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Deepa lives in ABC apartment on the 6th floor. Deepa being health conscious prefers taking the stairs rather than lift to her floor. Mr. Verma, who lives at the 3rd floor, has a dog which usually sleeps peacefully outside Vermas flat. Deepa being scared of dogs couldnt make it to her floor. Is this a case of wrongful restraint? Decide.

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code, whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.Facts: L, in an interview to a magazine, articulated her views in favour of living together without a nuptial knot. Aggrieved by the same, X filed a criminal complaint against L, for abetting criminal confinement. Can L be prosecuted and convicted for the same?a)Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.b)Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.c)No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.d)No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person and anybody acting on them did so at his/her own risk.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup