Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Sanjana was the victim of an attempted diamond necklace theft. She pulled a knife out of her purse to defend the same. Sanjana used the knife to cut the thiefs throat, killing him, after he pulled a revolver on her and threatened to steal the necklace against her will. Later, she adopted the right to private defense defense. Does killing the thief fall under her right to private defense?a)No, a diamond necklace and the right to life cannot be compared.b)Yes, a diamond necklace has greater value than a simple thiefs life.c)No, using deadly force against a thief is not a legitimate use of ones right to self-defense.d)Yes, because it is legal to kill someone in order to protect property.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.