Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for Humanities/Arts 2024 is part of Humanities/Arts preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Humanities/Arts exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Humanities/Arts 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Humanities/Arts. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Humanities/Arts Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Criminal liability has been defined as being responsible for a criminal act. It is an established principle of criminal law that no one should be convicted or held liable for a crime, unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to him.This invariably means that such a person must not only actively perform the act (actus anus), but also possess the guilty intention (mens rea) required for the commission of such offence. These two elements are a sine qua non to the commission of any offence as failure to establish those elements leads to an acquittal.However, it is not all acts that are to be punished. There are certain defences that the law provides which exculpate criminal liability. It is provided for in sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.These defences are based on the fact that although the person committed an offence, he cannot be held criminally liable because as at the time the offence was committed, he was justified of his acts or he had no intention to commit such an offence.Mistake of fact: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where the person was mistaken as to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts.Accident: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts occur as a result of an accident. This means that although the person performed the act, such act was devoid of an intention.Essential elements: The act must be an accident or misfortune. The act was done without criminal intention or knowledge. It must be in the performance of a lawful act. It must be exercised in a lawful manner and by lawful means. Such an act must have been done with care and caution.Infancy: According to Section 82 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.By virtue of Section 83 of IPC, a person under the age of twelve, but above the age of seven is not criminally liable for any offence committed, provided such child has not attained maturity of understanding to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.When the child has attained maturity of understanding that he ought not to perform such an act, he becomes criminally liable.Insanity: This exception excludes a person from criminal liability as a result of unsoundness of mind if, at the time of the commission of the offence, the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that his actions were wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication: The provision for intoxication is stipulated under sections 85 and 86 of the IPC. The difference between these sections is that in the former, a person is intoxicated involuntarily. In the latter, a person is intoxicated voluntarily and he would be held liable for the tort.Q.Abhi, a patient, was under observation under a psychiatrist. Abhi is, at intervals, of sound mind. He killed Ashi during such an interval. Abhi was held liable for the murder. Decide.a)Abhi would be held liable under criminal conspiracy.b)Abhi would not be held liable as he is under observation and insane.c)Abhi would be held liable under mens rea as he was sane while performing the tort.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Humanities/Arts tests.