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: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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. Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.
  • a)
    Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.
  • b)
    Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.
  • c)
    All of 1 and 2
  • d)
    None of the above
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: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing...
Zaid did nothing wrong by hitting Anju in this instance because of this misunderstanding. Anju, however, is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.
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: 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?

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.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.

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.Amit makes an attempt to assassinate Bhanu while he is insane. Bhanu kills Amit in order to protect himself. In the circumstances described, which of the following statements is true?

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.What are the restrictions on the right of private defence?

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.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A man came to meet his friend at his house. His friend had a sixteen-year-old brother who was of unsound mind. On seeing the man, due to unsoundness, he perceived the man as a threat and tried to choke and kill him. The man while defending himself killed his friends brother. Will he be protected under private defence?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect 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: 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect 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: 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)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 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)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 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)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 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.Anju enters a house that she is legally allowed to enter at night. Zaid tackles Anju in good faith after mistaking her for a burglar. Identify the correct statement(s) related to right to private defence.a)Zaid does not violate the law by harming Anju while harboring this notion.b)Anju is entitled to the same private defense against Zaid that she would have if Zaid had not acted in error.c)All of 1 and 2d)None of the aboveCorrect 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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup